Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France, Mexico, and South Korea; Inv. No. 731-TA-1567-1569 (Final)

=== USITC Scheduling === 11481Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Notices importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among the Domestic Like Product produced in the United States, Subject Merchandise produced in the Subject Country, and such merchandise from other countries. (13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry; if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions. Authority: This proceeding is being conducted under authority of Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: February 23, 2022. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2022–04198 Filed 2–28–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1567–1569 (Final)] Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber (NBR) From France, Mexico, and South Korea; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Anti-Dumping Duty Investigations AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping investigation Nos. 731–TA–1567–1569 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’) to determine whether 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 acrylonitrile- butadiene rubber (NBR) from France, Mexico, and South Korea, provided for in subheading 4002.59.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) to be sold at less-than- fair-value. DATES : February 2, 2022. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Kristina Lara ((202) 205–3386), 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 : Scope.—For purposes of these investigations, Commerce has defined the subject merchandise as ‘‘acrylonitrile butadiene rubber or nitrile rubber (AB Rubber). AB Rubber is a synthetic rubber produced by the emulsion polymerization of butadiene and acrylonitrile with or without the incorporation of a third component selected from methacrylic acid or isoprene. This scope covers AB Rubber in solid or nonaqueous liquid form. The scope also includes carboxylated AB Rubber. Excluded from the scope of this investigation is AB Rubber in latex form (commonly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 4002.51.0000). Latex AB Rubber is commonly either (a) acrylonitrile/ butadiene polymer in latex form or (b) acrylonitrile/butadiene/methacrylic acid polymer in latex form. The broader definition of latex refers to a water emulsion of a synthetic rubber obtained by polymerization. Also excluded from the scope of this investigation is: (a) AB Rubber containing additives incorporated during the compounding, mixing, molding, or use of AB Rubber comprising greater than twenty percent of the total weight of the product. Additives would include, but are not limited to, fillers (e.g., carbon black, silica, clay); reinforcement agents (e.g., fibers, carbon black, silica); vulcanization agents (e.g., sulfur, sulfur complexes, peroxide); or AB Rubber containing extension oils making up greater than forty percent of the total weight of the product. Such products would be generally classified under HTSUS subheading 4005; (b) AB Rubber containing polyvinyl chloride (PVC) making up greater than twenty percent of total weight of the product; (c) hydrogenated AB Rubber (commonly referred to as AB Rubber) produced by subsequent dissolution and hydrogenation of AB Rubber; and (d) reactive liquid polymers containing acrylonitrile and butadiene with amine, epoxy, carboxyl or methacrylate vinyl chemical functionality. Subject merchandise includes material matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise processed in a third country, including by modifying physical form or packaging with another product, or performing any other finishing, packaging, or processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the AB Rubber. The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the HTSUS at subheading 4002.59.0000. While the HTSUS subheading numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.’’ Background.—The final phase of these investigations is being scheduled, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)), as a result of affirmative preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (NBR) from France, Korea and Mexico are being sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of § 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The investigations were requested in a petition filed on June 30, 2021, by Zeon Chemicals L.P. and Zeon GP, LLC (collectively ‘‘Zeon’’), Louisville, Kentucky. For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, 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 C (19 CFR part 207). Participation in the investigations and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the final phase of these investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in § 201.11 of the Commission’s rules, no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance during the preliminary phase of the investigations need not file an additional notice of appearance during this final phase. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:01 Feb 28, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01MRN1.SGM 01MRN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 11482 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2022 / Notices or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations. 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. 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 the final phase of these investigations available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the investigations. A party granted access to BPI in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO. Staff report.—The prehearing staff report in the final phase of these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on May 17, 2022, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to § 207.22 of the Commission’s rules. Hearing.—The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the final phase of these investigations beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 1, 2022. Information about the place and form of the hearing, including about how to participate in and/or view the hearing, will be posted on the Commission’s website at https://www.usitc.gov/ calendarpad/calendar.html. Interested parties should check the Commission’s website periodically for updates. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before Thursday, May 26, 2022. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission’s deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 30, 2022. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission’s rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 business days prior to the date of the hearing. Written submissions.—Each party who is an interested party shall submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of § 207.23 of the Commission’s rules; the deadline for filing is May 24, 2022. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in § 207.24 of the Commission’s rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.25 of the Commission’s rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is June 8, 2022. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigations may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the investigations, including statements of support or opposition to the petition, on or before June 8, 2022. Parties may submit supplemental comments on Commerce’s final antidumping duty determinations on or before June 23, 2022. Supplemental party comments may address only Commerce’s final determinations and may not exceed five (5) pages in length. On June 30, 2022, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before July 6, 2022, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with § 207.30 of the Commission’s rules. 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. Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to § 201.12 of the Commission’s rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff. In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission’s 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. Authority: These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.21 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: February 24, 2022. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2022–04252 Filed 2–28–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act Forms ACTION : Notice of availability; request for comments. SUMMARY : The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited. DATES : The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before March 31, 2022. ADDRESSES : Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or by using the search function. Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) if the information will be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) the accuracy of the agency’s estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (4) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (5) ways to minimize the burden of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:01 Feb 28, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01MRN1.SGM 01MRN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination – AD – Final - Mexico === 37829Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Notices 1 See Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from Mexico: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 87 FR 5790 (February 2, 2022) (Preliminary Determination), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 2 Id. Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because there are no changes from the Preliminary Determination, there are no new calculations to disclose. Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation As a result of our Preliminary Determination, and pursuant to sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, Commerce instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in the scope of the investigation section, that were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after December 3, 2021, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after April 2, 2022, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise between December 3, 2021, and April 1, 2022. If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a countervailing duty order, reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled. ITC Notification In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its final affirmative determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of UAN from Trinidad and Tobago. As Commerce’s final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 705(b) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non- privileged and nonproprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Notification Regarding APO In the event the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. Notification to Interested Parties This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c). Dated: June 17, 2022. Lisa W. Wang, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is all mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate in aqueous or ammonia solution, regardless of nitrogen concentration by weight, and regardless of the presence of additives, such as corrosion inhibiters and soluble micro or macronutrients (UAN). Subject merchandise includes merchandise matching the above description that has been processed in a third country, including by commingling, diluting, adding or removing additives, or performing any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the subject country. The scope also includes UAN that is commingled with UAN from sources not subject to these investigations. Only the subject component of such commingled products is covered by the scope of this investigation. The covered merchandise is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 3102.80.0000. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Investigation IV. Subsidies Valuation V. Analysis of Programs VI. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Whether Commerce Should Revise the Natural Gas Benchmark Calculation for MHTL’s Methanol Facilities Comment 2: Whether Commerce Should Use Separate Natural Gas Benchmarks for MHTL’s Ammonia, Urea, and Melamine (AUM) and Methanol Facilities Comment 3: Whether Certain Affiliated Companies are Cross-Owned with and Provided Primarily Dedicated Inputs to MHTL Comment 4: Whether Commerce Should Include the Rate Calculated for the Import Duty Exemptions Program in the Cash Deposit Instructions for MHTL VII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2022–13568 Filed 6–23–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–201–855] Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber From Mexico: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (AB rubber) from Mexico is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation is April 1, 2020, through March 31, 2021. DATES : Applicable June 24, 2022. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Dennis McClure or Faris Montgomery, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5973 or (202) 482–1537, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On February 2, 2022, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination in the LTFV investigation of AB rubber from Mexico, in which we also postponed the final determination until June 17, 2022. 1 Commerce invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination; 2 we VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Jun 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM 24JNN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 37830 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Notices 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum,’’ dated January 26, 2022 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum). 4 See ARLANXEO Emulsion Rubber France S.A.S.’s Letter, ‘‘Scope Brief,’’ dated February 25, 2022; and Zeon Chemicals L.P. and Zeon GP, LLC (collectively, the petitioner)’s Letter, ‘‘Petitioner’s Rebuttal Scope Brief,’’ dated March 4, 2022. 5 See Memorandum, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigations of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France, the Republic of Korea, and Mexico: Final Scope Decision Memorandum,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Final Scope Memorandum). 6 See Preliminary Determination, 87 FR at 5792. Specifically, we added language to the scope that clarified that AB Rubber products that include a third component that is not methacrylic acid or isoprene are not covered by the scope. See Final Scope Memorandum. 7 See Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘In Lieu of On-Site Verification Questionnaire,’’ dated March 2, 2022. 8 See Negromex’s Letter, ‘‘In Lieu of Verification Questionnaire Response,’’ dated March 10, 2022. 9 See Negromex’s Letter, ‘‘Post-Verification Data Corrections,’’ dated May 9, 2022. 10 For a discussion of the minor verification corrections accepted for the final determination, see memorandum, ‘‘Final Determination Calculation Memorandum for Industrias Negromex S.A. de C.V.,’’ dated concurrently with this notice. 11 See Preliminary Determination, 87 FR at 5791. received no comments from interested parties. However, as a result of the minor corrections presented to Commerce in the sole mandatory respondent’s response to the in lieu of on-site verification questionnaire, Commerce has made certain changes to the Preliminary Determination, as discussed below. Scope Comments On January 26, 2022, we issued the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum. 3 Interested parties submitted case and rebuttal briefs concerning the scope of this investigation. 4 For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record of this investigation, and accompanying analysis of all comments timely received, see the Final Scope Memorandum. 5 Based on the comments received from interested parties, we are revising the scope of this investigation as it appeared in the Preliminary Determination.6 The scope in the appendix reflects these changes. Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is AB rubber from Mexico. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see the appendix to this notice. Verification Commerce was unable to conduct on- site verification of the information relied upon in making its final determination in this investigation. However, we took additional steps in lieu of an on-site verification to verify the information relied upon in making this final determination, in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).7 Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on Industrias Negromex S.A. de C.V.’s (Negromex’s) in lieu of on-site verification questionnaire response,8 we accepted minor corrections to Negromex’s reported sales data 9 and included these changes in the margin calculations for the final determination.10 All-Others Rate Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated weighted- average dumping margin for all other producers and exporters not individually investigated shall be equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that, if the estimated weighted-average dumping margins for all individually investigated exporters and producers are zero, de minimis, or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act, then Commerce may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate, including averaging the estimated weighted- average dumping margins determined for the individually investigated exporters and producers. In this investigation, Commerce calculated an estimated weighted- average dumping margin for the sole mandatory respondent Negromex, that is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available. Accordingly, the estimated weighted- average dumping margin calculated for Negromex is the margin assigned to all other producers and exporters, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. Final Determination Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist: Exporter/producer Estimated weighted- average dumping margin (percent) Industrias Negromex S.A. de C.V. 18.45 Exporter/producer Estimated weighted- average dumping margin (percent) All Others .................................... 18.45 Disclosure Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in this final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation Consistent with the Preliminary Determination,11 Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of AB rubber from Mexico, as described in the Appendix to this notice, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 2, 2022, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), upon publication of this notice, Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted- average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) the cash deposit rate for the respondent listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted- average dumping margin determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted- average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms it will not VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Jun 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM 24JNN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 37831Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Notices 1 See Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions from the Russian Federation: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 87 FR 5785 (February 2, 2022) (Preliminary Determination), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 2 See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions from the Russian Federation,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Because Commerce’s final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of AB Rubber from Mexico no later than 45 days after this final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all cash deposits posted will be refunded and suspension of liquidation will be lifted. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the February 2, 2022, effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders This notice will serve as a reminder to the parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. Notification to Interested Parties This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c). Dated: June 17, 2022. Lisa W. Wang, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is commonly referred to as acrylonitrile butadiene rubber or nitrile rubber (AB Rubber). AB Rubber is a synthetic rubber produced by the emulsion polymerization of butadiene and acrylonitrile with or without the incorporation of a third component selected from methacrylic acid or isoprene. AB Rubber products that include a third component that is not methacrylic acid or isoprene are not covered by the scope. This scope covers AB Rubber in solid or non- aqueous liquid form. The scope also includes carboxylated AB Rubber. Excluded from the scope of this investigation is AB Rubber in latex form (commonly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 4002.51.0000). Latex AB Rubber is commonly either (a) acrylonitrile/ butadiene polymer in latex form or (b) acrylonitrile/butadiene/methacrylic acid polymer in latex form. The broader definition of latex refers to a water emulsion of a synthetic rubber obtained by polymerization. Also excluded from the scope of this investigation is: (a) AB Rubber containing additives incorporated during the compounding, mixing, molding, or use of AB Rubber comprising greater than twenty percent of the total weight of the product. Additives would include, but are not limited to, fillers (e.g., carbon black, silica, clay); reinforcement agents (e.g., fibers, carbon black, silica); vulcanization agents (e.g., sulfur, sulfur complexes, peroxide); or AB Rubber containing extension oils making up greater than forty percent of the total weight of the product. Such products would be generally classified under HTSUS subheading 4005; (b) AB Rubber containing polyvinyl chloride (PVC) making up greater than twenty percent of total weight of the product; (c) hydrogenated AB Rubber (commonly referred to as HNBR) produced by subsequent dissolution and hydrogenation of AB Rubber; (d) reactive liquid polymers containing acrylonitrile and butadiene with amine, epoxy, carboxyl or methacrylate vinyl chemical functionality. Subject merchandise includes material matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise processed in a third country, including by modifying physical form or packaging with another product, or performing any other finishing, packaging, or processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the AB Rubber. The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the HTSUS at subheading 4002.59.0000. While the HTSUS subheading numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive. [FR Doc. 2022–13562 Filed 6–23–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–821–831] Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions From the Russian Federation: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that urea ammonium nitrate solutions (UAN) from the Russian Federation (Russia) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). DATES : Applicable June 24, 2022. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Krisha Hill or Drew Jackson, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4037 or (202) 482–4406, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On February 2, 2022, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination in this investigation. 1 A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 2 Period of Investigation The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2020, through March 31, 2021. Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are UAN from Russia. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I. Scope Comments No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Preliminary Determination. We made no changes to the scope of the investigation. Use of Adverse Facts Available Pursuant to section 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we have continued to base the dumping margins for PJSC Kuibyshev Azot and SBU Azot upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences, because these companies VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Jun 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM 24JNN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC PUB 5336 === U.S. International Trade Commission Publication 5336 August 2022 Washington, DC 20436 Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber (NBR) from France, Mexico, and South Korea Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1567-1569 (Final) U.S. International Trade Commission COMMISSIONERS David S. Johanson, Chairman Rhonda K. Schmidtlein Jason E. Kearns Randolph J. Stayin Amy A. Karpel Catherine DeFilippo Staff assigned Address all communications to Secretary to the Commission United States International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 Director of Operations Kristina Lara, Investigator Jennifer Catalano, Industry Analyst Sharon Ford, Industry Analyst Craig Thomsen, Economist Jennifer Brinckhaus, Accountant Mara Alexander, Statistician Jason Miller, Attorney Nathanael Comly, Supervisory Investigator U.S. International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 www.usitc.gov Publication 5336 August 2022 Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber (NBR) from France, Mexico, and South Korea Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1567-1569 (Final) 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-5 Nature and extent of sales at LTFV ........................................................................................... I-6 The subject merchandise .......................................................................................................... I-7 Commerce’s scope ................................................................................................................ I-7 Tariff treatment ..................................................................................................................... I-8 The product ............................................................................................................................... I-9 Description and applications ................................................................................................. I-9 Manufacturing processes .................................................................................................... I-12 Domestic like product issues................................................................................................... I-16 Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market........................................................... II-1 U.S. market characteristics....................................................................................................... II-1 U.S. purchasers......................................................................................................................... II-2 Channels of distribution ........................................................................................................... II-3 Geographic distribution ........................................................................................................... II-4 Supply and demand considerations ......................................................................................... II-4 U.S. supply ............................................................................................................................ II-4 U.S. demand ....................................................................................................................... II-10 Substitutability issues............................................................................................................. II-16 Factors affecting purchasing decisions............................................................................... II-17 CONTENTS Page ii Purchase factor comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports ............................................................................................................................... II-24 Comparison of U.S.-produced and imported NBR ............................................................. II-27 Elasticity estimates ................................................................................................................. II-31 U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................................................................... II-31 U.S. demand elasticity ........................................................................................................ II-31 Substitution elasticity ......................................................................................................... II-32 Part III: U.S. producers’ production, shipments, and employment ...................................... III-1 U.S. producer........................................................................................................................... III-1 U.S. production, capacity, and capacity utilization ................................................................. III-3 Alternative products ............................................................................................................ III-7 U.S. producer’s U.S. shipments and exports ........................................................................... III-8 U.S. producer’s inventories ................................................................................................... III-11 U.S. employment, wages, and productivity .......................................................................... III-12 Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares ............................... IV-1 U.S. importers.......................................................................................................................... IV-1 U.S. imports ............................................................................................................................. IV-4 U.S. imports of NIBR, XNBR, and all other NBR ................................................................... IV-9 Negligibility ............................................................................................................................ IV-10 Critical circumstances............................................................................................................ IV-11 Cumulation considerations ................................................................................................... IV-16 Fungibility .......................................................................................................................... IV-16 Geographical markets ....................................................................................................... IV-22 Presence in the market ..................................................................................................... IV-24 Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares ................................................................... IV-29 Quantity ............................................................................................................................. IV-29 Value .................................................................................................................................. IV-31 CONTENTS Page iii Part V: Pricing data ............................................................................................................. V-1 Factors affecting prices ............................................................................................................ V-1 Raw material costs ............................................................................................................... V-1 Transportation costs to the U.S. market .............................................................................. V-4 U.S. inland transportation costs ........................................................................................... V-4 Pricing practices ....................................................................................................................... V-4 Pricing methods .................................................................................................................... V-4 Sales terms and discounts .................................................................................................... V-6 Price leadership .................................................................................................................... V-6 Price data.................................................................................................................................. V-7 Price trends......................................................................................................................... V-19 Price comparisons .............................................................................................................. V-20 Conversion costs................................................................................................................. V-22 Lost sales and lost revenue .................................................................................................... V-23 Part VI: Financial experience of the U.S. producer .............................................................. VI-1 Background.............................................................................................................................. VI-1 Operations on NBR .................................................................................................................. VI-1 Net sales .............................................................................................................................. VI-4 Cost of goods sold and gross profit or loss.......................................................................... VI-5 SG&A expenses and operating income or loss.................................................................... VI-7 All other expenses and net income or loss ......................................................................... VI-8 Capital expenditures, R&D expenses, assets, and operating ROA.......................................... VI-8 Capital and investment ......................................................................................................... VI-10 CONTENTS Page iv Threat considerations and information on nonsubject countries .......................... VII-1 The industry in France ............................................................................................................ VII-3 Changes in operations ........................................................................................................ VII-4 Operations on NBR ............................................................................................................. VII-4 Alternative products ........................................................................................................... VII-8 Exports ................................................................................................................................ VII-9 The industry in Mexico ......................................................................................................... VII-11 Changes in operations ...................................................................................................... VII-12 Operations on NBR ........................................................................................................... VII-12 Alternative products ......................................................................................................... VII-15 Exports .............................................................................................................................. VII-16 The industry in South Korea ................................................................................................. VII-18 Changes in operations ...................................................................................................... VII-19 Operations on NBR ........................................................................................................... VII-19 Alternative products ......................................................................................................... VII-21 Exports .............................................................................................................................. VII-22 Subject countries combined................................................................................................. VII-24 U.S. inventories of imported merchandise .......................................................................... VII-25 U.S. importers’ outstanding orders...................................................................................... VII-27 Third-country trade actions ................................................................................................. VII-28 Information on nonsubject countries .................................................................................. VII-29 CONTENTS Page v Appendixes A. Federal Register notices .................................................................................................. A-1 B. List of hearing witnesses ................................................................................................. B-1 C. Summary data ................................................................................................................. C-1 D. Detailed channels of distribution shipment data............................................................ D-1 E. Purchasers’ descriptions regarding supply constraints................................................... E-1 F. Official import statistics................................................................................................... F-1 G. Nonsubject country price data ........................................................................................ 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. 731-TA-1567-1569 (Final) Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber (NBR) from France, Mexico, 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 an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber from France, Mexico, and South Korea, provided for in subheading 4002.59.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”).2 BACKGROUND The Commission instituted these investigations effective June 30, 2021, following receipt of petitions filed with the Commission and Commerce by Zeon Chemicals L.P. and Zeon GP, LLC (collectively, “Zeon”), Louisville, Kentucky. The Commission scheduled the final phase of the investigations following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber from France, Mexico, and South Korea were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission’s investigations and of a public hearing 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 March 1, 2022, (87 FR 11481). The Commission conducted its hearing on June 1, 2022. All persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to participate. 1 The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). 2 87 FR 37825, 87 FR 37829, and 87 FR 37833, June 24, 2022. 3 Views of the Commission Based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, we determine that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of Acrylonitrile‐Butadiene Rubber (“NBR”) from France, Mexico, and South Korea found by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value.1 I. Background Zeon Chemicals L.P. and Zeon GP, LLC (collectively “Zeon” or “Petitioner”), a domestic producer of NBR, filed the petitions in these investigations on June 30, 2021.2 Petitioner appeared at the hearing and filed prehearing and posthearing briefs and final comments.3 The following respondent parties appeared at the hearing and submitted prehearing and posthearing briefs and final comments: Arlanxeo Emulsion Rubber France S.A.S. and Arlanxeo USA LLC (collectively “Arlanxeo”), a producer and exporter of NBR in France and its affiliated U.S. importer; Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. (“Kumho”), a producer and exporter of NBR in South Korea; and Negromex, S.A. de C.V. and Dynasol, LLC (collectively “Negromex”), a producer and exporter of NBR in Mexico and its affiliated U.S. importer. Armacell, LLC (“Armacell”), a U.S. purchaser and importer of subject merchandise, did not appear at the hearing, but submitted prehearing and posthearing briefs. Omnova Solutions SAS and Omnova Solutions Inc. (collectively “Omnova”), a producer and exporter of NBR in France and its affiliated U.S. importer, did not appear at the hearing, but submitted a posthearing brief. Dayco Products, LLC (“Dayco”) and ITT Inc. and its subsidiary Wolverine Advanced Materials (collectively “ITT”), both U.S. purchasers of NBR from France, submitted non‐party statements.4 1 Material retardation is not an issue in these investigations. 2 Confidential Report, Memorandum INV‐UU‐070 (Jun. 24, 2022), as amended by Memoranda INV‐UU‐071 (Jun. 30, 2022) (“CR”) at I‐1; Public Report, Acrylonitrile‐Butadiene Rubber from France, Mexico, and South Korea, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐1567‐1569 (Final), USITC Pub. 5336 (Aug. 2022) (“PR”) at I‐1. 3 In light of the restrictions on access to the Commission building due to the COVID‐19 pandemic, the Commission conducted its hearing through written witness testimony and videoconference held on June 1, 2022, as set forth in procedures provided to the parties. Acrylonitrile‐ Butadiene Rubber (NBR) From France, Mexico, and South Korea; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Anti‐ Dumping Duty Investigations, 87 Fed. Reg. 11481 (Mar. 1, 2022). 4 An ITT representative also appeared at the hearing. 4 U.S. industry data are based on the questionnaire response of one firm, Zeon, that accounted for all U.S. production of NBR in 2021.5 U.S. import data are based on official import statistics and the questionnaire responses of 18 importers, which are estimated to account for *** percent of subject imports from France, *** subject imports from Mexico, *** percent of subject imports from South Korea, *** percent of nonsubject imports from Japan (the largest nonsubject source), and *** percent of nonsubject imports from all other sources.6 The Commission received responses to its questionnaires from four foreign producers of subject merchandise: two producers/exporters in France, accounting for *** U.S. imports of subject merchandise from France in 2021;7 one producer/exporter in Mexico, accounting for *** U.S. imports of subject merchandise from Mexico in 2021;8 and one producer/exporter in South Korea, accounting for *** percent of U.S. imports of subject merchandise from South Korea in 2021.9 II. Domestic Like Product A. In General In determining whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of subject merchandise, the Commission first defines the “domestic like product” and the “industry.”10 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.”11 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.”12 5 CR/PR at I‐4 and III‐1. Zeon ***. Id. at III‐3, n.3. 6 CR/PR at I‐4. 7 CR/PR at VII‐3. 8 CR/PR at VII‐11. 9 CR/PR at VII‐18. 10 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 11 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 12 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). 5 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.13 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.”14 The Commission then defines the domestic like product in light of the imported articles Commerce has identified.15 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.16 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.17 The Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.18 13 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). 14 Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Hitachi Metals, Ltd. v. United States, 949 F.3d 710, 717 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (the statute requires the Commission to start with Commerce’s subject merchandise in reaching its own like product determination). 15 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). 16 See, e.g., Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1299; NEC Corp. v. Dep’t 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, 747 F. Supp. at 749 n.3 (“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). 17 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96‐249 at 90‐91 (1979). 18 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.”). 6 B. Product Description Commerce defined the imported merchandise within the scope of these investigations as: {A}crylonitrile butadiene rubber or nitrile rubber (AB Rubber). AB Rubber is a synthetic rubber produced by the emulsion polymerization of butadiene and acrylonitrile with or without the incorporation of a third component selected from methacrylic acid or isoprene. AB Rubber products that include a third component that is not methacrylic acid or isoprene are not covered by the scope. This scope covers AB Rubber in solid or non‐aqueous liquid form. The scope also includes carboxylated AB Rubber. Excluded from the scope of this investigation is AB Rubber in latex form (commonly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 4002.51.0000). Latex AB Rubber is commonly either (a) acrylonitrile/butadiene polymer in latex form or (b) acrylonitrile/butadiene/methacrylic acid polymer in latex form. The broader definition of latex refers to a water emulsion of a synthetic rubber obtained by polymerization. Also excluded from the scope of this investigation is: (a) AB Rubber containing additives incorporated during the compounding, mixing, molding, or use of AB Rubber comprising greater than twenty percent of the total weight of the product. Additives would include, but are not limited to, fillers (e.g., carbon black, silica, clay); reinforcement agents (e.g., fibers, carbon black, silica); vulcanization agents (e.g., sulfur, sulfur complexes, peroxide); or AB Rubber containing extension oils making up greater than forty percent of the total weight of the product. Such products would be generally classified under HTSUS subheading 4005; (b) AB Rubber containing polyvinyl chloride (PVC) making up greater than twenty percent of total weight of the product; (c) hydrogenated AB Rubber (commonly referred to as HNBR) produced by subsequent dissolution and hydrogenation of AB Rubber; (d) reactive liquid polymers containing acrylonitrile and butadiene with amine, epoxy, carboxyl or methacrylate vinyl chemical functionality. Subject merchandise includes material matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise processed in a third country, including by modifying physical form or packaging with another product, or performing any other finishing, packaging, or processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the 7 investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the AB Rubber.19 NBR is a type of synthetic rubber that is a bipolymer of acrylonitrile (“ACN”) and butadiene, or a terpolymer with an additional third component selected from methacrylic acid or isoprene. The product can be in a solid or non‐aqueous liquid form. The terpolymer with the third component selected from methacrylic acid can be carboxylated in its form and is termed carboxylated NBR (“XNBR”).20 NBR can generally function in minus 40‐degree to 226‐degree Fahrenheit temperatures. NBR is more puncture resistant than natural rubber, and is resistant to cuts, abrasion, tears, caustics, and aliphatic hydrocarbons. NBR is less flexible than natural rubber. NBR products vary in their ACN content, Mooney viscosity,21 and physical form. In general, as ACN content increases, oil and fuel resistance increase, tensile strength and hardness increase, and heat and abrasion resistance improve; as ACN content decreases, low temperature performance, dynamic performance, compression set, and resilience all improve. NBR is mostly used in applications in which a moderate level of heat and oil or fuel resistance are required, such as in the industrial hose, automotive, and oil and gas industries.22 19 Acrylonitrile‐Butadiene Rubber from France: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, 87 Fed. Reg. 37833 (Jun. 24, 2022); Acrylonitrile‐Butadiene Rubber from the Republic of Korea: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, 87 Fed. Reg. 37825 (Jun. 24, 2022); Acrylonitrile‐Butadiene Rubber from Mexico: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 87 Fed. Reg. 37829 (Jun. 24, 2022). 20 CR/PR at I‐9. XNBR is included within the scope. See 87 Fed. Reg. 37833 (Jun. 24, 2022); 87 Fed. Reg. 37825 (Jun. 24, 2022); and 87 Fed. Reg. 37829 (Jun. 24, 2022). XNBR materials are typically used in the same applications as NBR but where improved abrasion resistance and improved tensile strength may be desired in the finished article. CR/PR at I‐11. 21 Higher Mooney viscosity results in improved strength, but decreased processability, while lower Mooney viscosity materials are easier to process. Mooney viscosity is measured in terms of Mooney units. CR/PR at I‐10. 22 CR/PR at I‐9‐10. 8 C. Analysis In its preliminary determinations, the Commission found that clear lines did not divide domestically produced in‐scope NBR products from each other,23 but that clear lines did divide domestically produced in‐scope NBR products from out‐of‐scope NBR products, namely latex NBR and hydrogenated NBR (“HNBR”).24 Accordingly, the Commission defined a single domestic like product consisting of NBR, coextensive with the scope of the investigations.25 The record in the final phase of the investigations contains no new information that would warrant revisiting the definition of the domestic like product from the preliminary determinations.26 Moreover, no party has argued for a definition of the domestic like product different from that in the preliminary determinations.27 Accordingly, we again define a single domestic like product consisting of NBR, coextensive with the scope of the investigations. 23 Acrylonitrile‐Butadiene Rubber (NBR) from France, Korea, and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐1567‐ 1569 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 5227 (Aug. 2021) (“Preliminary Determinations”) at 8‐12. Specifically, the Commission found that all NBR corresponding to the scope shares the same basic chemistry, is produced using common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and employees, and is sold through the same channels of distribution. Id. While the Commission acknowledged that differences in form, ACN content, and Mooney viscosity may affect the physical properties, prices, and desirability for certain end uses of different types of NBR, it found that customers and producers nevertheless generally perceive all NBR products corresponding to the scope as comprising a single product category. Id. at 12. The Commission also acknowledged that U.S. importers’ questionnaire responses were mixed regarding the interchangeability between NBR and XNBR but found that the overall record did not indicate a clear dividing line that would warrant defining NBR and XNBR as separate domestic like products. Id. 24 Preliminary Determinations, USITC Pub. 5227 at 8‐12. Specifically, the Commission found clear lines dividing NBR from out‐of‐scope latex NBR and HNBR in terms of physical characteristics and end uses, interchangeability, producer and customer perceptions, and price. Id. at 12. 25 Preliminary Determinations, USITC Pub. 5227 at 12. 26 See generally CR/PR at I‐9‐12. 27 Zeon argues that the Commission should define a single domestic like product, coextensive with Commerce’s scope, as it did in its preliminary determinations. Zeon’s Prehearing Br. at 3‐5. Several respondents confirmed at the Commission’s hearing that they are not requesting that the Commission reconsider the definition of the domestic like product from the preliminary determinations. See Hearing Transcript (“Tr.”) at 244 (Mills on behalf of Arlanxeo; Kendler on behalf of Kumho; and Sjoberg on behalf of Negromex). The other respondents did not address the issue. 9 III. 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.”28 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. In its preliminary determinations, the Commission found that the preliminary phase record of these investigations raised no domestic industry issues, and defined the domestic industry as all U.S. producers of NBR, namely Zeon.29 The final phase record of these investigations likewise raises no domestic industry issues,30 and no party has argued for a definition of the domestic industry different from that in the preliminary determinations.31 Accordingly, we again define the domestic industry as all U.S. producers of NBR, namely Zeon.32 28 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 29 Preliminary Determinations, USITC Pub. 5227 at 13. 30 The record in the final phase of these investigations, like the record in the preliminary phase, indicates that Zeon ***. CR/PR at III‐3, n.3. However, as in the preliminary phase, no party argues that *** should be included in the domestic industry, and the record does not contain information sufficient to assess whether ***. 31 Non‐party Dayco, citing the related parties provision of the statute, argues that Zeon should not be considered a domestic producer because it is primarily an importer of NBR from its parent company in Japan. Dayco’s Non‐Party Statement at 12‐14. Zeon is related to a producer of nonsubject merchandise and is not related to an exporter of subject merchandise, and is not itself an importer of subject merchandise; thus, it is not subject to the related parties provision. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 32 Another U.S. firm, Lion Elastomers (“Lion”), has indicated that it will soon start domestic production of NBR. CR/PR at III‐1, n.1. However, it has also stated that the construction date for its NBR facility has ***, and respondents have raised questions as to whether Lion will produce in‐scope NBR or out‐of‐scope latex NBR. See CR/PR at III‐1, n.1; Kumho’s Final Comments at 1, n.3. 10 IV. Cumulation33 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.34 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 33 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 three 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 generally be deemed negligible. 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673d(b), 1677(24)(A)(i). Subject imports from France, Mexico, and South Korea accounted for *** percent, *** percent, and *** percent, respectively, of total U.S. imports of NBR in the 12‐month period (June 2020 through May 2021) preceding the filing of the petitions. CR/PR at Table IV‐4. As imports from each subject country exceed the statutory negligibility threshold, we find that subject imports from each country are not negligible. 34 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). 11 determining whether the subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.35 Only a “reasonable overlap” of competition is required.36 A. Arguments of the Parties Zeon argues that the Commission should cumulate imports from all subject countries as it did in the preliminary determinations because the petitions were filed on the same day and there is a reasonable overlap of competition between and among the domestic like product and imports from each subject country.37 Specifically, it contends that, in 2021, domestically produced NBR and NBR from each subject country were sold in the same forms and in the same ACN content ranges, and are thus fungible.38 It also claims that domestically produced NBR and NBR from each subject country were sold through common channels of distribution; served the same geographic markets; and were present in every month of the January 2019 – December 2021 period of investigation (“POI”).39 Respondents do not address cumulation. B. Analysis We consider subject imports from France, Mexico, and South Korea on a cumulated basis because the statutory criteria for cumulation are satisfied. As an initial matter, Petitioner filed the antidumping duty petitions with respect to all three countries on the same day, June 30, 2021.40 There also is a reasonable overlap of competition between subject imports from France, Mexico, and South Korea, and among subject imports from each source and the domestic like product, as discussed below. Fungibility. The record indicates that subject imports from France, Mexico, and South Korea and the domestic like product overlap in terms of certain physical characteristics, including ACN content and form, and are interchangeable to some degree. 35 See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989). 36 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.”). 37 Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 6‐7. 38 Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 7. 39 Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 7. 40 CR/PR at I‐1. None of the statutory exceptions to cumulation applies. 12 Domestically produced NBR and imports from each subject country overlap in terms of ACN content. *** of the domestically produced NBR sold in 2021, and *** of the imports from each subject country sold that year, were in the 26 to 41 percent ACN range.41 Moreover, *** and imports from *** were also sold in the below 26 percent ACN range that year.42 Domestically produced NBR and imports from each subject country also overlap in terms of form. *** of the domestically produced NBR sold in 2021, and *** of the imports from each subject source sold that year, were in bale/slab form.43 Moreover, *** and imports from *** were also sold in ground form that year.44 While responding producers, importers, and purchasers differed concerning the degree of interchangeability between and among the domestic like product and subject imports from each source,45 majorities or pluralities of responding purchasers rated domestically produced NBR as comparable to subject imports from each source with respect to at least 17 of 18 41 CR/PR at Table IV‐10. 42 CR/PR at Table IV‐10. 43 CR/PR at Table IV‐9. 44 CR/PR at Table IV‐9. However, only *** additionally reported selling NBR in liquid form that year. Id. 45 In comparing the domestic like product with subject imports from France, *** U.S. importers reported that they were always or frequently interchangeable, while 20 of 25 purchasers reported that they were sometimes or never interchangeable. CR/PR at Tables II‐14‐15. Zeon, the sole U.S. producer, reported that they were *** interchangeable. Id. at II‐27. In comparing the domestic like product with subject imports from Mexico, *** U.S. importers reported that they were always or frequently interchangeable, while 15 of 20 U.S. purchasers reported that they were sometimes or never interchangeable. CR/PR at Tables II‐14‐15. Zeon reported that they were *** interchangeable. Id. at II‐27. In comparing the domestic like product with subject imports from South Korea, *** U.S. importers reported that they were always or frequently interchangeable, while 11 of 19 U.S. purchasers reported that they were sometimes or never interchangeable. CR/PR at Tables II‐14‐15. Zeon reported that they were *** interchangeable. Id. at II‐27. In comparing subject imports from France with subject imports from Mexico, *** U.S. importers reported that they were always or frequently interchangeable, while 17 of 21 U.S. purchasers reported that they were sometimes or never interchangeable. CR/PR at Tables II‐14‐15. Zeon reported that they were *** interchangeable. Id. at II‐27. In comparing subject imports from France with subject imports from South Korea, *** U.S. importers reported that they were always or frequently interchangeable, while 11 of 17 U.S. purchasers reported that they were sometimes or never interchangeable. CR/PR at Tables II‐14‐15. Zeon reported that they were *** interchangeable. Id. at II‐27. In comparing subject imports from Mexico with subject imports from South Korea, *** U.S. importers reported that they were always or frequently interchangeable, while 11 of 16 U.S. purchasers reported that they were sometimes or never interchangeable. CR/PR at Tables II‐14‐15. Zeon reported that they were *** interchangeable. Id. at II‐27. 13 purchasing factors.46 We also note that, although Zeon manufactures NBR in the United States exclusively using batch processing,47 whereas several producers in subject countries exclusively (or nearly exclusively) manufacture NBR using continuous processing, 7 of 10 responding importers, 15 of 24 responding purchasers, and *** all indicated that NBR produced using batch processing and NBR produced using continuous processing are substitutable.48 49 We thus find that subject imports from each source and the domestic like product are sufficiently fungible for purposes of cumulation. Channels of Distribution. Domestically produced NBR and imports from each subject country were sold in overlapping channels of distribution over the POI, namely to *** and ***.50 Geographic Overlap. *** and imports from *** were sold in all contiguous regions of the United States during the POI.51 Simultaneous Presence in Market. Domestically produced NBR and imports from each subject country were simultaneously present in the U.S. market throughout the POI.52 Conclusion. Because the relevant antidumping duty petitions were filed on the same day, and because the record indicates that there is a reasonable overlap of competition between and among imports from each subject country and the domestic like product, we 46 Majorities or pluralities of purchasers rated the domestic like product and subject imports from France as comparable with respect to all 18 purchasing factors; majorities or pluralities of purchasers rated the domestic like product and subject imports from Mexico as comparable with respect to all 18 purchasing factors; and majorities of purchasers rated the domestic like product and subject imports from South Korea as comparable with respect to 17 of 18 purchasing factors. CR/PR at Table II‐13. 47 Zeon’s parent company, Zeon Corporation (Japan), produces NBR in Japan using continuous processing. See Zeon’s Prehearing Br. at 13‐14; Zeon’s Posthearing Br. at 1; Tr. at 135 (Cail). 48 See CR/PR at I‐15‐16 & II‐23. In continuous processing, producers feed input monomers into a series of linked reactors to generate NBR, whereas in batch processing, producers feed input monomers into separate reactors that are not linked in a series. CR/PR at III‐6, n.7. Batch processing allows for smaller runs than continuous processing, and is more expensive, but adds to production versatility. Id. at II‐1 & II‐6, n.14. 49 We recognize that several responding purchasers indicated that they could not successfully switch from NBR imports produced via continuous processing to domestically produced NBR produced via batch processing due to quality or consistency issues with the latter product. See, e.g., Tr. at 153‐ 154 (Hart) and 169 (Clunk). See also affidavits of same at Exhibits 1 and 3 to Kumho’s Prehearing Br., and attachments thereto. 50 CR/PR at Table II‐1. However, while subject imports from France, Mexico, and South Korea were sold to *** during the POI, domestically produced NBR was not. Id. 51 CR/PR at Table II‐2. 52 CR/PR at Table IV‐12 & Tables V‐4‐8. 14 cumulate subject imports from France, Mexico, and South Korea for purposes of our analysis of whether the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject imports. V. No Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports Based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, we find that an industry in the United States is not materially injured by reason of imports of NBR from France, Mexico, and South Korea that Commerce has found to be sold at less than fair value. A. Legal Standards In the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, the Commission determines whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of the imports under investigation.53 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.54 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”55 In assessing whether 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.56 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.”57 Although the statute requires the Commission to determine whether the domestic industry is “materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of” unfairly traded imports,58 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.59 In identifying a 53 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b), 1673d(b). 54 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). 55 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A). 56 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). 57 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). 58 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b), 1673d(b). 59 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). 15 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.60 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 inflating an otherwise tangential cause of injury into one that satisfies the statutory material injury threshold.61 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not isolate 60 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). 61 Uruguay Round Agreements Act Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), H.R. Rep. 103‐316 vol. I at 851‐52 (1994) (“{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. 16 the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.62 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.63 It is clear that the existence of injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.64 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 imports.”65 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 62 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.”). 63 S. Rep. 96‐249 at 74‐75; H.R. Rep. 96‐317 at 47. 64 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.”). 65 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. 17 sources to the subject imports.”66 The Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various Commission methodologies and has disavowed “rigid adherence to a specific formula.”67 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.68 Congress has delegated this factual finding to the Commission because of the agency’s institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.69 B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle70 The following conditions of competition inform our analysis of whether there is material injury by reason of subject imports. 1. Demand Conditions U.S. demand for NBR depends on U.S. demand for the downstream products in which it is used, such as hoses, walk‐off mats, compounds, polyvinyl chloride, belts, wire, and cables.71 Automotive, oil and gas, and industrial machinery customers typically demand costlier specialty grades of NBR with high or low ACN contents, while walk‐off mats and commercial printing 66 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. 67 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.”). 68 We provide in our discussion below a full analysis of other factors alleged to have caused any material injury experienced by the domestic industry. 69 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.”). 70 The record indicates that Zeon internally consumed NBR to produce ***. CR/PR at III‐9. We thus consider the applicability of the statutory captive production provision. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iv). We find that the threshold criterion for the application of the provision is not met because internal transfers, which accounted for between *** percent and *** percent of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments of NBR during the POI, did not constitute a significant portion of production during that time. See CR/PR at Table III‐7. 71 CR/PR at II‐10 and Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 19. 18 customers typically demand less expensive commodity grades of NBR with more moderate ACN contents.72 The parties, including Zeon, generally agree that U.S. demand for NBR declined from 2019 to 2020 due to the COVID‐19 pandemic, then rebounded in 2021.73 Other market participants likewise noted the deterioration in demand from 2019 to 2020 from the effects of the COVID‐19 pandemic, and the recovery in demand from 2020 to 2021 as these effects abated.74 Apparent U.S. consumption of NBR decreased from 110.4 million pounds in 2019 to a period low of 86.8 million pounds in 2020, before increasing to 101.7 million pounds in 2021, a level 7.8 percent lower than in 2019.75 Regarding future demand, IHS Markit, a market research firm, projects that U.S. consumption of NBR will increase from 2021 to 2026 in most end‐use categories.76 The parties commenting on this issue, including Zeon, likewise project that U.S. demand for NBR will continue to increase from its 2021 levels.77 72 CR/PR at II‐1‐2; Exhibit 1 of Kumho’s Prehearing Br. at paragraph 5 (affidavit of ***); Exhibit 5 of Kumho’s Prehearing Br. at paragraph 5 (affidavit of ***); Exhibit 3 of Kumho’s Prehearing Br. at paragraph 5 (affidavit of ***). We note that, while Zeon defines commodity grade NBR as NBR with an ACN content of between 26 and 41 percent (and specialty grade NBR as NBR with an ACN content of less than 26 or more than 41 percent), respondents have stated that commodity grade NBR typically has an ACN content of between 31 and 35 percent (and that specialty grade NBR typically has an ACN content of less than 31 or more than 35 percent). CR/PR at I‐12, n.39; see Exhibit 2 to Kumho’s Prehearing Br. at 42. 73 Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 19; Zeon’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response at II‐2b; Arlanxeo’s Prehearing Br. at 11; Kumho’s Prehearing Br. at 3. 74 CR/PR at II‐11. See also CR/PR at IV‐4 (importer *** reported that demand was strong in 2019, then dipped during the COVID‐19 lockdowns, and then spiked after the COVID‐19 lockdowns were lifted; importer *** cited COVID‐19 as the reason for its “U‐shaped” importing trend over the POI). 75 CR/PR at Tables IV‐13 and C‐1. *** reported variously that U.S. demand for NBR did not change during the POI, or that it fluctuated during the period. CR/PR at Table II‐4; Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 19. Most responding importers, as well most responding U.S. purchasers, reported that U.S. demand for NBR increased or did not change during the POI. CR/PR at Table II‐4. 76 CR/PR at Table VII‐23. 77 Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 19; Arlanxeo’s Prehearing Br. at 12. 19 2. Supply Conditions i. Zeon Zeon, based in Louisville, Kentucky, is the sole U.S. producer of NBR.78 It was the third largest source of supply throughout the POI, accounting for a smaller share of the U.S. NBR market than either subject or nonsubject imports; its market share increased in each year of the POI.79 Specifically, Zeon’s share of apparent U.S. consumption increased from *** percent in 2019 to *** percent in 2020 and to *** percent in 2021.80 Zeon’s production capacity remained at *** pounds in each year of the POI.81 Numerous purchasers reported that Zeon experienced supply constraints during the POI.82 Consistent with this reporting, ***,83 as well as ***.84 As discussed in section IV.B. above, Zeon produces NBR in the United States exclusively using batch (as opposed to continuous) processing.85 86 Batch processing allows for smaller 78 CR/PR at I‐1 and Table III‐1. 79 CR/PR at Table IV‐13. 80 CR/PR at Table IV‐13. 81 CR/PR Table III‐4. 82 CR/PR at II‐9. See also CR/PR at Appendix E (showing that 14 purchasers – ***, ***, ***, ***, ***, ***, ***, ***, ***, ***, ***, ***, ***, and *** – described Zeon as experiencing supply constraints before and/or after the petitions were filed); Tr. at 152 (Hart) (“… no U.S. producer … can meet our needs in terms of quality or quantity.”) and 150 (Kuczynski) (“Zeon … have recently admitted their inability to support our required volumes of NBR.”). 83 CR/PR at II‐8; Zeon’s Producer Questionnaire Response at IV‐17. 84 CR/PR at III‐3; Zeon’s Producer Questionnaire Response at II‐2b. 85 CR/PR at I‐15. 86 In contrast, the NBR that Zeon sources from its parent company is generally produced using the continuous process. Tr. at 69‐70 (Cail) (“Non‐subject imports from Japan, most of that volume is produced on a continuous line.”); see also id. at 185 (Kendler) (“Zeon USA makes the choice to supply certain grades of NBR from Kentucky using batch processing, and to import from Japan other grades, using continuous processing.”), 33 (Cail), and 172‐173 (Crowe). 20 runs than continuous processing, and is more expensive, but adds to production versatility.87 ii. Cumulated Subject Imports Cumulated subject imports were the largest source of supply to the U.S. market throughout the POI; their market share declined in each year of the period. Specifically, cumulated subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption decreased from 62.5 percent in 2019 to 61.3 percent in 2020 and to 60.6 percent in 2021.88 Responding importers of subject merchandise reported that they had experienced supply constraints during the POI, and 25 of 36 responding purchasers reported issues with the availability of supply from subject sources.89 As discussed in section IV.B. above, several NBR producers in subject countries produce NBR exclusively, or almost exclusively, using continuous processing.90 Based on the pricing data, *** of the cumulated subject imports sold during the POI had an ACN content ranging between 31 and 35 percent.91 iii. Nonsubject Imports Nonsubject imports were the second largest source of supply to the U.S. market throughout the POI; their market share increased in each year of the period. Specifically, 87 CR/PR at II‐1 & II‐6, n.14 Zeon and respondents disagree as to how much more expensive batch processing is than continuous processing, with Zeon claiming that the differential is small, and respondents claiming that the differential is larger. See, e.g., Annex II to Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. at 21 (claiming a *** percent differential); Negromex’s Prehearing Br. at 6 (claiming a 10‐15 percent differential); Responses to Commissioner Questions appended to Arlanxeo’s Posthearing Br. at 28 (claiming a *** percent differential); Kumho’s Final Comments at 3 (claiming a *** percent differential). The record generally supports respondents’ claims that batch processing entails significantly higher production costs than continuous processing, including in communications from Zeon to its customers. For example, in communications with purchaser ***, Zeon acknowledges its ***. See Exhibit I‐4 to Zeon’s Posthearing Br. Similarly, in describing the costs associated with its sales to purchaser ***, Zeon lists the “base cost” of ***, which it has elsewhere stated is produced by its parent company by continuous processing in Japan, at ***, whereas it lists the “base cost” of ***, which it has elsewhere stated that it produces by batch processing in Kentucky, at ***. See Annex III to Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. at 18 and 21; Exhibit I‐1 to Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. Furthermore, Arlanxeo, which produces NBR using both batch and continuous processing, provided its actual costs for both processes, showing that its total per kilogram manufacturing costs for continuous processing in 2021 were *** EUR/KG, whereas its total per kilogram manufacturing costs for batch processing that year were *** EUR/KG, a difference of over 50 percent. See Responses to Commissioner Questions appended to Arlanxeo’s Posthearing Br. at 28. 88 CR/PR at Table IV‐13. 89 CR/PR at II‐8‐9; see also Appendix E. 90 CR/PR at I‐16, Table VII‐5 & Table VII‐11. 91 CR/PR Table V‐9. 21 nonsubject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption increased from *** percent in 2019 to *** percent in 2020 and to *** percent in 2021.92 Japan was the largest source of nonsubject imports, accounting for more than 70 percent of nonsubject imports during the POI.93 In addition to supplying the U.S. market with domestically produced NBR, Zeon also supplies the U.S. market with nonsubject NBR that it imports from its parent company in Japan, which utilizes continuous processing.94 Zeon accounted for *** nonsubject imports of NBR from Japan during the POI.95 Based on the pricing product data, *** of the nonsubject imports from Japan that Zeon sold over the POI had an ACN content ranging between 31 and 35 percent, corresponding to commodity grade NBR, whereas *** of the domestically produced NBR that Zeon sold over this time had ACN contents below 31 percent and above 35 percent.96 3. Substitutability and Other Conditions We find that there is a moderate degree of substitutability between the domestic like product and subject imports.97 While majorities or pluralities of responding purchasers reported that the domestic like product and subject imports from each source were comparable with respect to at least 17 of 18 purchasing factors,98 most responding purchasers also reported that the domestic like product and subject imports from each source were only sometimes or never interchangeable.99 Moreover, the vast majority of both responding importers and purchasers reported that NBR with ACN content in the 31 to 35 percent range (which covers *** of the subject imports sold during the POI) is only sometimes or never 92 CR/PR at Table IV‐13. 93 CR/PR at II‐7. 94 CR/PR at IV‐2, n.6; Zeon’s Prehearing Br. at 13‐14 and 29; Tr. at 135 (Cail). Zeon also imports nonsubject NBR from Taiwan. See CR/PR at III‐2; Tr. at 32‐33 (Cail). 95 CR/PR at IV‐2, n.6. 96 CR/PR at Tables V‐9 & G‐1‐4. Consistent with these data, a Zeon representative testified at the hearing that only “about 30 percent of Zeon’s {domestically produced} supply is in that 31 to 35 ACN bucket.” See Tr. at 59 (Arkan). Likewise, Zeon in its Posthearing Brief references its “domestic supply problem in the 31≤ACN≤35 band.” See Annex III to Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. at 20. 97 CR/PR at II‐16. 98 CR/PR at Table II‐13. We also observe that a substantial minority of responding purchasers consistently reported that the domestic like product was inferior to subject imports from each source across most purchasing factors. Id. 99 CR/PR at Table II‐15. Specifically, 20 of 25 purchasers reported that subject imports from France and domestically produced NBR are only sometimes or never interchangeable, 15 of 20 purchasers reported that subject imports from Mexico and domestically produced NBR are only sometimes or never interchangeable, and 11 of 19 purchasers reported that subject imports from South Korea and domestically produced NBR are only sometimes or never interchangeable. Id. 22 interchangeable with NBR with ACN contents in other percentile ranges (which covers *** of the domestically produced NBR sold during the POI).100 Further limiting the interchangeability of domestically produced NBR and subject imports, most responding purchasers (30 of 38) reported that they must certify NBR from new suppliers, with purchasers indicating that on average, certification takes more than six months.101 Thus, purchasers that had only certified subject sources of NBR could not rapidly switch to purchasing domestically produced NBR, and vice versa. Zeon argues that domestically produced NBR and imports from each subject source are highly substitutable. It contends that the Commission’s pricing product data, Zeon’s communications with its customers, and a worksheet listing domestically produced grades that are equivalent to subject imported grades, demonstrate “head‐to‐head” competition between the domestic like product and subject imports.102 The evidence in the record, however, does not support Zeon’s argument. Regarding the pricing data, as previously discussed, these data reflect that *** reported subject import sales have an ACN content in the 31 to 35 percent range, whereas *** reported 100 CR/PR at Tables II‐11 & V‐9. Specifically, 11 of 12 importers and 33 of 34 purchasers reported that NBR in the 31 to 35 percent ACN range is only sometimes or never interchangeable with NBR in either the less than 26 percent range or the greater than 41 percent range. CR/PR at Table II‐11. Similarly, 10 of 12 importers and 33 of 34 purchasers reported that NBR in the 31 to 35 percent ACN range is only sometimes or never interchangeable with NBR in either the 26 to 31 percent range or the 35 to 41 percent range. Id. 101 CR/PR at II‐21. Zeon contends that responding purchasers have “meaningfully overstated the difficulty of the certification/qualification process,” arguing that, in its experience, certification is “a standard and relatively rapid process.” Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 24. However, neither Zeon nor the record provides any indication that the purchasers reporting on this issue lacked a basis for their assessments, which they have certified as accurate. Although Zeon cites several instances of customers readily changing suppliers notwithstanding purported certification/qualification impediments, see, e.g., Annex I of Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. at 6‐7, Exhs. I‐4‐6, III‐10, this evidence does not outweigh other information on the record covering a large and varied sample of purchasers. See CR/PR at II‐21. 102 Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 21‐22; Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. at 3‐4; Annex III to Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. at 17‐18; Exhibit III‐1 to Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. 23 sales of domestically produced NBR have ACN contents in other percentile ranges.103 As also previously discussed, the vast majority of both responding importers and purchasers reported that NBR with ACN content in the 31 to 35 percent range is only sometimes or never interchangeable with NBR with ACN contents in other percentile ranges.104 Moreover, Zeon itself reported that NBR with ACN content in the 31 to 35 percent range is *** interchangeable with NBR with ACN content in either the less than 26 percent range or the greater than 41 percent range – i.e., NBR products corresponding to Pricing Product 4, which comprised *** percent of Zeon’s reported sales of pricing products during the POI.105 Thus, the pricing product data do not reflect a high degree of substitutability between domestically produced and subject imported NBR. Nor do Zeon’s communications with its customers show a high degree of substitutability between domestic and subject NBR. Although Zeon contends that these communications show “U.S. purchasers … discuss{ing} switching from NBR grades supplied via subject imports to NBR grades supplied by the domestic industry,”106 many of the communications appear to concern NBR imported by Zeon from its parent company in Japan, and the source of the NBR referenced by Zeon in other communications is unclear.107 Furthermore, many purchasers, including 103 CR/PR at Table V‐9. Product 1, with an ACN range of 31 to 35 percent, accounted for *** percent of reported subject import sales but only *** percent of Zeon’s reported sales of domestically produced NBR. Calculated from CR/PR at Table V‐9. See also CR/PR at Table IV‐10 (showing that NBR with an ACN range of 31 to 35 percent accounted for *** percent of subject import U.S. shipments in 2021, but only *** percent of Zeon’s U.S. shipments); Tr. at 59 (Arkan) (“ … about 30 percent of Zeon's supply is in that 31 to 35 ACN bucket … where subject imports make about 70 percent of their total supply.”). See also Annex III to Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. at 21 (“The reason that subject imports were able to expand their market share in the 31≤ACN≤35 band is … because … foreign producers predominantly produce NBR grades in this ACN band … .”). 104 CR/PR at Table II‐11. 105 CR/PR at Tables II‐11 and V‐9. 106 Zeon’s Posthearing Br. at 3. 107 For example, one of the “interaction reports” (i.e., summaries of purchaser communications) that Zeon references as corroborating a high degree of substitutability between subject imports and Zeon’s domestically produced NBR in fact refers to ***. See Exhibit III‐8 to Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. Likewise, another interaction report Zeon cites for this proposition references ***, which Zeon has elsewhere stated is produced by its parent company in Japan. See Annex III to Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. at 21 and Exhibit III‐10 to Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. Moreover, a third interaction report that Zeon cites in support of its contention refers to ***, an NBR product Zeon explicitly acknowledges it does not produce in the United States. See Annex III of Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. at 16; Exhibit III‐9 of Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. 24 purchasers referenced in Zeon’s communications with its customers (such as *** and ***), have indicated that Zeon does not domestically produce the NBR grades they require.108 Finally, regarding Zeon’s worksheet, we observe that this document reflects that Zeon ***,109 and that ***.110 Moreover, as Zeon has acknowledged, *** of its domestic production is of NBR with ACN content lower than 31 percent or higher than 35 percent, whereas *** subject imports have ACN content between 31 and 35 percent,111 indicating that there is limited overlap between the NBR that is actually produced domestically and subject imports. Further, even if there were domestic equivalents for all or most subject imported grades of NBR, as Zeon claims,112 the record indicates that purchasers could not have readily substituted these domestic equivalents for subject imports because Zeon’s use of batch processing and its supply constraints would have limited its ability to produce such equivalents in sufficient quantities.113 We find that price is an important factor in purchasing decisions for NBR, and that non‐ price factors, such as quality, availability, and performance/product meets specifications, are also important.114 Responding purchasers cited quality, availability, and price most frequently as being among the top three factors influencing their purchasing decisions,115 and cited 108 See CR/PR at II‐29 (“{M}ultiple purchasers listed exact grades for which they were unable to use domestic equivalents. Others noted that, generally, there were no domestic substitutes for the grades that they use.”); Exhibit 3 to Kumho’s Prehearing Br. at paragraph 9 (affidavit of ***”); Exhibit 5 to Kumho’s Prehearing Br. at paragraph 10 (affidavit of ***”). See also Tr. at 169 (Clunk) (“the majority of our nitrile purchases from Zeon were from Nippon Zeon in Japan because many of the nitrile grades that we purchase from Zeon are not produced in Kentucky; rather, only in Japan.”). These purchasers generally attributed their inability to procure certain grades of NBR from Zeon to Zeon’s exclusive use of batch processing in the United States. See, e.g., Tr. at 153‐154 (Hart); Tr. at 172 (Crowe). 109 Exhibit III‐1 to Petitioner’s Posthearing br.; Annex III to Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. at 16‐17. 110 CR/PR at II‐28, n.28. 111 Tr. at 59 (Arkan) (“ … about 30 percent of Zeon's supply is in that 31 to 35 ACN bucket … where subject imports make about 70 percent of their total supply.”). See also Annex III to Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. at 21 (“The reason that subject imports were able to expand their market share in the 31≤ACN≤35 band is … because … foreign producers predominantly produce NBR grades in this ACN band … .”). 112 Zeon’s Prehearing Br. at 22. 113 See CR/PR at II‐8 and Appendix E; Attachment 5 to Exhibit 1 to Kumho’s Prehearing Br. (email from Zeon to a customer stating that, ***). See also *** US Purchasers’ Questionnaire Response at III‐ 12 (“***”); Tr. at 152 (Hart) (“no U.S. producer that can meet our needs in terms of … quantity”). 114 CR/PR at Table II‐8. 115 The number of firms (25 each) that ranked quality and availability as being among the top three factors influencing their purchasing decisions was greater than the number of firms (24) that 25 performance/product meets specifications most frequently as their first‐most important purchasing factor.116 Price was a factor that many responding purchasers cited as being very important to their purchasing decisions, although a greater number of purchasers cited availability, reliability, consistency, meets customer specifications, certification, and quality meets industry standards as very important purchasing factors.117 Most purchasers (22 of 38) reported that that they only sometimes purchase NBR at the lowest price, while eight reported that they never do so, and one reported that it always does so.118 NBR is primarily sold from inventory, with lead times averaging *** days for Zeon and *** days for importers of the subject product.119 Zeon sells domestically produced NBR on a ***.120 The company sells most of its domestically produced NBR ***, and sells the remainder through ***.121 A majority (10 of 13) of responding importers reported selling subject imports on a transaction‐by‐transaction basis, followed by contracts (six), other methods (four), and price lists (two).122 Most subject imports were sold on the spot market or through annual contracts, with most of the remainder sold through long‐term contracts and a smaller percentage sold through short‐term contracts.123 The main raw materials used to produce NBR are ACN and butadiene. Raw materials as a share of cost of goods sold (“COGS”) declined from *** percent in 2019 to *** percent in 2021.124 ACN and butadiene prices both fluctuated but increased overall during the POI.125 (…Continued) ranked price as being among the top three factors influencing their purchasing decisions. CR/PR at Table II‐8. 116 CR/PR at Table II‐8. 117 CR/PR at Table II‐9. 118 CR/PR at II‐19. 119 CR/PR at II‐20. 120 CR/PR at Table V‐2. 121 CR/PR at Table V‐3. 122 CR/PR at Table V‐2. 123 CR/PR at Table V‐3. 124 CR/PR at V‐1. 125 CR/PR at Figure V‐1. 26 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.”126 We find that the volume of cumulated subject imports was significant, both absolutely and relative to U.S. consumption and production, over the POI.127 Cumulated subject import volume decreased from 72.2 million pounds in 2019 to 54.1 million pounds in 2020, and then increased to 73.4 million pounds in 2021, a level 1.7 percent greater than in 2019.128 U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of cumulated subject imports decreased from 69.0 million pounds in 2019 to 53.2 million pounds in 2020, and then increased to 61.6 million pounds in 2021, a level 10.7 percent lower than in 2019.129 Cumulated subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption decreased from 62.5 percent in 2019 to 61.3 percent in 2020 and to 60.6 percent in 2021, a level 1.9 percentage points lower than in 2019.130 Cumulated subject imports relative to U.S. production increased from *** percent in 2019 to *** percent in 2020 and to *** percent in 2021, a level *** percentage points greater than in 2019.131 We conclude that the volume of cumulated subject imports is significant both in absolute terms and relative to U.S. consumption and production. For the reasons discussed below, however, we do not find that cumulated subject imports had either significant price effects or a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry. 126 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i). 127 Zeon has argued that the Commission should reduce the weight it affords to the post‐petition data in these investigations because, in its view, there was a “change in the import volume of {subject imports} due to the pendency of the investigation”, citing a “slight increase” in domestic producer market share from 2019 to 2021. See Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 32; 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(I). The record, however, shows that cumulated subject imports were roughly equivalent in volume in 2021 before and after the filing of the petitions, and, further, that cumulated subject import volume and U.S. shipments of cumulated subject imports increased overall from 2020 to 2021. CR/PR at Tables IV‐2, IV‐ 12, and IV‐13. While cumulated subject imports’ market share declined from 2020 to 2021, this was a continuation of a trend that predated the filing of the petitions, as cumulated subject imports’ market share also declined from 2019 to 2020. CR/PR at Table IV‐13. We therefore decline to accord reduced weight to the post‐petition period or more broadly to 2021 data. We address alleged post‐petition price effects in our price discussion below. 128 CR/PR at Table IV‐2. 129 CR/PR at Tables IV‐13 and C‐1. 130 CR/PR at Tables IV‐13 and C‐1. 131 CR/PR at Table IV‐2. 27 D. Price Effects of the Subject Imports Section 771(7)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act provides that, in evaluating the price effects of the 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.132 As addressed in section V.B.3., the record indicates that there is a moderate degree of substitutability between the domestic like product and subject imports, and that price is an important factor in purchasing decisions, among other important factors. The Commission collected quarterly pricing data from U.S. producers and importers for five NBR products shipped to unrelated customers during the POI.133 Zeon and nine importers (***) provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested products.134 Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for *** percent of Zeon’s U.S. shipments of domestically produced NBR, *** percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from France, *** percent of subject imports from Mexico, and *** subject imports from South Korea in 2021.135 The price comparison data show that cumulated subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 131 of 144 quarterly comparisons, or 91.0 percent of the time, at 132 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii). 133 CR/PR at V‐7. The five pricing products are: (1) Product 1‐‐ NBR with Acrylonitrile content greater than or equal to 31% (inclusive) and less than or equal to 35% (inclusive) and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, without any third monomer, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25‐45 kgs; (2) Product 2‐‐ NBR with Acrylonitrile content greater than or equal to 31% (inclusive) and less than or equal to 35% (inclusive) and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, without any third monomer, ground/particulate/pellet form, sold in 20‐30 kg bags; (3) Product 3‐‐ NBR with Acrylonitrile content greater than or equal to 26% (exclusive) and less than or equal to 31% (exclusive) or Acrylonitrile content greater than 35% (exclusive) and less than or equal to 41% (exclusive), and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, without any third monomer, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25‐45 kgs; (4) Product 4 ‐‐ NBR with Acrylonitrile content less than 26% (inclusive) or Acrylonitrile content greater than 41% (inclusive), and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, without any third monomer, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25‐45 kgs; and (5) Product 5 ‐‐ XNBR, any Acrylonitrile content, made from methacrylic acid, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25‐45 kgs. Id. 134 Not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters. CR/PR at V‐7. No importers reported pricing data for Product 2 from South Korea or Product 5 from Mexico or South Korea. Id. 135 CR/PR at V‐7‐8. Pricing data reported by Zeon also accounted for *** percent of U.S. shipments of nonsubject NBR from Japan in 2021. CR/PR at G‐3. 28 margins ranging between 0.9 and 67.3 percent, and averaging 34.6 percent.136 Cumulated subject imports oversold the domestic like product in 13 of 144 quarterly comparisons, or 9.0 percent of the time, at margins ranging between 3.0 and 31.0 percent, and averaging 14.7 percent.137 Quarters in which there was underselling accounted for 98.4 percent of the reported volume of cumulated subject import sales (*** pounds), and quarters in which there was overselling accounted for 1.6 percent of the reported volume of cumulated subject import sales (*** pounds).138 Although the price comparison data show predominant underselling by subject imports, Zeon did not lose market share or a significant volume of sales to subject imports as a result of their low prices. Notably, the domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption increased *** percentage points over the POI, from *** percent in 2019 to *** percent in 2021.139 Although 13 of 37 purchasers that responded to allegations of sales lost to subject imports reported that subject imports were priced lower than the domestic like product, only three of these 13 purchasers reported purchasing a total of *** pounds of subject imported 136 CR/PR at Table V‐10. 137 CR/PR at Table V‐11. 138 CR/PR Tables V‐10‐11. 139 CR/PR at Table C‐1. 29 NBR instead of domestic NBR due to price.140 These lost sales were equivalent to only *** percent of the *** pounds of the cumulated subject imports that responding purchasers reported purchasing during this period141 and *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption during 140 CR/PR at Table V‐15. The volume of confirmed lost sales was revised from *** pounds in the prehearing staff report to *** pounds in the final report. Compare Prehearing Report at Table V‐14 with CR/PR at Table V‐15. This is because ***. Zeon argues that the Commission should rely on the confirmed lost sales volume reflected in the prehearing staff report, *** million pounds, because there is in its view “meaningful evidence suggesting that the data {originally} provided by *** … was accurate.” See, e.g., Zeon’s Final Comments at 11. In this respect, Zeon contends, among other things, that it was a “significant supplier” to *** when the lost sales occurred, and that it has provided “contemporaneous communications” between itself and *** showing that price was the “principal driver” of *** purchasing decisions. Id. at 11‐12 and 12, n.55. We rely on the volume of confirmed lost sales in the final report, *** pounds, for the following reasons. First, the volume of subject imports that *** reported purchasing instead of the domestic like product due to price over the POI in its original questionnaire response, *** pounds, was nearly equal to the entire volume of subject imports that *** reported purchasing over the period (*** pounds). Compare *** Original Purchaser Questionnaire Response at II‐1 and II‐3. *** total volume of subject import purchases could not constitute sales that Zeon lost due to price because *** reported that ***. *** Original Purchaser Questionnaire Response at III‐14 and III‐22. Second, the original purchaser questionnaire response *** submitted was ***. ***, in the same original purchaser questionnaire response in which it reported purchasing subject imports over domestically produced NBR primarily due to price, also repeatedly indicated that other factors are more important than price in its purchasing decisions. See *** Original Purchaser Questionnaire at III‐23 (***) and V‐1 (***”). Following questions from the Commissioners at the hearing which ***, the Commission staff sought clarifications from *** concerning whether price was the primary factor for its decision to purchase subject imports rather than domestic NBR. In response to the inquiry, *** submitted a revised U.S. purchaser questionnaire response. See, e.g., Tr. at 54‐55 (Chair Kearns) (raising questions concerning the reported lost sales data – and requesting clarifications in the proprietary post‐hearing briefs); CR/PR at V‐27, n.28. The greater importance that *** places on non‐price factors at several points in its original questionnaire response is consistent with its revised questionnaire response indicating that it purchased subject imports instead of domestic NBR for non‐price reasons. Third, *** revised questionnaire response indicating that it purchased subject imports instead of domestic NBR for non‐price reasons is also consistent with its response in its original purchaser questionnaire that the decrease in its domestic NBR purchases was not due to price but rather a ***. *** Original Purchaser Questionnaire Response at II‐2. Likewise, it reported that the increase in its purchases from its main subject import source, ***, was also not based on price, but rather ***. Id. In sum, based on the evidence discussed above, we rely on *** revised questionnaire response indicating that it purchased subject imports instead of domestic NBR for reasons other than price. 141 Derived from CR/PR Tables V‐14‐15. 30 the POI.142 Other purchasers cited factors such as product availability, quality and consistency as their reasons for choosing subject imports.143 We have also examined price trends over the POI.144 Zeon’s sales prices fluctuated but increased overall for all five pricing products.145 Zeon’s sales prices for pricing products 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 increased by *** percent, *** percent, *** percent, *** percent, and *** percent, respectively, over the POI.146 The sales prices for imports from each subject country likewise increased overall over the POI for each pricing product for which data are available.147 We also observe that none of the 16 responding purchasers reported that Zeon had reduced its prices to compete with lower priced subject imports from France, Mexico, or South Korea.148 Zeon argues that there was “erosion” in the “conversion” component of its prices over the POI, and submitted its conversion prices for NBR with various ACN content levels in support.149 The submitted data however reflect no clear trend over the POI, but generally show that the conversion component of its prices increased overall from 2019 to 2021 for NBR products in all 142 Derived from CR/PR Tables IV‐13 and V‐15. We have also considered that these sales were equivalent to *** percent of Zeon’s *** pounds of commercial sales over the POI and to *** percent of Zeon’s domestic shipments over the POI. Derived from CR/PR Tables IV‐13, V‐15, and VI‐1. 143 CR/PR at Table V‐15. 144 Zeon has argued that the Commission should reduce the weight it accords to post‐petition data in these investigations because, in its view, there was a change in the price effects of subject imports after the filing of the petitions that was related to the pendency of the investigations. See Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 16‐17; Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. at 10‐11; Annex V to Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. at 33; 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(I). Contrary to Zeon’s argument, however, prices for both domestically produced NBR and subject imports generally began to increase prior to the filing of the petitions (filed on June 30, 2021), indicating that the filing of the petitions was not what prompted the upward trend in prices and that price increases after the filing of the petitions were continuations of preexisting trends. See CR/PR at Tables V‐4‐8. Moreover, the price increases from 2020 to 2021, when the petitions were filed, coincided with a 17.2 percent increase in apparent U.S. consumption, further corroborating that these increases were explained by factors other than the filing of the petitions. CR/PR at Table C‐1. 145 CR/PR at Tables V‐4‐8. 146 Derived from CR/PR Tables V‐4‐8. We also note that the average unit values (“AUVs”) of Zeon’s net sales increased overall by *** percent over the POI. CR/PR at Table C‐1. 147 CR/PR at Tables V‐4‐8. As previously discussed, no importers reported pricing data for Product 2 from South Korea or Product 5 from Mexico or South Korea. CR/PR at V‐7. 148 CR/PR at V‐27. Twenty purchasers replied that they did not know whether Zeon had reduced its prices to compete with subject imports. See purchasers’ questionnaire responses at II‐4a. 149 Zeon’s Posthearing Br. at 6‐7 and Exhibit I‐12. Zeon states that its prices in its annual and short‐term contracts comprise three sub‐components, one of which is the “conversion price,” which covers all Zeon’s non‐monomer costs (fixed costs, which for Zeon includes labor, and non‐monomer raw material costs) and includes a “built‐in per unit profit margin.” Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 15; Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. at 6‐7, Annex I to Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. at 5. 31 ACN content ranges.150 In light of the above, we do not find that cumulated subject imports depressed prices for the domestic like product to a significant degree.151 Nor do we find that cumulated subject imports prevented price increases which 150 CR/PR at Table V‐13. Table V‐13 reflects Zeon’s reported conversion prices as it covers both non‐monomer costs plus profit. See Zeon’s Posthearing Br. at 6‐7, Exhibit I‐12. Zeon explains that its reported conversion prices by ACN levels are ***. Id. at Exhibit I‐12, notes. 151 We are unpersuaded by Zeon’s argument that its purchaser communications and interaction reports demonstrate that subject imports depressed prices for Zeon’s domestically produced NBR to a significant degree. See Annex I to Zeon’s Posthearing Br. at 4‐7 and exhibits I‐2‐9 to Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. Many of these communications and interaction reports indicate that Zeon did not reduce its prices. For example, in a communication with purchaser ***, Zeon in response to pricing pressure states that *** of a domestically produced grade. See Exhibit I‐4 to Zeon’s Posthearing Br. Likewise, in an interaction report regarding talks with purchaser ***, Zeon both notes *** and states that ***. See Exhibit I‐2 to Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. Furthermore, several of these communications and reports indicate that the Zeon NBR products being discussed were not domestically produced, but were rather nonsubject NBR from Japan. For example, in its communication with purchaser ***, Zeon discusses ***, a product it explicitly states ***.” See Exhibit I‐5 to Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. Likewise, in its communication with purchaser *** it discusses ***, which, as previously discussed, Zeon states is produced by its parent company in Japan. See Annex III to Zeon’s Posthearing Br. at 21 and Exhibit I‐7. Finally, to the extent that any of these purchaser communications and interaction reports show that Zeon reduced its prices to certain customers, this evidence does not outweigh other information on the record showing that domestic prices were not depressed to a significant degree, including the increase in domestic prices for all five pricing products over the POI, the increase in Zeon’s conversion prices over the POI, the increase in the AUV of Zeon’s U.S. shipments of domestic NBR, and the absence of any responding purchasers reporting that Zeon reduced its prices to compete with subject imports. 32 otherwise would have occurred to a significant degree.152 153 Zeon’s COGS‐to‐net sales ratio declined overall during the POI, increasing from *** percent in 2019 to *** percent in 2020, 152 We decline Zeon’s invitation to base our analysis on what essentially amounts to an expansion of the POI and examine the domestic industry’s COGS‐to‐net sales ratio from 2018 to 2021. See Zeon’s Posthearing Br. at 12. Zeon denies that it is making such a request, and that it is only asking that the Commission consider Zeon’s performance in 2018 to “contextualize both the depth and the persistent state of material injury that afflicted the U.S. industry from 2019 – 2021.” See Zeon’s Posthearing Br. at 12. To the extent that Zeon is requesting that we expand the POI, we observe that Zeon did not request that the final phase POI be expanded to include 2018 and did not provide a justification for the Commission departing from its traditional three‐year period of investigation. Further, because in the preliminary phase of the investigations the Commission relied on official import statistics to calculate subject import volume and market share, while it relied on importer questionnaire data for the same data points in the final phase investigations, data on subject import volume and market share from the preliminary phase (which includes 2018 data) and from the final phase are not comparable. To the extent that Zeon only asks the Commission to consider its 2018 financial data, in particular its COGS‐to‐net sales ratio, as reported in the preliminary phase as context for evaluating its COGS‐to‐net sales ratio over the POI, we have considered that, but do not find it persuasive in establishing that subject imports suppressed domestic producer prices to a significant degree. In addition to the lack of other evidence supporting Zeon’s price suppression argument, including the fact that its COGS‐to‐net sales ratio improved from 2019‐2021, 2018 was a time of rising monomer costs and as Zeon itself explained, during times of rising monomer costs, its COGS‐to‐net sales ratio is expected to improve. Preliminary Staff Report at Figure V‐1; Zeon Pre‐Hearing Br. at 15. Zeon does not explain the extent to which its 2018 COGS‐to‐net sales ratio reflected, for example, rising monomer costs or other factors, for example, the presence of subject imports or their relative pricing in the market. As such, Zeon itself fails to provide context supporting its contention that the Commission should rely on its 2018 COG‐to‐net sales ratio to find that subject imports suppressed domestic producer prices during the POI. As discussed above, we have reviewed the contemporaneous emails and documentation Zeon submitted in support of its assertion that it was repeatedly asked to lower its base price, and do not find they demonstrate that Zeon reduced its prices due to subject import pricing to a significant degree. 153 Chairman Johanson also declines Zeon’s invitation to base the analysis on what essentially amounts to an expansion of the POI and examine the domestic industry’s COGS‐to‐net‐sales ratio from 2018 to 2021. See Zeon’s Posthearing Br. at 12. In its comments on the draft questionnaires, Zeon did not request that the final phase POI be expanded to include 2018, and the 2018 data collected in the preliminary phase of the investigations is not fully compatible with the 2019‐2021 data collected in the final phase of the investigations. Furthermore, Zeon fails to explain how the Commission’s reliance on the traditional three‐year POI for which data were collected would undermine its analysis of subject import volume, price effects, and impact, other than to claim that expanding the POI to include 2018 would “contextualize both the depth and the persistent state of material injury that afflicted the U.S. industry from 2019 – 2021.” See Zeon’s Posthearing Br. at 12. 33 before declining to *** percent in 2021, a level *** percentage points below its 2019 level.154 The decline in this ratio indicates that Zeon was successful in increasing its net sales AUVs by a greater amount than the increase in its unit COGS over the POI.155 156 154 CR/PR at Table VI‐1. Zeon argued for the first time in its Posthearing Brief, filed June 8, 2022, that the Commission should use alternative financial data in its injury analysis, contending that the financial results Zeon had reported in its questionnaire response, and certified as accurate to the Commission (the “reported financial results”), were in fact “skewed” due to a finished goods inventory revaluation adjustment, and that removing this adjustment “allows for a more accurate illustration of Zeon’s core business profitability.” See Annex II to Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. at 12‐13; see also June 16, 2022 Verification Report of Jennifer Brinckhaus, financial analyst. Zeon provided in its Posthearing Brief, and during verification of its questionnaire response, alternative financial results that remove this adjustment (the “alternative financial results”). See Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. at 15; Annex II to Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. at 13; Staff Verification Report Worksheet 1. Based on its alternative financial results, Zeon argues that it experienced significant price suppression over the POI. See Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. at 13‐15; Zeon’s Final Comments at 7. We rely on Zeon’s reported financial results and not its alternative financial results for the following reasons. First, the reported financial results were certified as accurate by a Zeon official and verified as accurate by Commission staff, using Zeon’s audited financial records. Zeon has never retracted its certification of the accuracy of its reported financial results. Second, the lateness of Zeon’s request– first made in its posthearing brief – that the Commission substitute the alternative financial results for the financial results reported in its questionnaire response and included in the prehearing staff report prejudiced the ability of respondents to adequately respond to Zeon’s new argument. At that point of the investigations, respondents could only respond to the argument in their final comments, which could not contain new factual information. See Acrylonitrile‐Butadiene Rubber (NBR) From France, Mexico, and South Korea; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Anti‐Dumping Duty Investigations, 87 Fed. Reg. 11481 (Mar. 1, 2022). Zeon could have reported its alternative financial results in an addendum to its March 31, 2022 questionnaire response, and argued they should be relied upon, if it determined that its reported financial results were misleading, but did not do so. Third, contrary to Zeon’s claim that Commission staff expressed a preference for its alternative financial results, Zeon’s Final Comments at 4‐5, the final report notes that Commission staff “***.” CR/PR at VI‐5, n.6. Commission staff also noted, however, that those results “***” Id. In other words, Commission staff explained that ***. Given this, the record does not support Zeon’s contention that its adjusted financial results are a more accurate measure of its financial performance than its reported financial results, which tie to the company’s audited financial statements, were certified as accurate by a Zeon official, and were verified by Commission staff. In sum, we rely on Zeon’s reported financial results and not its alternative financial results. 155 Specifically, between 2019 and 2021, Zeon’s net sales AUVs increased by $***, while its unit COGS increased by only $***. Derived from CR/PR Table C‐1. 156 Zeon asserts that it was repeatedly asked throughout the reporting period to lower the base price it charged its customers – even as its factory fixed and variable costs increased due to lower overall production and higher labor costs. Annex I to Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. at 5; Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 35. Zeon provides no citation to its base (conversion) prices nor its factory fixed or variable costs to support its assertion that its base price was lowering as its costs were increasing. Zeon includes in 34 In sum, we find that cumulated subject imports did not have significant price effects on the domestic like product during the POI. E. Impact of the Subject Imports157 Section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act provides that examining the impact of subject imports, the Commission “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on the state of the industry.”158 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 debts, research and development (“R&D”), and factors affecting domestic prices. No (…Continued) Exhibit I‐12 of its posthearing brief in response to Commissioner questions a list of its quarterly conversion prices. Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. at Exhibit I‐12. Zeon provides no discussion or data as to how the conversion prices it provided compare to conversion costs nor does it cite this exhibit anywhere in its posthearing brief. As discussed above, we have reviewed the contemporaneous emails and documentation Zeon submitted in support of its assertion that it was repeatedly asked to lower its base price, and do not find they demonstrate that Zeon reduced its prices due to subject import pricing. Further, Zeon fails to support its assertion with data on the record, for example, the conversion price data it included in Exhibit I‐12 of its posthearing brief and how it views that data relating to its conversion costs and its arguments of price suppression. 157 The statute instructs the Commission to consider the “magnitude of the dumping margin” in an antidumping proceeding as part of its consideration of the impact of imports. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii)(V). In its final determinations of sales at less value, Commerce found dumping margins of 81.86 percent for NBR from France, 18.45 percent for NBR from Mexico, and 18.80 percent–35.31 percent for NBR from South Korea. See Acrylonitrile‐Butadiene Rubber from France: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, 87 Fed. Reg. 37833 (Jun. 24, 2022); Acrylonitrile‐Butadiene Rubber from the Republic of Korea: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, 87 Fed. Reg. 37825 (Jun. 24, 2022); and Acrylonitrile‐ Butadiene Rubber from Mexico: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 87 Fed. Reg. 37829 (Jun. 24, 2022). We take into account in our analysis the fact that Commerce has made final findings that all subject merchandise from France, Mexico, and South Korea is dumped. In addition to this consideration, our impact analysis has considered other factors affecting domestic prices as reviewed above. 158 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851 and 885 (“In material injury determinations, the Commission considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they also may demonstrate that an industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.”). 35 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.”159 Although most measures of Zeon’s performance weakened from 2019 to 2020, these declines coincided with a 21.4 percent decline in apparent U.S. consumption generally due to the COVID‐19 pandemic.160 As slowdowns resulting from the pandemic abated in 2021, and apparent U.S. consumption increased 17.2 percent, almost all measures of Zeon’s performance recovered to levels at, near, or above those in 2019. Moreover, other measures of Zeon’s performance remained stable or increased during the POI, notwithstanding the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on apparent U.S. consumption. Zeon’s capacity remained stable at *** pounds in each year of the POI. Its production decreased from *** pounds in 2019 to *** pounds in 2020, before increasing to *** pounds in 2021. Zeon’s capacity utilization followed the same trend as its production, declining from *** percent in 2019 to *** percent in 2020, and then increasing to *** percent in 2021.161 Zeon’s U.S. shipments followed a similar trend as its production. Its U.S. shipments declined from *** pounds in 2019 to *** pounds in 2020, and then increased to *** pounds in 2021. Zeon’s share of apparent U.S. consumption increased in every year of the POI, from *** percent in 2019 to *** percent in 2020 and to *** percent in 2021.162 Zeon’s end‐of‐period inventories decreased from 2019 to 2021.163 Its end‐of‐period inventories as a share of total shipments increased from 2019 to 2020, and then significantly decreased from 2020 to 2021, as it drew down inventories that had built up during the height of the COVID‐19 pandemic.164 Zeon’s employment‐related indicators were relatively stable throughout the POI, notwithstanding the effects of the pandemic. The company had *** number of production related workers (“PRWs”) in 2021 as in 2019.165 While Zeon’s hours worked declined over the 159 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). This provision was amended by the Trade Preferences Extension Act (“TPEA”) of 2015, Pub. L. 114‐27. 160 CR/PR at Table C‐1. Zeon has acknowledged that the COVID‐19 pandemic reduced demand for NBR in 2020. Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 19; Zeon’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response at II‐ 2b. 161 CR/PR at Table III‐4. 162 CR/PR at Table IV‐13. 163 CR/PR at Table III‐8. Zeon’s end‐of‐period inventories decreased from *** pounds in 2019 to *** pounds in 2020 and to *** pounds in 2021. Id. 164 CR/PR at Table III‐8. Zeon’s end‐of‐period inventories as a share of total shipments increased from *** percent in 2019 to *** percent in 2020, before decreasing to *** percent in 2021. Id. 165 Zeon’s employment was *** PRWs in 2019, *** PRWs in 2020, and *** PRWs in 2021. CR/PR at Table III‐9. 36 POI, its wages paid increased irregularly, and its hourly wages increased in every year of the period.166 Zeon’s productivity decreased from 2019 to 2020, and then increased from 2020 to 2021.167 All measures of Zeon’s financial performance declined from 2019 to 2020, and then increased from 2020 to 2021 to levels exceeding those in 2019.168 Zeon’s net sales value declined from $*** in 2019 to $*** in 2020, and then increased to $*** in 2021.169 Its gross profits declined from $*** in 2019 to $*** in 2020, and then increased to $*** in 2021.170 Zeon’s operating income declined from $*** in 2019 to $*** in 2020, and then increased to $*** in 2021.171 Its operating income margin declined from *** percent in 2019 to *** percent in 2020, and then increased to *** percent in 2021.172 Zeon’s capital expenditures and R&D expenses declined irregularly during the POI.173 Its return on assets declined from *** percent in 2019 to *** percent in 2020, and then increased to *** percent in 2021.174 The domestic industry also reported actual and anticipated negative effects on investment, growth, and development due to subject imports.175 The record in the final phase of the investigations does not indicate that subject imports had a significant impact on Zeon during the POI. We have found that subject imports, though significant in terms of absolute volume and relative to consumption and production, did not cause the domestic industry to lose a significant volume of sales, prevent the domestic industry 166 CR/PR at Table III‐9. Zeon’s total hours worked decreased from *** hours in 2019 to *** hours in 2020 and to *** hours in 2021; its wages paid were $*** in 2019, $*** in 2020, and $*** in 2021; its hourly wages paid to PRWs increased from $*** in 2019 to $*** in 2020 and to $*** in 2021. Id. 167 CR/PR at Table III‐9. Zeon’s productivity declined from *** pounds per hour in 2019 to *** pounds per hour in 2020, and then increased to *** pounds per hour in 2021. Id. 168 For reasons previously discussed, we do not credit Zeon’s alternative financial results, which reflect gross profits, operating incomes, and net incomes different from those reflected in Zeon’s reported financial results. See CR/PR at VI‐7, nn.14‐15 and VI‐8, n.18. 169 CR/PR at Table VI‐1. 170 CR/PR at Table VI‐1. 171 CR/PR at Table VI‐1. 172 CR/PR at Table VI‐1. 173 CR/PR at Table VI‐4. Its capital expenditures increased from $*** in 2019 to $*** in 2020, and then decreased to $*** in 2021; its R&D expenses decreased from $*** in 2019 to $*** in 2020, and then increased to $*** in 2021. Id. 174 CR/PR at Table VI‐4. 175 CR/PR at Tables VI‐6‐7. The negative effects that Zeon references include, among other things, ***. CR/PR at Table VI‐7. As discussed in section V.D. above, the record does not indicate that Zeon lost a significant volume of sales due to subject import pricing, or that subject imports depressed prices for the domestic like product to a significant degree. 37 from increasing its market share in every year of the POI, or have adverse price effects. Nor is there a clear correlation between trends in the volume and market share of subject imports and Zeon’s performance during the POI. Zeon’s performance generally declined from 2019 to 2020 despite a decline in subject import volume and market share during this period, and markedly improved from 2020 to 2021 despite an increase in subject import volume and predominant underselling during this period.176 Indeed, subject imports did not prevent Zeon from improving its financial performance in 2021 to levels well above those in 2019.177 Zeon’s performance during the POI correlated not with subject imports but with trends in apparent U.S. consumption, weakening when the COVID‐19 pandemic caused apparent U.S. consumption to decline from 2019 to 2020 and then strengthening when apparent U.S. consumption increased from 2020 to 2021, as lockdowns ended.178 For the reasons discussed above, we find that subject imports did not have a significant impact on the domestic industry.179 Accordingly, we find that an industry in the United States is not materially injured by reason of subject imports of NBR from France, Mexico, and South Korea. VI. No Threat of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports A. Legal Standard Section 771(7)(F) of the Tariff Act directs the Commission to determine whether the U.S. industry is threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports by analyzing 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.”180 The Commission may not make such a determination “on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition,” and considers the threat factors “as a whole” in making its determination whether dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether material 176 CR/PR at Tables IV‐2, IV‐13, III‐4, III‐7, III‐9, and VI‐1. 177 CR/PR at Table VI‐1. 178 CR/PR at Tables IV‐2, IV‐13, III‐4, III‐7, III‐9, and VI‐1. See also Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 19, Arlanxeo’s Prehearing Br. at 11, and Kumho’s Prehearing Br. at 3 for parties’ general agreement on the impact of COVID‐19 on apparent U.S. consumption over the POI. 179 The limits on the substitutability between subject imports and domestically produced NBR further corroborate that these imports did not have a significant impact on the domestic industry during the POI. See Section V.B.3. (discussing the Commission’s finding of a moderate degree of substitutability between subject imports and the domestic like product). 180 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii). 38 injury by reason of subject imports would occur unless an order is issued.181 In making our determination, we consider all statutory threat factors that are relevant to these investigations.182 B. Cumulation for Threat Under section 771(7)(H) of the Tariff Act, the Commission may “to the extent practicable” cumulatively assess the volume and price effects of subject imports from all countries as to which petitions were filed on the same day if the requirements for cumulation in the material injury context are satisfied.183 No party addresses cumulation for purposes of the Commission’s threat analysis. 181 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii). 182 These factors are as follows: (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, (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, (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). 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i). To organize our analysis, we discuss the applicable statutory threat factors using the same volume/price/impact framework that applies to our material injury analysis. Statutory threat factors (I), (II), (III), (V), and (VI) are discussed in the analysis of subject import volume. Statutory threat factor (IV) is discussed in the analysis of subject import price effects. Statutory factors (VIII) and (IX) are discussed in the analysis of impact. Statutory factor (VII) concerning agricultural products is inapplicable to this investigation. 183 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(H). 39 In section IV.B. above, we found a reasonable overlap of competition between and among subject imports from France, Mexico, and South Korea and the domestic like product. There is no information or argument on the record indicating that the reasonable overlap we have found will change in the imminent future. We also find no differences in the likely conditions of competition pertaining to subject imports from France, Mexico, and South Korea in the imminent future that would warrant the consideration of subject imports from any country or countries separately for purposes of our threat analysis. Although subject imports from Mexico declined over the POI while subject imports from France and South Korea increased, the volume of subject imports from all three sources remained significant throughout the POI.184 Moreover, the pricing data indicate that subject imports from France, Mexico, and South Korea generally did not have divergent trends or underselling patterns over the POI.185 Based on the likely reasonable overlap of competition between subject imports and the domestic like product, and the absence of any likely differences in the conditions of competition between imports from different subject countries in the imminent future, we exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from France, Mexico, and South Korea for purposes of our threat analysis. 184 CR/PR at Table IV‐2. 185 CR/PR at Tables V‐4‐8 and V‐10‐11. 40 C. Analysis 1. Likely Volume In section V.C. above, we found the volume of cumulated subject imports to be significant during the POI, both absolutely and relative to consumption and production in the United States. However, both U.S. shipments of subject imports and their market share declined during the POI, and subject import volume increased by only 1.7 percent.186 There is no information on the record indicating that these trends are likely to change in the imminent future, or that a significant increase in subject import volume is likely absent relief. The record indicates that subject producers are unlikely to substantially increase their exports to the United States in the imminent future. The capacity of the subject industries declined over the POI, and is not projected to increase in 2022 or 2023.187 188 Moreover, the capacity utilization rate of the subject industries increased from *** percent in 2019 to a period high of *** percent in 2021, and is projected to increase irregularly to *** percent in 2023.189 Although subject producers possessed excess capacity of *** pounds in 2021, equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption that year, the even larger volume of excess capacity possessed by subject producers in 2019 and 2020 coincided with a 25.1 percent decline in their exports to the United States during the period, in line with the decline in apparent U.S. consumption during the period.190 There is no evidence on the record that subject producers will behave any differently in the imminent future, or use their excess capacity to significantly increase their exports to the U.S. market. The end‐of‐period inventories of the subject industries decreased over the POI, and are projected to increase only slightly in 2022 and 2023 relative to 2021, to levels still well below 186 CR/PR at Tables IV‐2 and IV‐13. 187 CR/PR at Table VII‐17. Combined capacity is projected to remain at *** pounds In both 2022 and 2023, the same level as in 2021. Id. 188 While Zeon argues that the capacity of the subject industries in France and Mexico will imminently increase, Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 41‐42, responding producers in those countries project no such increase. CR/PR at Tables VII‐3 and VII‐10. Zeon also argues that the Commission should draw an adverse inference against Korean producer *** due to its failure to submit a foreign producer’s questionnaire and assume that the capacity of the South Korean industry is likely to increase. Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 41. We decline to draw such an inference in the absence of any information on the record indicating that the capacity of the South Korean industry is likely to increase. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b) (requiring that adverse inferences be based on data included in the record). 189 CR/PR at Table VII‐17. Capacity utilization is project to stay roughly the same in 2022 as in 2021, at *** percent, and to increase in 2023 to *** percent. Id. 190 CR/PR at Tables IV‐2, IV‐13, and VII‐17. 41 those in 2019.191 While U.S. importers’ inventories of cumulated subject imports increased over the POI by 90.2 percent,192 the record indicates that this increase occurred as subject importers chose to maintain additional inventories in the United States due to supply chain issues associated with the COVID‐19 pandemic.193 Thus, subject importers are likely to use these inventories to maintain their presence in the U.S. market, not increase it, and the inventories are likely to decline as supply chain issues are resolved. Indeed, importers reported arranging a relatively small volume of cumulated subject imports in 2022, *** pounds, and reported no arranged imports of subject merchandise at all in either the third or fourth quarter of that year.194 Moreover, only *** responding subject producers reported an ability to shift production from out‐of‐scope products to in‐scope NBR.195 While producers in *** subject industries reported producing out‐of‐scope products on the same equipment they use to make in‐scope NBR, their out‐of‐scope production on this equipment accounted for a small share of total production on the equipment.196 As the production of in‐scope NBR already accounts for the large majority of the production by these subject industries, subject producers have a limited ability to increase their production of NBR through product shifting. Subject producers also lack the incentive to significantly increase their exports to the U.S. market in the imminent future. The combined industries’ exports to the United States are 191 CR/PR at Table VII‐17. The combined industries’ end‐of‐period inventories are projected to be *** pounds in 2022 and *** pounds in 2023, levels below the *** pounds of end‐of‐period inventories the combined industries reported in 2019. Id. 192 CR/PR at Tables VII‐18 and C‐1. U.S. importers’ inventories of cumulated subject imports decreased from 9.5 million pounds in 2019 to 8.6 million pounds in 2020 and increased to 18.2 million pounds in 2021. Id. 193 CR/PR at VII‐25, n.27. 194 CR/PR at Table VII‐19. These arranged imports for 2022 are equivalent to *** percent of shipments of cumulated subject imports in 2021. CR/PR at Tables VII‐19 and C‐1. We also note that the total volume of U.S. importers’ arranged imports of subject NBR in 2022, *** pounds, is smaller than the total volume of U.S. importers’ arranged imports of nonsubject NBR that year, *** pounds. CR/PR at Table VII‐19. 195 CR/PR at Table II‐3. 196 In the NBR industry in France, out‐of‐scope production accounted for *** percent of total production on the same equipment used to produce in‐scope NBR in 2019, *** percent in 2020, and *** percent in 2021. CR/PR at Table VII‐6. In the NBR industry in Mexico, out‐of‐scope production accounted for *** percent of total production on the same equipment used to produce in‐scope NBR in 2019, *** percent in 2020, and *** percent in 2021. CR/PR at Table VII‐12. 42 projected to significantly decrease in 2022 and 2023 relative to 2021,197 whereas their shipments to other export markets, as well as within their home markets, are projected to increase.198 These projections are consistent with the relatively higher prices available in certain of the subject producers’ home and third country markets relative to the U.S. market.199 Finally, while we recognize that the United States was an important export market for each of the subject industries during the POI,200 and that there are antidumping measures on NBR from France and South Korea in place in third countries,201 we note that these factors did not result in a significant increase in subject import volume during the POI, but rather coincided with declining subject import U.S. shipments and market share. For all the foregoing reasons, we find that cumulated subject import volume is not likely to increase significantly in the imminent future. 2. Likely Price Effects In section V.D. above, we found that, although the pricing data show that subject imports predominantly undersold the domestic like product, Zeon did not lose a significant volume of sales or any market share to subject imports on the basis of price. We also found 197 The combined industries’ exports to the United States are projected to decrease from *** pounds in 2021 to *** pounds in 2022, increasing somewhat to *** in 2023. CR/PR at Table VII‐17. The combined industries’ exports to the United States as a share of their total shipments are projected to decrease from *** percent in 2021 to *** percent in 2022 and to *** percent in 2023. Id. 198 The combined industries’ exports to non‐U.S. markets are projected to increase from *** pounds in 2021 to *** pounds in 2022 and to *** pounds in 2023. CR/PR at Table VII‐17. The combined industries’ home market shipments are projected to increase from *** pounds in 2021 to *** pounds in 2022 and to *** in 2023. Id. The combined industries’ exports to third country markets as a share of their total shipments are projected to increase from *** percent in 2021 to *** percent in 2022 and to *** percent in 2023. Id. The combined industries’ shipments within their home markets as a share of their total shipments are projected to increase from *** in 2021 to *** percent in 2022, returning to *** percent in 2023. Id. 199 For products within HS subheading 4002.59 (which primarily includes NBR) from France, eight export markets (Germany, China, Turkey, Japan, Taiwan, Italy, Spain, and Sweden) had higher AUVs than the United States in 2021. CR/PR at Table VII‐7. For products within HS subheading 4002.59 from Mexico, four export markets (Spain, Brazil, Colombia, and Canada) had higher AUVs than the United States in 2021. CR/PR at Table VII‐13. For products within HS subheading 4002.59 from South Korea, seven export markets (India, Vietnam, Italy, Turkey, Indonesia, Thailand, and Germany) had higher AUVs than the United States in 2021. CR/PR at Table VII‐16. 200 CR/PR at Tables VII‐7, VII‐13, and VII‐16. 201 NBR from South Korea became subject to antidumping duties in Brazil and China in 2018. NBR from South Korea has been subject to antidumping duties in India since the late 1990s. NBR from France became subject to antidumping duties in Brazil in 2018. CR/PR at VII‐28. 43 that cumulated subject imports neither depressed nor suppressed prices for the domestic like product during the POI. The record does not indicate that subject import underselling is likely to intensify. Nor is there any evidence of a likely imminent change in conditions of competition that would result in cumulated subject imports having price depressive or suppressive effects on domestic industry prices. We consequently find that cumulated subject imports are not likely to enter at prices that would be likely to have significant depressing or suppressing effects on domestic prices, or that would be likely to increase demand for further subject imports in the imminent future. 3. Likely Impact In section V.E. above, we found that Zeon’s performance over the POI correlated with changes in apparent U.S. consumption rather than with subject imports, and that subject imports had not prevented Zeon from capitalizing on the significant increase in apparent U.S. consumption between 2020 and 2021, and improving its financial performance to the highest levels of the period. We have also found that cumulated subject import volumes are not likely to increase significantly in the imminent future and that subject imports are not likely to have significant price effects. Given this, and projected growth in NBR demand that Zeon is well‐ positioned to benefit from, we find that cumulated subject imports will not likely have a significant impact on the domestic industry in the imminent future. VII. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, we determine that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of NBR from France, Mexico, and South Korea found by Commerce to be sold in the United States at less than fair value. I-1 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 Zeon Chemicals L.P. and Zeon GP, LLC (collectively “Zeon”), Louisville, Kentucky, on June 30, 2021, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (“NBR”)1 from France, Mexico, and South Korea. Table I-1 presents information relating to the background of these investigations.2 3 Table I-1 NBR: Information relating to the background and schedule of this proceeding Effective date Action June 30, 2021 Petitions filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of the Commission's investigations (86 FR 35825, July 7, 2021) July 20, 2021 Commerce’s notice of initiation (86 FR 40192, July 27, 2021) August 16, 2021 Commission’s preliminary determinations (86 FR 46885, August 20, 2021) February 2, 2022 Commerce’s preliminary determinations (France: 87 FR 5787, Mexico: 87 FR 5790, and South Korea: 87 FR 5796, February 2, 2022); scheduling of final phase of Commission investigations (87 FR 11481, March 1, 2022) June 1, 2022 Commission’s hearing June 24, 2022 Commerce’s final determinations (France: 87 FR 37833, Mexico: 87 FR 37829, and South Korea: 87 FR 37825, June 24, 2022) July 11, 2022 Commission’s vote August 1, 2022 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 Appendix B presents the witnesses that appeared at the Commission’s hearing. 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, 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 NBR is a component in products used in the oil and gas, construction, industrial equipment, and automotive industries that is known for its oil resistance. The only known U.S. producer of NBR is Zeon. Leading producers of NBR outside the United States include *** of France, *** of Mexico, and *** of South Korea. The leading U.S. importer of NBR from France is ***, the leading U.S. importer of NBR from Mexico is ***, and the leading U.S. importers of NBR from South Korea are ***. The leading importers of NBR from nonsubject countries (primarily ***) are ***. U.S. purchasers of NBR include firms that are distributors, mixers, and end users in a variety of industries, including the automotive and oil and gas industries; leading purchasers include *** 5 Amended by PL 114-27 (as signed, June 29, 2015), Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. I-4 ***. Apparent U.S. consumption of NBR totaled approximately 101.7 million pounds ($165.1 million) in 2021. The U.S. producer’s U.S. shipments of NBR totaled *** pounds ($***) in 2021 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of imports from subject sources totaled 61.6 million pounds ($89.8 million) in 2021 and accounted for 60.6 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 54.4 percent by value. U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of imports from nonsubject sources totaled *** pounds ($***) in 2021 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. Summary data and data sources A summary of data collected in these investigations is presented in appendix C, table C- 1. U.S. industry data are based on the questionnaire responses of one firm that accounted for 100 percent of U.S. production of NBR during 2021. U.S. imports are based on official U.S. import statistics and the questionnaire responses of 18 companies, representing an estimated *** percent of U.S. imports from France, *** U.S. imports from Mexico, *** percent of U.S. imports from South Korea, *** percent of U.S. imports from the largest nonsubject source Japan and *** percent of U.S. imports from all other nonsubject sources. I-5 Previous and related investigations NBR has been the subject of two prior antidumping duty investigations in the United States; one on imports from Japan, for which the order was revoked in October 1999, and the other on imports from South Korea, which was terminated in July 1999. In June 1988, the Commission determined that the NBR industry in the United States was being materially injured by reason of imports of NBR from Japan.6 On June 16, 1988, Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on NBR from Japan.7 In April 1999, the Commission instituted a five-year review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on NBR from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury and determined in July 1999 that it would conduct an expedited review.8 In September 1999, the Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on NBR from Japan would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.9 In October 1999, Commerce revoked the antidumping duty order on NBR from Japan.10 In May 1999, the Commission instituted an antidumping duty investigation to determine whether an industry in the United States was materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV imports of NBR from South Korea.11 In July 1999, the Commission determined that there was no reasonable indication that an industry in the United States was materially injured or threatened with material injury, or that the establishment of an industry in the United States was materially retarded, by reason of imports of NBR from South Korea.12 6 Nitrile Rubber from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-384 (Final), USITC Publication 2090, June 1988, p. 1. 7 53 FR 22553, June 16, 1988. 8 64 FR 15788, April 1, 1999 and 64 FR 38475, July 16, 1999. 9 64 FR 51557, September 23, 1999. 10 64 FR 53999, October 5, 1999. 11 Nitrile Rubber from Korea, Inv. No. 731-TA-827 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 3210, July 1999, p. 1. 12 Nitrile Rubber from Korea, Inv. No. 731-TA-827 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 3210, July 1999, p. 1, and 64 FR 38691, July 19, 1999. I-6 Nature and extent of sales at LTFV Commerce published notices in the Federal Register of its preliminary determinations on February 2, 2022,13 and its final determinations on June 24, 2022,14 of sales at LTFV with respect to imports from France, Mexico, and South Korea. Tables I-2, I-3, and I-4 present Commerce’s dumping margins with respect to imports of NBR from France, Mexico, and South Korea. Table I-2 NBR: Commerce’s weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports from France Exporter Producer Preliminary dumping margin (percent) Final dumping margin (percent) Arlanxeo Emulsion Rubber France S.A.S. Arlanxeo Emulsion Rubber France S.A.S. 164.13 81.86 All others 164.13 81.86 Source: 87 FR 5787, February 2, 2022, and 87 FR 37833, June 24, 2022. Table I-3 NBR: Commerce’s weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports from Mexico Exporter Producer Preliminary dumping margin (percent) Final dumping margin (percent) Industrias Negromex S.A. de C.V. Industrias Negromex S.A. de C.V. 18.43 18.45 All others 18.43 18.45 Source: 87 FR 5790, February 2, 2022, and 87 FR 37829, June 24, 2022. Table I-4 NBR: Commerce’s weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports from South Korea Exporter Producer Preliminary dumping margin (percent) Final dumping margin (percent) Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. 19.20 18.80 LG Chemical, Ltd. LG Chemical, Ltd. 35.21 35.21 All others 19.20 18.8 Source: 87 FR 5796, February 2, 2022, and 87 FR 37825, June 24, 2022. 13 87 FR 5787, 87 FR 5790, and 87 FR 5796, February 2, 2022. 14 87 FR 37833, 87 FR 37829, and 87 FR 37825, June 24, 2022. I-7 The subject merchandise Commerce’s scope In the current proceeding, Commerce has defined the scope as follows:15 The product covered by these investigations is commonly referred to as acrylonitrile butadiene rubber or nitrile rubber (AB Rubber). AB Rubber is a synthetic rubber produced by the emulsion polymerization of butadiene and acrylonitrile with or without the incorporation of a third component selected from methacrylic acid or isoprene. AB Rubber products that include a third component that is not methacrylic acid or isoprene are not covered by the scope. This scope covers AB Rubber in solid or non- aqueous liquid form. The scope also includes carboxylated AB Rubber. Excluded from the scope of these investigations is AB Rubber in latex form (commonly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 4002.51.0000). Latex AB Rubber is commonly either (a) acrylonitrile/butadiene polymer in latex form or (b) acrylonitrile/butadiene/methacrylic acid polymer in latex form. The broader definition of latex refers to a water emulsion of a synthetic rubber obtained by polymerization. Also excluded from the scope of these investigations is: (a) AB Rubber containing additives incorporated during the compounding, mixing, molding, or use of AB Rubber comprising greater than twenty percent of the total weight of the product. Additives would include, but are not limited to, fillers (e.g. carbon black, silica, clay); reinforcement agents (e.g. fibers, carbon black, silica); vulcanization agents (e.g. sulfur, sulfur complexes, peroxide); or AB Rubber containing extension oils making up greater than forty percent of the total weight of the product. Such products would be generally classified under HTSUS subheading 4005; (b) AB Rubber containing polyvinyl chloride (PVC) making up greater than twenty percent of total weight of the product; (c) hydrogenated AB Rubber (commonly referred to as HNBR) produced by subsequent dissolution and hydrogenation of AB Rubber; (d) reactive liquid polymers containing acrylonitrile and butadiene with amine, epoxy, carboxyl or methacrylate vinyl chemical functionality. Subject merchandise includes material matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise processed in a third country, including by modifying physical form or packaging with another 15 87 FR 37833, 87 FR 37829, and 87 FR 37825, June 24, 2022. I-8 product, or performing any other finishing, packaging, or processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the AB Rubber. Tariff treatment Based upon the scope set forth by Commerce, information available to the Commission indicates that the merchandise subject to these investigations is provided for in subheading 4002.59.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”). NBR produced in France, Mexico, and South Korea is imported into the U.S. market at the general rate of duty of free.16 Decisions on the tariff classification and treatment of imported goods are within the authority of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 16 In addition to the general rate, U.S. imports of NBR produced in China classified under 4002.59.00 were included in the modified Section 301 action against China in the Office of the United States Trade Representative’s (“USTR’s”) second enumeration (“Trance 3, List 3”) as of September 21, 2018. Items on this list became subject to additional duties of 10 percent ad valorem effective September 24, 2018, and the duty rate increased to 25 percent ad valorem. See U.S. note 20(f) to subchapter III of HTS chapter 99. HTSUS (2022), Revision 4, USITC Publication 5318, April 2022, Ch 99, 20(f), pp. 99-III-26, 36. USTR’s 301 actions are only applicable to products of China. For the time period only from after May 10, 2019 and before June 15, 2019, goods subject to heading 9903.88.09 (those classified in subheadings listed in U.S. note 20(f) and (g)) had an additional 10 percent ad valorem duty added, as stated in U.S. note 20(l), subchapter III, chapter 99. I-9 The product Description and applications NBR is a type of synthetic rubber that is a bipolymer of acrylonitrile and butadiene or a terpolymer with an additional third component selected from methacrylic acid or isoprene.17 The product can be in a solid or non-aqueous liquid form. The terpolymer with the third component selected from methacrylic acid can be carboxylated in its form and is termed carboxylated NBR (“XNBR”).18 A downstream product of NBR is hydrogenated NBR (“HNBR”).19 HNBR has an additional chemical step to be produced, and the final product has higher heat and chemical resistance, elasticity, ozone resistance, and mechanical strength compared to NBR.20 In the United States, HNBR is not produced on the same equipment as NBR.21 NBR, in general, can function in minus 40-degree to 226-degree Fahrenheit temperatures. NBR is more puncture-resistant than natural rubber and is resistant to cuts, abrasion, tears, caustics, and aliphatic hydrocarbons. However, NBR is less flexible than natural rubber.22 NBR products vary in their acrylonitrile content, Mooney viscosity, and physical form.23 In general, acrylonitrile content can vary from 19-51 percent, and Mooney viscosity can vary from 25-95 Mooney units, depending on the product. In general, as acrylonitrile content increases, oil and fuel resistance increase, tensile strength and hardness increase, and heat and abrasion resistance improve.24 As acrylonitrile content decreases, low temperature performance, dynamic performance, compression set, and resilience all improve.25 With 17 A bipolymer is synthesized from two monomers. A terpolymer is a polymer synthesized from three different monomers. A general term used is a copolymer, which is synthesized from two or more monomers (thus bipolymers and terpolymers are both types of copolymers). A monomer is a molecule that can react together with other monomer molecules to form a larger chain of monomers called a polymer. 18 “Carboxylated” is defined as of a compound containing an added carboxyl group (carbon double bonded to oxygen with an oxygen single bonded to hydrogen on the same carbon). Definitions from Oxford Languages, accessed July 27, 2021. XNBR has a CAS number of 9010-81-5. 19 HNBR has a CAS number of 88254-10-8. 20 Petitions, p. 10. HNBR is out of scope of these investigations. 21 Conference transcript, pp. 20-21 (Saunders). 22 Petitions, p. 7. 23 The Mooney viscosity measures the stiffness of compounds. The unit of measure is arbitrary and known as a Mooney unit. The higher the number, the higher the viscosity. Sisanth, K.S., M.G. Thomas, J. Abraham, S. Thomas, “General Introduction to Rubber Compounding,” Progress in Rubber Nanocomposites, 2017, pp. 1-39, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100409-8.00001-2. 24 Petitions, p. 5. 25 Polymer Properties Database, “NBR- Butadiene Nitrile Rubber,” accessed July 29, 2021. I-10 respect to Mooney viscosity, higher Mooney viscosity results in improved physical properties of strength, but processability is decreased. Lower Mooney viscosity materials are easier to process.26 The most common NBR materials sold are in the range of acrylonitrile content (26-41 percent) and Mooney viscosity (30-80 Mooney units) as these materials give the best balance of properties and processability.27 One company states that molecular weight and polydispersity are also factors that distinguish products.28 The qualification or certification of products, depending on their application, can take anywhere from a few months to years.29 NBR is most used in applications where a moderate level of heat and oil or fuel resistance are required such as applications in industrial hose, automotive, and the oil and gas industries.30 The automotive industry is the primary market segment, and it accounts for about 25 percent of consumption of NBR.31 Applications include, but are not limited to the following: 1) hoses (fuel, hydraulic fluid, oils and lubricant, chemical transport); 2) air ducts (for movement of air between air filter and internal combustion engine); 3) oil and gas components (stators, motor pump seals, blow-out preventors, hoses, and various seal components); 4) construction insulation (foamed insulation for pipe protection and insulation); 5) adhesives (road marking tape, construction adhesives, phenolic adhesives, epoxy adhesives – used for construction, aerospace, and general goods); 6) mats (rubber backing on ‘walk-off’ mats used in office lobbies, factories, etc.); 7) wires and cables (flexibilizer, modifier for wire covers); 8) rollers (printing blankets, graphic arts printing rolls, rice hull remover rollers); 9) seals O-rings (various automotive and industrial use); 10) PVC modifications (flexibilizer; various construction and residential applications ranging from garden hose to PVC window blinds to appliances); 11) 26 The International Institute of Synthetic Rubber Producers, “Acrylonitrile-butadiene Rubber (NBR),” p. 3, accessed July 28, 2021. 27 Petitions, pp. 5-6. 28 Hearing transcript, pp. 176, 220, 230 (Gustafsson); Molecular weight is defined as the mass of one mole of a substance. ChemCollective, “Stoichiometry Tutorials,” accessed June 10, 2022, https://chemcollective.org/activities/tutorials/stoich/calculating_molecular_weight; Polydispersity is defined as the weight average divided by the number average molecular weight (Mw/Mn), and is used to give the researcher an idea of the breadth or width of the molecular weight distribution. Malvern Instruments, “What Does Polydispersity Mean?” accessed June 10, 2022. https://www.materials- talks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/What-does-polydispersity-mean.pdf. ITT states that these properties are important for certain products, such as in the automotive industry. ITT’s posthearing brief, pp. 4-7. 29 Zeon reports that a commodity grade product can take a few months and as short as 6 months for a specialty grade product and gives an example that one highly technical product took 6-8 months. Petitioner’s posthearing brief, p. 8, Annex IV, p. 29; Respondents state certification could take years for certain purchasers. Hearing transcript, p. 12 (Mills). 30 Conference transcript, p. 19 (Saunders), p. 44 (Cail). 31 Conference transcript, p. 44, 63 (Cail); p. 116, 134-135 (Quintero); p. 143 (Kendler). I-11 belting (V-belts for mechanical power transmission; mining belts for conveying materials); and 12) food handling (hoses; milking inflators; sanitary applications).32 XNBR materials are typically used in the same applications as NBR but where improved abrasion resistance and improved tensile strength may be desired in the finished article.33 NBR is sold in bale (slab), powder, pellet, particulate (crumb), and liquid forms.34 The majority of shipments are in the form of compressed bales.35 The bale end users are typically those making rubber parts.36 The petitioner produces approximately 65 products,37 Negromex 32 Petitions, p. 8. 33 XNBR materials meet the same ASTM D2000 classifications of BF, BG, BK, and CH as NBR and are produced and compounded the same way as NBR materials. Petitioner notes the customers for NBR and XNBR are the same. Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 6; Conference transcript, p. 19 (Saunders). 34 Petitions, p. 6; Petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 8-9. Particulate is also known as crumb, which is NBR in irregular shape, typically of size where any single X, Y, Z dimension is less than 6 inches. X, Y, and Z dimensions would be non-uniform within any specific crumb sample. Pellet is NBR in regular shape typically in size where the X, Y, Z dimensions are, in aggregate, generally uniform from pellet to pellet (with exact dimensions subject to the manufacturer’s preference). Pellets are typically of round or cylindrical shape. Pellets are utilized by NBR customers who require a uniform product shape due to the sophisticated handling and material conveying systems utilized in the customer’s production process. Powder is NBR in fine particle form, where the particle size is commonly well below 0.2 inches in diameter. Powder NBR is preferred by customers using NBR for plastic modification, friction products, and other applications where NBR is used as a modifier. Liquid grade NBR is a low molecular weight NBR that, upon heating, is pourable and pumpable. Applications of liquid NBR include use as a non- extractable plasticizer and as an additive for processing improvement in rubber compounds. Id. 35 Conference transcript, p. 69 (Cail). 36 Conference transcript, p. 70 (Recchio). 37 Zeon states that it competes in all the different “product buckets,” from low acrylonitrile to high, including the carboxylic and liquid. Hearing transcript, p 132 (Cail); Petitioner’s posthearing brief, p. 17; Zeon produces and sells about 65 grades of NBR in commercial quantities and estimates it has produced equivalent substitute grades for *** percent of NBR grades supplied to the U.S. market since 2018. Petitioner’s posthearing brief, p. 18. I-12 of Mexico produces *** products of various grades, of which *** are for the U.S. market,38 and Kumho of Korea produces *** products of which *** were sold to the U.S. 39 40 Manufacturing processes The general chemical reaction for production of NBR involves the reaction of 1,3 butadiene (butadiene) and acrylonitrile, as shown in figure I-1.41 The reaction for production of XNBR has an additional component of the reactant raw material methacrylic acid. As NBR products vary in acrylonitrile content, there are different reaction stoichiometries based on the desired percentage of acrylonitrile in the final product.42 If there is a reaction input of about 40 percent acrylonitrile and 60 percent butadiene, the reaction will occur at about the same rate (a product will result with about half one monomer and half the other resulting in a final product of 50 percent acrylonitrile content).43 However, if one wants to change the ratio so the final product has 51 percent acrylonitrile, the reaction has to be starved of butadiene, and more acrylonitrile has to be added.44 Due to the fact that in products with higher acrylonitrile content the reaction will not run to 100 percent, there will be left over acrylonitrile at the end of the reaction that can be recovered and used again.45 This is known as the monomer recovery 38 Respondent Negromex’s postconference brief, Exhibit 1, question 14. 39 Petitioner and respondents use the terms “specialty” and “commodity” to describe different types of NBR, but there are no industry-wide accepted standards for what constitutes “specialty NBR” versus “commodity NBR.” Petitioner defines “commodity NBR” as NBR with acrylonitrile content between 26 and 41 percent, and “specialty NBR” as NBR with acrylonitrile content less than 26 percent or more than 41 percent. Petitioner’s comments on draft questionnaires, exh. 1. Respondents define “specialty NBR” as being characterized by more resilient physical properties, such as resistance to oil and fuel, tensile strength, flexibility, or extreme temperatures. Respondents state that “specialty NBR” typically has an acrylonitrile content of below 31 or above 35 percent and may or may not have a third additive. Respondents define “commodity NBR” as characterized by comparatively less rigorous physical properties than “specialty NBR,” with a narrower range of acrylonitrile content of typically between 31. and 35 percent and has no third additive. Respondents’ Arlanxeo France, Arlanxeo USA, Dynasol, Kumho, and Negromex comments on draft questionnaires, p. 2; see also Hearing transcript, p. 113 (Cail). 40 Petitioner’s posthearing brief, pp. 20, 23; Petitioner’s posthearing brief, Exhibits III-10, III-11. 41 1,3 butadiene and acrylonitrile are two different monomers that react to form a polymer product. Petitioner purchases both monomers and does not produce them. Respondents Negromex and Kumho purchase both monomers and do not produce them. Conference transcript, p. 175 (Quintero); p. 176 (Kendler). 42 “Stoichiometry” is the relationship between the relative quantities of substances taking part in a reaction or forming a compound, typically a ratio of whole integers. Definition from Oxford languages, accessed August 4, 2021. 43 Conference transcript, p. 92 (Recchio). 44 Conference transcript, p. 93 (Recchio). 45 Conference transcript, p. 93 (Recchio); pp. 174-175 (Plaza). I-13 process.46 Since there are different amounts of acrylonitrile and butadiene raw materials added depending on the desired acrylonitrile percentage in the final product, the cost of the different reactions will vary.47 48 Figure I-1. Chemical reaction for production of NBR Source: Liu, Minghui, “Hydrogenation of Nitrile and Olefinic Groups in Butadiene Rubbers,” 2014. The raw materials in varying amounts are added into a reactor along with water, emulsifier (soap), radical generating activator, and other chemicals (e.g., pigment) in order to begin the emulsion polymerization process, as depicted in figure I-2.49 The reaction is exothermic, so heat is removed using a cooling system to maintain a constant temperature until 46 Petitioner notes that Zeon does not sell recovered monomers commercially. They are consumed internally only. Conference transcript, p. 89 (Saunders). 47 Petitioner notes that acrylonitrile is typically more expensive than butadiene, and therefore products with higher acrylonitrile content are more costly to produce. XNBR is a product that has a third monomer of methacrylic acid as a reactant, and it is therefore more expensive to produce than a reaction with only acrylonitrile and butadiene. Conference transcript, pp. 34-25 (Saunders). Petitioner states that XNBR is 1.4 to 2 times more expensive than NBR, all other factors being the same. Conference transcript, p. 26 (Arkan). 48 The petitioner asserts that U.S. purchasers commonly blend multiple grades of NBR to reach an intermediate acrylonitrile content point. Petitioner’s posthearing brief, pp. 20, 23. 49 Petitions, p. 9. The petitioner uses a batch process in the United States, while the respondents use both batch and continuous processes. Continuous and batch processing are described further in this section. I-14 the desired degree of polymerization is achieved.50 Next, the reaction is stopped using a short- stop solution. Unreacted or residual monomers are recovered using recovery process before stabilizers are added to the NBR latex emulsion. This NBR latex emulsion with stabilizers is a finished product that is sold in the market and in this context is termed latex NBR. This material typically contains 60 percent water. This material is sold in this form for use in applications such as nitrile gloves and fabric treatment and is commonly processed using a dipping process.51 It is at this step that NBR latex and solid NBR become distinct and differentiated within the manufacturing process, with latex NBR foregoing further processing and solid NBR requiring additional steps to produce.52 Solid NBR is produced by taking latex NBR and doing three further steps – (a) coagulation to cause the emulsion to be broken for the polymer to coagulate and form crumb; (b) washing to reduce the portion of polymerization soap impurities; and (c) drying to eliminate >95 percent of the water content in the finished product. After the material is dried, it is then compacted into a bale using a hydraulic press and the bale material is then packaged for sale or further processing.53 Solid NBR and latex NBR are produced on common equipment and involve an overlapping production process corresponding to the “wet end” of the production process for NBR, which includes emulsion polymerization and monomer recovery. However, unlike latex NBR, NBR then undergoes further processing and treatment involving coagulation, washing, and drying.54 On a commercial and industrial scale, latex NBR is transformed into solid NBR via a controlled process whereby coagulation conditions are tightly controlled and whereby coagulation chemicals are precisely incorporated. Solid NBR has to have residual water dried off from the coagulated crumb. Industrial scale drying equipment (tunnel dryers, extruder dryers, etc.), typically costing in excess of $1 million, is required for economic drying of synthetic rubber, including NBR.55 50 Conference transcript, p. 16 (Saunders). 51 Conference transcript, p. 20 (Saunders). Latex NBR is out of scope while solid NBR is in scope of these investigations. 52 Conference transcript, p. 16 (Saunders). 53 Conference transcript, p. 17 (Saunders). 54 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 11. 55 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 12. I-15 Figure I-2. Manufacturing process for NBR Source: Petitions, p. 10. At the end of the process of manufacturing NBR, both petitioners and respondents measure acrylonitrile content, Mooney viscosity, and ash content in their specification criteria.56 The manufacturing process can be completed in either continuous or batch mode. Continuous operations require a series of reactors where the material is placed in the front of a series of reactors and the material goes from one reactor to another. There may be eight to twelve reactors in series that the product is run through, and only one grade of product can be made at a time. Batch processing has separate reactors that are not linked in a series in which multiple grades can be run at the same time.57 The petitioner operates in both batch and continuous processes globally, but in the United States, it only uses the batch process. The respondents use either batch or continuous processes or both, depending on the respondent.58 Respondent Negromex uses both batch and continuous processes, and uses the batch process for its specialty and commodity products that are produced in small volumes.59 Petitioner gives an estimation that the continuous process is around 5 percent less costly than the batch process ***.60 Respondent Negromex notes the cost 56 Petitioner also measures heat loss. Negromex measures humidity. Conference transcript, p. 95-96 (Recchio); p. 175 (Plaza). 57 Conference transcript, pp. 39-40 (Recchio). 58 Conference transcript, p. 177 (Plaza). 59 Conference transcript, p. 180 (Sjoberg); p. 180 (Plaza). 60 Hearing transcript, p. 10 (Arkan). Petitioner’s posthearing brief, Annex III, p. 21. Latex NBR I-16 differential is related to steam and power calculated per ton between batch operation records and continuous operation records.61 Negromex, which has both continuous and batch processes, calculates that in 2020, *** percent of operations were in the continuous mode and *** percent were in the batch mode.62 Respondent Kumho operates in *** percent continuous mode and *** percent batch mode.63 Arlanxeo France indicates that *** percent of its commercially shipped NBR is produced in continuous mode, though more of its *** NBR is produced through ***.64 Other than the batch and continuous parts of the system, there are no known differences in the manufacturing processes of petitioners and respondents.65 Domestic like product issues No issues with respect to domestic like product have been raised in these investigations. The petitioner proposes that the Commission should define a single domestic like product coextensive with the scope of these investigations.66 Respondents Kumho, Negromex, Dynasol, Arlanxeo France, and Arlanxeo USA (collectively, the “subject producers”) do not seek to define a separate domestic like product.67 During the preliminary phase of the investigations, the Commission analyzed whether any of the following should be considered separate like products: in-scope XNBR, out-of-scope HNBR, and out-of-scope latex NBR. The Commission concluded that the record did not indicate a clear dividing line between in-scope XNBR and all other in-scope NBR, but it did indicate clear 61 Respondent Negromex’s postconference brief, Exhibit 1, question 1. Respondent Negromex gives a more detailed calculation of *** in Exhibit 1, question 12 and refers to and keeps the same calculation in its posthearing brief. Respondent Negromex’s posthearing brief, p. 2. Respondent Kumho states ***. Respondent Kumho’s postconference brief, Exhibit 1, p. 3. Respondent Arlanxeo states that batch processing is approximately *** percent more costly than continuous processing. Arlanxeo’s posthearing brief, responses to questions, pp. 28-29. 62 Respondent Negromex’s postconference brief, Exhibit 1, question 15. 63 Respondent Kumho’s postconference brief, Exhibit 1, p. 3. 64 Respondent Arlanxeo’s postconference brief, p. 4. 65 Conference transcript, p. 43 (Recchio). 66 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p.4, and petitioner’s comments on draft questionnaires, exh. 1, p. 2. 67 Subject producers’ comments on draft questionnaires, p. 5, and hearing transcript, p. 244 (Kendler, Mills, and Sjoberg). I-17 dividing lines between in-scope NBR and both out-of-scope HNBR and latex NBR. Thus, the Commission defined a single domestic like product coextensive with the scope.68 68 Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber (NBR) from France, Korea, and Mexico, Investigation Nos. 731-TA- 1567-1569 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 5227, August 2021, pp. 12-13. II-1 Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market U.S. market characteristics NBR is a product known for its oil resistance, toughness, and temperature resistance for a wide range of uses in hoses, air ducts, construction insulation, oil and gas components, mats, wires and cables, rollers, seals, belts, and belting.1 The automotive sector is the largest sector for the domestic NBR market, accounting for approximately 25 percent of the market, with other large sectors including agriculture and construction.2 NBR is produced in several grades, which come in a variety of combinations of chemical composition and form.3 Customers typically pick the grade of NBR based on acrylonitrile content, the Mooney viscosity of the material, and the product form.4 NBR is produced in the form of bales and slabs; ground, particulate, and pellets; powder; and liquid.5 The acrylonitrile content of NBR determines its fluid resistance, and the Mooney viscosity determines the flowability of NBR for processing.6 All types of NBR can be produced through continuous or batch processing, the latter of which is more expensive but adds to production versatility.7 The U.S. producer only uses batch processing while NBR producers in subject countries have both processing capabilities.8 There are two main categories of customers for NBR: custom mixers, which provide rubber compounding and mixing services for rubber part manufacturers, and rubber part manufacturers themselves (if they have in-house mixing operations).9 Automotive, oil and gas, 1 Petition, pp. 7-8; Petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 6-7. NBR also goes into military rocket motors, shoe soles, aerospace aircraft construction, and energy recovery parts. Conference transcript, p. 14 (Recchio); Petitioner’s postconference brief, Exh. 1, p. 2. 2 Conference transcript, pp. 63-64 (Cail); Respondent Kumho postconference brief, p. 3. 3 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 7. 4 Conference transcript, p. 54 (Cail). 5 Petition, pp. 8-9. Particulates and pellets are generally preferred for dissolving in a solution. Particulate NBR is generally used for composite-type products and adhesives, and pellets are generally used for wire and cable applications. Bale and slab NBR are generally used when compounding or mixing with other components and is preferred for ease of handling. Conference transcript, pp. 68-69, 166-167 (Cail, Quintero); Mexican respondent postconference brief, Exh. 1, no. 10. 6 Generally, the greater the acrylonitrile content, the greater the oil and fuel resistance, tensile strength and hardness, and heat and abrasion resistance. Meanwhile, the greater the Mooney viscosity, the greater the strength, but the more difficult the processing. Conference transcript, pp. 18, 22 (Saunders, Cail); Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 5. 7 Conference transcript, pp. 39-40, 42 (Recchio, Arkan); Respondent Negromex’s postconference brief, Exh. 1, no. 12. The extent of the savings was contested by parties. 8 Conference transcript, p. 47 (Recchio). 9 Petition, p. 21. II-2 and industrial machinery applications typically require costlier, specialty grades of NBR, while walk-off mats and commercial printing applications typically require less expensive grades of NBR.10 Apparent U.S. consumption of NBR decreased by 7.8 percent by quantity during January 2019-December 2021, and decreased 6.2 percent by value. U.S. purchasers The Commission received 38 usable questionnaire responses from firms that had purchased NBR during 2019-21.11 12 13 The responding purchasers represented firms in a variety of domestic industries; 15 responding purchasers are custom mixers, 6 are automotive end users, 5 are machinery or industrial end users, 3 are oil and gas end users, 11 are other end users, 3 are distributors, and 8 reported as other types of firms. Firms reporting classifications of other types include ***. Large purchasers of NBR include ***. 10 Respondent Kumho postconference brief, pp. 3-4. 11 The following firms provided purchaser questionnaire responses: ***. 12 Of the 38 responding purchasers, 20 purchased the domestic NBR in 2019-21, 27 purchased imports of the subject merchandise from France, 20 from Mexico, and 19 from South Korea. Seventeen purchased imports of NBR from nonsubject source Japan, while 16 purchased imports of NBR from other nonsubject sources. These sources include Brazil (5), China (1), India (2), Italy (3), Russia (7), and Taiwan (2).13 Thirty purchasers indicated they had marketing/pricing knowledge of domestic product, 28 of NBR imported from France, 22 of NBR imported from Mexico, 20 of NBR imported from South Korea, 20 of NBR imported from nonsubject country Japan, and 17 of NBR from other nonsubject countries. II-3 Channels of distribution The U.S. producer sold mainly to *** while importers of product from France, South Korea, and nonsubject source Japan ***. Importers of product from Mexico sold mainly to ***, as shown in table II-1. Only importers of NBR from South Korea sold any substantial portion to ***. More detailed information from Zeon and importers regarding total quantities, values, unit values, and shares based on channels of distribution is presented in appendix D. Table II-1 NBR: Share of quantity of U.S. shipments by source, channel of distribution, and period Shares in percent Source Channel 2019 2020 2021 United States Distributors *** *** *** United States Custom mixers *** *** *** United States Other end users *** *** *** France Distributors *** *** *** France Custom mixers *** *** *** France Other end users *** *** *** Mexico Distributors *** *** *** Mexico Custom mixers *** *** *** Mexico Other end users *** *** *** South Korea Distributors *** *** *** South Korea Custom mixers *** *** *** South Korea Other end users *** *** *** Subject sources Distributors *** *** *** Subject sources Custom mixers *** *** *** Subject sources Other end users *** *** *** Japan Distributors *** *** *** Japan Custom mixers *** *** *** Japan Other end users *** *** *** Other nonsubject sources Distributors *** *** *** Other nonsubject sources Custom mixers *** *** *** Other nonsubject sources Other end users *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Distributors *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Custom mixers *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Other end users *** *** *** All import sources Distributors *** *** *** All import sources Custom mixers *** *** *** All import sources Other end users *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. II-4 Geographic distribution The U.S. producer reported selling NBR to *** (table II-2). At least one importer of NBR from each subject source reported selling to *** by all seven responding importers. For U.S. producer Zeon, *** percent of its sales were within 100 miles of its production facility, *** percent were between 101 and 1,000 miles, and *** percent were over 1,000 miles. Importers sold 4.7 percent within 100 miles of their U.S. point of shipment, 67.8 percent between 101 and 1,000 miles, and 27.5 percent over 1,000 miles. Table II-2 NBR: Count of U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ geographic markets Region U.S. producers France Mexico South Korea Subject sources Northeast *** *** *** *** 5 Midwest *** *** *** *** 6 Southeast *** *** *** *** 6 Central Southwest *** *** *** *** 6 Mountain *** *** *** *** 3 Pacific Coast *** *** *** *** 5 Other *** *** *** *** 0 All regions (except Other) *** *** *** *** 3 Reporting firms *** *** *** *** 7 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Other U.S. markets include AK, HI, PR, and VI. Supply and demand considerations U.S. supply Table II-3 provides a summary of the supply factors regarding NBR from the U.S. producer and from subject countries. While domestic capacity utilization decreased over 2019- 21, capacity utilization increased in each subject country. Domestic producer Zeon *** compared with producers of NBR in subject countries. *** reporting shipping substantial quantities to non-U.S. export markets, with ***. II-5 Table II-3 NBR: Supply factors that affect the ability to increase shipments to the U.S. market, by country Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratio and share in percent Factor Measure United States France Mexico South Korea Subject sources Capacity 2019 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Capacity 2021 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Capacity utilization 2019 Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Capacity utilization 2021 Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Inventories to total shipments 2019 Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Inventories to total shipments 2021 Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Home market shipments 2021 Share *** *** *** *** *** Non-US export market shipments 2021 Share *** *** *** *** *** Ability to shift production (firms reporting “yes”) Count *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: U.S. producer Zeon accounted for all U.S. production of NBR in 2021. Responding foreign producer/exporter firms accounted for *** of U.S. imports of NBR from France and Mexico, and *** of imports from South Korea during 2021. 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-6 Domestic production Based on available information, the U.S. producer of NBR has the ability to respond to changes in demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced NBR to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to this degree of responsiveness of supply are ***. Zeon reported that it *** using the same machinery and workers. Domestic production capacity remained steady during 2019-21 at *** pounds, but capacity utilization declined from *** percent in 2019 to *** percent in 2020 before increasing to *** percent in 2021. Inventory levels declined over the period from *** pounds to *** pounds, or from *** percent of total shipments to *** percent.14 Exports as a share of total shipments declined from *** percent of total shipments in 2019 to *** percent in 2020 and then increased to *** percent in 2021. Average unit values of exports were slightly higher than the average unit value of domestic shipments in each year, by *** percent. Zeon reported that its major export markets include ***, but noted that ***. Zeon stated that it did not experience any shortages in its U.S. production facilities, although it did face supply constraints with its imported NBR from nonsubject country Japan, due to a planned maintenance shutdown and issues regarding ocean freight availability, as well as its domestically produced ground or particulate NBR due to issues production with its third-party grinder.15 Subject imports from France Based on available information, producers of NBR from France have the ability to respond to changes in demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of NBR to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to this degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of unused capacity and the ability to shift shipments from alternate markets. Factors mitigating responsiveness of supply include ***. 14 Although this is higher than ***, this may be due to the domestic producer only using batch production methods. Batch production allows for smaller runs of a greater variety of formulations. A greater variety of formulations may necessitate a greater base level of available inventory due to longer wait times between one formulation and the next. 15 Conference transcript, p. 73 (Cail) and hearing transcript, p. 27 (Cail). II-7 French capacity declined by *** percent, but capacity utilization increased by *** percentage points during 2019-21. The ratio of inventories to total shipments decreased by *** percentage points to *** percent. Nearly *** of France’s NBR production is exported to third-country markets. Noted export markets include ***. Subject imports from Mexico Based on available information, producers of NBR from Mexico have the ability to respond to changes in demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of NBR to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to this degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of unused capacity, the ability to shift shipments from alternate markets, and the ability to shift production from alternate products (***). Mexican NBR production capacity declined by *** percent, but capacity utilization increased by *** percentage points during 2019-21. The ratio of inventories to total shipments increased slightly by *** percentage points to *** percent. Slightly less than *** of Mexico’s NBR production is exported to third-country markets. Noted export markets include ***. Subject imports from South Korea Based on available information, producers of NBR from Korea have the ability to respond to changes in demand with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of NBR to the U.S. market. The main contributing factor to this degree of responsiveness of supply is the ability to shift shipments from alternate markets. Factors mitigating responsiveness of supply include limited availability of unused capacity, low (although slightly increased) inventories, and an inability to shift production to or from the production of alternate products. South Korean capacity did not change, but capacity utilization increased by *** percentage points during 2019-21, reaching *** percent in 2021. The ratio of inventories to total shipments increased slightly to *** percent over the period. More than *** of South Korea’s NBR production is exported to third-country markets. Noted export markets include ***. Imports from nonsubject sources Nonsubject imports accounted for *** percent of total U.S. imports in 2021. The largest source of nonsubject imports during 2019-21 was Japan, which accounted for more than 70 percent of nonsubject imports over this period. II-8 Supply constraints U.S. producer Zeon reported that ***. It reported on-time delivery for domestic product of *** percent across its ***. *** has declared multiple force majeures since 2019. ***. ***.16 Seven of 16 responding importers reported that they had experienced supply constraints since January 1,2019. Importers *** reported that production curtailments, shortage of equipment, changes in schedules, higher than anticipated GDP growth, logistics disruptions, congested ports, and plant shutdowns due to COVID-19 have led to supply disruptions including product allocation, limited supply, delays, and ***. Importer *** reported that it had experienced longer than normal delays in obtaining material from Zeon’s 16 In its U.S. producer questionnaire response, Zeon noted that “***.” II-9 Japan facility before the petition was filed (some April orders were not fulfilled until September or October) and was informed its orders placed with Zeon in February 2022 would not be able to be produced until summer 2022. Importer *** stated that two acrylonitrile producers declared force majeure in February 2021 due to the impact of winter storm Uri, causing shortages of a key monomer, which also raised prices. Importer *** stated that it began receiving inquiries from customers that had been purchasing NBR imported from France and South Korea after the petitions were filed. In addition, *** stated that in addition to ocean freight complications, there is a shortage of truck drivers in the United States that has also contributed to extended lead times and supply constraints. More than half of responding purchasers reported that supply constraints characterized the NBR market before (21 of 38) the petitions were filed and nearly half (18 of 37) reported constraints after the petitions were filed. Purchasers noted a variety of producers/sources that had constrained supply during the entire period: Zeon, both domestic NBR and product from Japan, Arlanxeo and OMNOVA in France, LG Chemical and Kumho in South Korea. All purchaser descriptions of supply constraints are presented in Appendix E. Regarding the current market situation, Purchaser *** stated generally that “***.” Purchasers were also asked about the availability of NBR from different sources of supply. Seventeen of 34 responding purchasers noted issues with the availability of supply from domestic producer Zeon, 25 of 36 responding purchasers noted issues with the availability of supply from subject sources, and 10 of 25 responding purchasers noted issues with the availability of supply from nonsubject sources. In addition to certain sources not manufacturing certain types of NBR, purchasers also noted the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and weather, feedstock availability, increased demand, supply chain issues, lead time delays, logistics, port delays, and other transportation issues as issues that affected supply availability. Also noted were strikes in France and the possible exit of LG from the industry in South Korea as causing availability issues. Nonsubject sources mentioned by purchasers included Brazil, Japan, and Russia. New suppliers Only 1 of 38 purchasers indicated that any new suppliers had entered the U.S. market since January 1, 2019. ***. II-10 U.S. demand Based on available information, the overall demand for NBR is likely to experience small to moderate changes in response to changes in price. The main contributing factors are the limited range of substitute products and the moderate share of NBR in most of its end-use products. End uses and cost share U.S. demand for NBR depends on the demand for U.S.-produced downstream products. NBR accounts for a moderate share of the cost of the end-use products in which it is used. Reported cost shares for some end uses were as follows: • Rubber, sheet rubber, and custom rubber mixes (19-60 percent) • Footwear soles and heels (54 percent) • Molded parts (50 percent) • Hydraulic, fuel, and other hoses (14-50 percent) • Compounds (13 - 50 percent) • Gaskets, O-rings, and oil seals (7-45 percent) • Flexible PVC (40 percent) • Flooring mats (37-40 percent) • Conveyor and power transmission belts (28-30 percent) • Thermoplastic elastomers (25 percent) • Engineered foams (14 percent) • Insulation (11 percent) • Wire and cables (10 percent) • Rubber products (10 percent) • Garden hose (5 percent) • Shims (3 percent) • Structural tape (2-3 percent) • Automotive brake pads (1 percent) II-11 Business cycles U.S. producer Zeon stated that demand for NBR is non-seasonal and that the NBR market is ***.17 Most importers and purchasers reported that the NBR market was not subject to business cycles (12 of 17 responding importers and 30 of 35 responding purchasers) or distinct conditions of competition (13 of 17 responding importers and 31 of 35 responding purchasers). Seasonality reported by importers was focused on the specific industry that the importer sells into. For example, importer *** noted that outdoor re-surfacing work typically occurs in March to October while importer *** reported that demand for NBR increases during the first quarter of the year as customers restock their inventories, that there is a slowdown during the summer season as auto production slows, and customers try to offload their inventories at the end of the year. Importers *** noted that there are some changes in demand related to crude oil production changes as well. Purchaser *** noted the effect that cycles in the automotive and oil and gas sectors have on the demand for NBR. Three purchasers reported seasonal business patterns, with purchaser *** noting that agriculture and increased mileage driven in the warmer seasons can affect demand for NBR. Purchaser *** stated that butadiene “determines pricing” for NBR. A majority (5 of 9) of responding importers, but only 11 of 29 responding purchasers noted that these distinct cycles or conditions had changed since 2019. Changes referenced by responding firms included the 2020 negative effects of COVID-19, the post-COVID-19 economic rebound along with related increased demand for nitrile rubber gloves, U.S. infrastructure investment, and the automotive production-dampening effects of a microchip shortage. *** noted a change in the way prices are negotiated: LG Chemical no longer offer pricing on a spot basis and Zeon noted in 2021 that it will no longer base prices on a formula. Zeon stated that it changed its pricing basis from a quarterly monomer/ocean freight pricing formula to making changes on a monthly basis in late 2021/early 2022. Multiple purchasers noted that increased NBR raw material costs had an effect on the supply of NBR and the cost to produce it. 17 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 22. II-12 Demand trends *** a plurality of importers reported that U.S. demand for NBR remained constant over 2019-21 (table II-4). However, substantially more importers reported demand had either increased or fluctuated but increased overall than decreased or fluctuated but decreased overall. A majority of purchasers reported that overall U.S. demand increased or fluctuated higher. Table II-4 NBR: Count of firms’ responses regarding overall domestic and foreign demand, by firm type Market Firm type Increase Fluctuate higher No change Fluctuate lower Decrease Domestic demand U.S. producers *** *** *** *** *** Domestic demand Importers 4 2 5 0 3 Domestic demand Purchasers 10 6 10 1 4 Foreign demand U.S. producers *** *** *** *** *** Foreign demand Importers 3 2 4 1 2 Foreign demand Purchasers 8 6 8 1 2 Demand for end use products Purchasers 7 10 5 4 5 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Domestic auto production declined during 2019-21 (see figure II-1 and table II-5). Oil and gas production increased slightly through 2019 before declining through 2020 (figure II-2 and table II-6). Petitioners and respondents indicated that demand for NBR was affected by declines in auto production and sales and in the oil and gas sector in 2020.18 Similarly, the demand for walk-off mats, which are used in manufacturing plants, restaurants, and casinos, also declined during the COVID-19 pandemic.19 18 Conference transcript, pp. 45, 116, 134-135 (Cail, Quintero); Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 22; Respondent Kumho postconference brief, p. 6. 19 Conference transcript, pp. 134-135, 143-144 (Kendler, Quintero). II-13 Figure II-1 Domestic auto production: Thousands of units, monthly, seasonally adjusted, January 2019- March 2022 Source: Federal Reserve Economic Data, Domestic auto production, retrieved from https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DAUPSA, accessed May 4, 2022. Figure II-2 Oil and gas production: Quadrillion btu, monthly, January 2019-December 2021 Source: EIA, Primary energy production by source, retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/#prices, accessed May 4, 2022. II-14 Table II-5 Domestic auto production: Seasonally adjusted U.S. production, monthly, January 2019-March 2022 Quantity in thousands of units Year Month Quantity 2019 January 223.6 2019 February 216.1 2019 March 214.5 2019 April 208.4 2019 May 215.5 2019 June 215.2 2019 July 206.6 2019 August 216.3 2019 September 199.7 2019 October 181.3 2019 November 209.8 2019 December 201.2 2020 January 207.6 2020 February 218.8 2020 March 154.1 2020 April 1.7 2020 May 49.8 2020 June 146.9 2020 July 211.2 2020 August 198.7 2020 September 196.4 2020 October 186.0 2020 November 184.6 2020 December 170.4 2021 January 170.5 2021 February 141.1 2021 March 129.2 2021 April 136.5 2021 May 131.6 2021 June 125.9 2021 July 136.9 2021 August 124.5 2021 September 84.1 2021 October 126.0 2021 November 126.9 2021 December 134.2 2022 January 120.9 2022 February 121.5 2022 March 144.4 Source: Federal Reserve Economic Data, Domestic auto production, retrieved from https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DAUPSA, accessed May 4, 2022. II-15 Table II-6 Oil and gas: U.S. natural gas (dry) and crude oil production, monthly, January 2019-December 2021 Production in quadrillions of British thermal units (btu) Year Month Natural gas (dry) production Crude oil production 2019 January 2.87 2.09 2019 February 2.61 1.86 2019 March 2.90 2.10 2019 April 2.82 2.07 2019 May 2.94 2.14 2019 June 2.85 2.08 2019 July 2.97 2.10 2019 August 3.04 2.20 2019 September 2.95 2.15 2019 October 3.08 2.26 2019 November 3.03 2.22 2019 December 3.12 2.28 2020 January 3.06 2.26 2020 February 2.86 2.12 2020 March 3.07 2.26 2020 April 2.89 2.03 2020 May 2.81 1.71 2020 June 2.76 1.78 2020 July 2.90 1.93 2020 August 2.89 1.86 2020 September 2.80 1.86 2020 October 2.87 1.84 2020 November 2.86 1.90 2020 December 2.96 1.96 2021 January 2.98 1.95 2021 February 2.50 1.56 2021 March 2.97 1.97 2021 April 2.90 1.92 2021 May 2.99 2.00 2021 June 2.90 1.93 2021 July 3.01 2.00 2021 August 3.03 1.98 2021 September 2.91 1.85 2021 October 3.07 2.03 2021 November 3.02 2.01 2021 December 3.13 2.04 Source: EIA, Primary energy production by source, retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/#prices, accessed May 4, 2022. II-16 Substitute products U.S. producer Zeon stated that there are few substitutes for NBR for certain applications, such as ***, polychloroprene rubber for ***, and styrene butadiene rubber (“SBR”) for some conveyor belting applications; however, substitution is generally limited.20 Most importers (12 of 15)21 and purchasers (34 of 38) reported that there are no substitutes for NBR. Substitutes for NBR reported by importers and purchasers were mainly different types of rubber for certain applications, including ethylene propylene diene rubber for sponge insulation and automotive applications, polychloroprene rubber (“CR”) for hoses or constant velocity joint (“CVJ”) boots, SBR for belting, silicone for shock absorbers, and elvaloy (modified ethylene copolymer resin) for flexible PVC, poly-addition rubber and fluorine rubber (“FKM”) for end seal gaskets, and chlorinated polyethylene. Substitutability issues This section assesses the degree to which U.S.-produced NBR and imports of NBR from subject countries can be substituted for one another by examining the importance of certain purchasing factors and the comparability of NBR from domestic and imported sources based on those factors. Based on available data, staff believes that there is a moderate degree of substitutability between domestically produced NBR and NBR imported from subject sources.22 Despite being a chemical that must consist of similar inputs, NBR can have differences such as distinctions in formulations based on the level of acrylonitrile contained in the product, the form factor of the product (including Mooney viscosity and granule size), and other factors. In fact, the performance characteristics of the NBR were noted as the most important factor in purchasers’ sourcing decisions. Although most purchasers indicated that each source of NBR “always” or “usually” meets specifications, and nearly all sources were rated as comparable on 20 Petitioner stated that end users generally choose NBR for its specific properties that other potential substitutes do not have, such as toughness, mechanical properties, and heat and fluid resistance. Conference transcript, p. 56 (Cail); Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 2. 21 ***. 22 The degree of substitution between domestic and imported NBR depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the domestic and imported products and reflects how easily purchasers can switch from domestically produced NBR to the NBR 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-17 the majority of market factors, most purchasers indicated that NBR sourced from different countries was only “sometimes” interchangeable. Further, while some purchasers noted there were “sometimes” factors other than price that affected purchasing decisions, a large number of purchasers also indicated that there were “always” non-price factors that affected their decisions. The need to qualify a supplier’s specific product, which can take years for some purchasers, may limit the substitutability of one supplier’s NBR for another supplier’s NBR in the purchasers’ formulation. The most frequently noted very important factors that purchasers listed related to being able to reliably procure a consistent and consistently available source of NBR that meets performance and quality standards. As noted earlier, multiple factors such as force majeure declarations, logistics issues, and available product lines have somewhat impeded purchasers’ ability to do so, especially for NBR produced in the United States, France, and South Korea. Factors affecting purchasing decisions Purchaser decisions based on source As shown in table II-7 most responding purchasers and their customers rarely made decisions based on the country of origin, and if they do, it was only made sometimes. Purchasers and their customers more frequently made decisions based on the producer manufacturing the NBR. Only 9 of 25 purchasers never made the decision with respect to the producer, whereas 13 of 27 responding purchasers note that their customers never make purchasing decisions based on the producer. Although a plurality of purchasers sometimes made their decisions on the basis of the producer, there were only four fewer purchasers that always did so. Of the eight purchasers that reported that they always made decisions based on the manufacturer, most firms cited product qualification/approval/quality issues as the reason for doing so. Fourteen of 38 purchasers reported that they had a preferred source for the NBR they purchase, ranging from sole-source approval, formulation preferences or requirements, customer specification, and the performance of the product in its incorporation into the end- use product. One purchaser, *** reported a preference for domestic NBR due to the Berry Amendment for U.S. military contracts. Purchaser *** reported that quality problems with NBR from France and Brazil, stating that the products ***. II-18 Table II-7 NBR: Count of purchasers’ responses regarding frequency of purchasing decisions based on producer and country of origin Firm making decision Decision based on Always Usually Sometimes Never Purchaser Producer 8 8 12 9 Customer Producer 3 3 8 13 Purchaser Country 0 1 12 22 Customer Country 1 0 6 20 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Importance of purchasing domestic product Thirty of 37 responding purchasers reported that all of their purchases did not require purchasing U.S.-produced product, and five more reported that at least 90 percent of their purchases have no domestic content requirement.23 One reported that domestic product was required by law, three reported it was required by their customers, and four reported other preferences for domestic product, with all three that noted reasons citing that Zeon is the only approved grade or source for the required type of NBR. Most important purchase factors The most often cited top three factors firms consider in their purchasing decisions for NBR were quality (25 firms), availability (25 firms), and price (24 firms) as shown in table II-8. Performance of the product, or it meeting specifications, was the most frequently cited first- most important factor (cited by 15 firms),24 and it was always cited as the most important factor by those purchasers that consider performance or meeting specifications as an important factor. Quality was second-most frequently cited most important factor (13 firms). Availability was the most frequently cited second-most important factor (10 firms) followed by quality (9 firms). Price was the most frequently reported third-most important factor (14 firms). 23 The final purchaser reported that 71 percent of its purchases were made without any domestic content requirements. 24 Although quality and performance/product meets specifications are similar in that they both relate to the physical aspects of the product, a sufficient number of purchasers specifically noted that performance/ product meets specifications as a factor to warrant a separate category. II-19 Table II-8 NBR: Count of ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions as reported by purchasers, by factor Factor First Second Third Total Performance/product meets specifications 15 0 0 15 Quality 13 9 3 25 Availability 5 10 10 25 Price/total cost/cost effective 3 7 14 24 Contracts/contractual obligations 2 2 0 4 Customer preference 1 0 0 1 Reliability/delivery time 0 5 2 7 Product range/line 0 1 0 1 Payment terms 0 0 3 3 All other factors 1 1 1 3 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Other factors include “Engineering controlled recipe requires use of same material when qualified,” price stability, supplier certification, and traditional supplier. Note: Purchasers were also given the opportunity to provide more than three factors. Those additional factors listed included price (3 purchasers), quality (1), product range/line (1), relationships (1), reliability/delivery time (1), strategic fit (1), and willingness to develop new grades (1). The majority of purchasers (22 of 38) reported that they “sometimes” purchase the lowest-priced product that is offered. Eight reported “never” buying the lowest-priced product, eight “usually” do, and one “always” does. *** was the purchaser that reported “always” purchasing the lowest-priced NBR and switched from purchasing NBR imported from Mexico to NBR imported from Russia in 2020. Importance of specified purchase factors Purchasers were asked to rate the importance of 18 factors in their purchasing decisions (table II-9). The factors rated as very important by more than half of responding purchasers were availability and reliability of supply (36 each), product consistency (35), meets customer specifications (34), certification/qualification (29), quality meets industry standards (27), price (21), and delivery time (21). II-20 Table II-9 NBR: Count of purchasers’ responses regarding importance of purchase factors, by factor Factor Very important Somewhat important Not important Availability 36 1 1 Reliability of supply 36 1 1 Product consistency 35 2 1 Meet customer specifications 34 1 2 Certification/Qualification 29 6 3 Quality meets industry standards 27 9 2 Price 21 16 1 Delivery time 21 15 2 Quality exceeds industry standards 17 13 8 Delivery terms 10 24 4 Technical support/service 11 22 5 U.S. transportation costs 8 24 6 Payment terms 9 21 8 Product range 8 22 7 Price lock for > 30 days 5 17 16 Packaging 5 22 11 Discounts offered 2 19 17 Minimum quantity requirements 3 14 20 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Lead times NBR is primarily sold out of inventories. The U.S. producer reported that *** percent of their commercial shipments were sold from inventory, with lead times averaging *** days. The remaining *** percent of its commercial shipments came from inventories, with lead times averaging *** days. Importers reported that 91.7 percent of their commercial shipments were sold from inventory, with lead times averaging 8 days. The remainder of their commercial shipments are produced-to-order (4.8 percent) or is shipped from foreign inventories (3.5 percent), with lead times averaging 77 and 90 days, respectively. II-21 Supplier certification Thirty of 38 purchasers require certification of new suppliers. Some purchasers, such as HEXPOL, have customers that require certification which could be “rigorous and costly”25 ***. On average, purchasers reported that certification/qualification of new suppliers took more than six months. Whereas one purchaser noted it takes 10 days, three purchasers reported that qualification could take up to two years. Three purchasers reported that the length of time “varies” based on the type of material that is to be certified. Purchasers provided a wide range of possible necessary steps before a supplier can become qualified including quality, regulatory, customer, financial, and pricing requirements, along with end product testing. Six of 38 reported that a supplier had failed in its bid to become certified since January 1, 2019. Four did not approve material from Zeon, two did not approve material from Kumho, and two did not approve material from India. Minimum quality specifications As can be seen from table II-10, a majority of purchasers with knowledge of product from domestic and subject sources noted that they always met minimum quality specifications, with somewhat fewer noting that the sources usually meet minimum quality specifications. A majority of purchasers with knowledge of nonsubject imports from Japan reported that they always meet minimum quality specification while five purchasers reported that other nonsubject sources always meet minimum quality specifications and five reported that they usually do. Table II-10 NBR: Count of purchasers’ responses regarding suppliers’ ability to meet minimum quality specifications, by source Source of purchases Always Usually Sometimes Rarely or never Don't Know United States 16 6 2 3 11 France 20 7 1 0 9 Mexico 15 5 0 2 16 South Korea 13 6 0 1 18 Japan 13 7 1 0 16 Nonsubject sources 5 5 1 0 17 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Purchasers were asked how often domestically produced or imported NBR meets minimum quality specifications for their own or their customers’ uses. 25 Hearing transcript, p. 168 (Clunk). II-22 Thirty-four of 35 responding purchasers reported factors that determined quality. The most frequent responses listed include performance characteristics like Mooney viscosity, processability/blendability, and meeting specifications; physical characteristics like oil resistance, ACN content, and particle size distribution; product consistency across batches; low contamination rates; certificates of analysis; and packaging. Interchangeability between types of NBR The U.S. producer, importers, and purchasers were asked to assess the interchangeability of different types of NBR. First, they were asked to compare NBR with respect to different levels of acrylonitrile (ACN) contained in the NBR. NBR was divided into 5 categories based on the ACN percentage: 1. less than 26 percent; 2. greater than or equal to 26 percent but less than 31 percent; 3. between 31 and 35 percent inclusive; 4. greater than 35 percent but less than or equal to 41 percent; and 5. greater than 41 percent. Table II-11 presents firm responses regarding these comparisons. A majority of purchasers noted that there is never the ability to switch between NBR of different categories, although there were more purchasers that indicated that there was “sometimes” interchangeability between the central and midpoint categories than there were between the endpoint categories and any other category. Importers *** indicated more frequent interchangeability than purchasers, with a majority of importers in each comparison category noting that there is “sometimes” interchangeability. Table II-11 NBR: Counts of U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser responses regarding interchangeability between NBR of different ACN categories Comparison pair Firm type Always Frequently Sometimes Never Central ACN vs Endpoint ACN U.S. producer *** *** *** *** Central ACN vs Endpoint ACN Importers 0 1 8 3 Central ACN vs Endpoint ACN Purchasers 1 0 11 22 Central ACN vs Midpoint ACN U.S. producer *** *** *** *** Central ACN vs Midpoint ACN Importers 0 2 8 2 Central ACN vs Midpoint ACN Purchasers 1 0 15 18 Endpoint ACN vs Midpoints ACN U.S. producer *** *** *** *** Endpoint ACN vs Midpoints ACN Importers 0 1 9 2 Endpoint ACN vs Midpoints ACN Purchasers 1 1 10 22 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Central ACN refers to the third, central category (31-35 percent ACN, inclusive), Endpoint ACN refers to categories 1 and 5, and Midpoint ACN refers to those in between the central and endpoint categories, i.e., categories 2 and 4. II-23 Firms were also asked whether NBR produced using batch and continuous processes could be used interchangeably. *** 7 of 10 responding importers, and 15 of 24 responding purchasers indicated that they could be substituted for each other. Changes in purchasing patterns Purchasers were asked about changes in their purchasing patterns from different sources since 2019 (table II-12). Purchasers’ responses varied broadly. Eleven purchasers noted increasing purchases from France, but no change in pattern for any other source exceeded eight responses. Half of responding purchasers of NBR from other nonsubject sources (other than Japan) noted increasing nonsubject purchases since 2019. Of the six purchasers reporting decreasing quantities bought from the domestic producer, three noted decreasing demand needs, one noted quality issues, one noted product availability issues, and the remaining purchaser stated that Zeon promoted its product from its Japanese facility, and only bought domestic product in 2019 due to availability issues. Half of the purchasers reported increased purchases of product imported from France reported demand growth or customer patterns as their reason for buying more NBR imported from France. Fourteen of 38 purchasers reported changing suppliers since January 1, 2019, adding suppliers of domestic, subject, and nonsubject NBR. Most frequently new supply sources were sought due to various availability issues. ***. Table II-12 NBR: Count of purchasers’ responses regarding changes in purchase patterns from United States, subject, and nonsubject countries Source of purchases Increased Constant Decreased Fluctuated Did not purchase United States 4 6 6 5 15 France 11 7 5 5 10 Mexico 3 8 5 5 14 South Korea 3 7 3 6 15 Japan 5 6 3 3 16 Other nonsubject sources 8 6 1 1 16 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. II-24 Purchase factor comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports Purchasers were asked a number of questions comparing NBR produced in the United States, subject countries, and nonsubject countries. First, purchasers were asked for a country- by-country comparison on the same 18 factors (table II-13) for which they were asked to rate the importance. At least half of purchasers reported that U.S. and subject NBR were comparable for each of the 18 factors. U.S. product was considered inferior more often than superior in every comparison except payment terms, delivery time, and technical support/ service from France. When comparing NBR from subject sources with each other, and to nonsubject sources, a majority found each factor comparable. II-25 Table II-13 NBR: Count of purchasers’ responses comparing U.S.-produced and imported product, by factor and country pair Factor Country pair Superior Comparable Inferior Availability U.S. vs France 2 12 8 Reliability of supply U.S. vs France 2 11 4 Product consistency U.S. vs France 0 14 3 Meet customer specifications U.S. vs France 1 16 2 Certification/Qualification U.S. vs France 1 15 5 Quality meets industry standards U.S. vs France 0 15 2 Price U.S. vs France 0 12 5 Delivery time U.S. vs France 5 9 5 Quality exceeds industry standards U.S. vs France 0 14 3 Delivery terms U.S. vs France 3 13 4 Technical support/service U.S. vs France 4 13 3 U.S. transportation costs U.S. vs France 2 13 4 Payment terms U.S. vs France 3 14 3 Product range U.S. vs France 0 15 5 Price lock for > 30 days U.S. vs France 1 12 2 Packaging U.S. vs France 0 15 5 Discounts offered U.S. vs France 0 12 3 Minimum quantity requirements U.S. vs France 0 13 7 Table continued. Table II-13 Continued NBR: Count of purchasers’ responses comparing U.S.-produced and imported product, by factor and country pair Factor Country pair Superior Comparable Inferior Availability U.S. vs Mexico 1 9 6 Reliability of supply U.S. vs Mexico 0 9 5 Product consistency U.S. vs Mexico 0 12 1 Meet customer specifications U.S. vs Mexico 0 13 1 Certification/Qualification U.S. vs Mexico 1 12 2 Quality meets industry standards U.S. vs Mexico 0 13 1 Price U.S. vs Mexico 2 6 5 Delivery time U.S. vs Mexico 0 10 5 Quality exceeds industry standards U.S. vs Mexico 1 10 2 Delivery terms U.S. vs Mexico 1 9 4 Technical support/service U.S. vs Mexico 2 8 4 U.S. transportation costs U.S. vs Mexico 1 11 3 Payment terms U.S. vs Mexico 1 10 4 Product range U.S. vs Mexico 1 9 5 Price lock for > 30 days U.S. vs Mexico 1 8 2 Packaging U.S. vs Mexico 1 11 3 Discounts offered U.S. vs Mexico 0 8 3 Minimum quantity requirements U.S. vs Mexico 0 11 3 Table continued. II-26 Table II-13 Continued NBR: Count of purchasers’ responses comparing U.S.-produced and imported product, by factor and country pair Factor Country pair Superior Comparable Inferior Availability U.S. vs South Korea 1 10 5 Reliability of supply U.S. vs South Korea 0 10 4 Product consistency U.S. vs South Korea 0 12 2 Meet customer specifications U.S. vs South Korea 0 13 2 Certification/Qualification U.S. vs South Korea 1 12 2 Quality meets industry standards U.S. vs South Korea 0 13 2 Price U.S. vs South Korea 0 7 7 Delivery time U.S. vs South Korea 0 12 3 Quality exceeds industry standards U.S. vs South Korea 1 10 3 Delivery terms U.S. vs South Korea 1 12 2 Technical support/service U.S. vs South Korea 1 10 4 U.S. transportation costs U.S. vs South Korea 1 10 4 Payment terms U.S. vs South Korea 0 11 4 Product range U.S. vs South Korea 1 9 5 Price lock for > 30 days U.S. vs South Korea 0 9 3 Packaging U.S. vs South Korea 0 11 4 Discounts offered U.S. vs South Korea 0 9 3 Minimum quantity requirements U.S. vs South Korea 0 11 4 Table continued. Table II-13 Continued NBR: Count of purchasers’ responses comparing U.S.-produced and imported product, by factor and country pair Factor Country pair Superior Comparable Inferior Availability U.S. vs Nonsubject 0 13 2 Reliability of supply U.S. vs Nonsubject 1 12 2 Product consistency U.S. vs Nonsubject 0 13 2 Meet customer specifications U.S. vs Nonsubject 0 7 7 Certification/Qualification U.S. vs Nonsubject 0 12 3 Quality meets industry standards U.S. vs Nonsubject 1 10 3 Price U.S. vs Nonsubject 1 12 2 Delivery time U.S. vs Nonsubject 1 10 4 Quality exceeds industry standards U.S. vs Nonsubject 1 10 4 Delivery terms U.S. vs Nonsubject 0 11 4 Technical support/service U.S. vs Nonsubject 1 9 5 U.S. transportation costs U.S. vs Nonsubject 0 9 3 Payment terms U.S. vs Nonsubject 0 11 4 Product range U.S. vs Nonsubject 0 9 3 Price lock for > 30 days U.S. vs Nonsubject 0 11 4 Packaging U.S. vs Nonsubject 1 10 5 Discounts offered U.S. vs Nonsubject 1 10 5 Minimum quantity requirements U.S. vs Nonsubject 1 10 5 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: A rating of superior means that price/U.S. transportation cost is generally lower. For example, if a firm reported “U.S. superior,” it meant that the U.S. product was generally priced lower than the imported product. II-27 Comparison of U.S.-produced and imported NBR In order to determine whether U.S.-produced NBR can generally be used in the same applications as imports from France, Mexico, and South Korea, the U.S. producer, importers, and purchasers were asked whether the products can always, frequently, sometimes, or never be used interchangeably. Petitioner Zeon reported *** interchangeable. As shown in table II- 14, importers’ responses indicated that NBR from one source is either sometimes or frequently interchangeable with NBR from other sources. Table II-15 shows that for most comparisons made by purchasers, NBR from one source is sometimes interchangeable with that from another source. The exceptions are for comparisons between NBR from South Korea and nonsubject sources (Japan and all other), in which purchasers reported their interchangeability to be “frequently” more often than “sometimes.” Importers and purchasers reporting differences between sources indicated five main reasons: certain grades are not available or approved from certain sources (10 firms), different behavior in applications by NBR from different sources (8), their sourcing is customer-directed or customer-approved (5), qualification/certification issues (4), and quality differences (2). Table II-14 NBR: Count of U.S. importers reporting the interchangeability between product produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pair Country pair Always Frequently Sometimes Never U.S. vs. France *** *** *** *** U.S. vs. Mexico *** *** *** *** U.S. vs. South Korea *** *** *** *** France vs. Mexico *** *** *** *** France vs. South Korea *** *** *** *** Mexico vs. South Korea *** *** *** *** U.S. vs. Japan *** *** *** *** U.S. vs. other *** *** *** *** France vs. Japan *** *** *** *** France vs. other *** *** *** *** Mexico vs. Japan *** *** *** *** Mexico vs. other *** *** *** *** South Korea vs. Japan *** *** *** *** South Korea vs. other *** *** *** *** Japan vs. other *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. II-28 Table II-15 NBR: Count of purchasers reporting the interchangeability between product produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pair Country pair Always Frequently Sometimes Never U.S. vs. France 2 3 13 7 U.S. vs. Mexico 2 3 11 4 U.S. vs. South Korea 2 6 8 3 France vs. Mexico 1 3 13 4 France vs. South Korea 2 4 8 3 Mexico vs. South Korea 2 3 8 3 U.S. vs. Japan 1 4 7 5 U.S. vs. other 1 3 5 2 France vs. Japan 3 3 11 3 France vs. other 2 2 6 1 Mexico vs. Japan 1 4 7 2 Mexico vs. other 1 3 5 1 South Korea vs. Japan 2 5 4 2 South Korea vs. other 2 4 3 1 Japan vs. other 2 3 5 1 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Petitioner Zeon noted that it has the technical ability to produce more than 60 grades of NBR at its domestic facility, and that “with the exception of maybe one or two grades out of a portfolio of 60-plus grades … the vast majority, upper 50s of the 60 or so grades, can be produced in both {the United States and Japan}.”26 Respondent Arlanxeo, however, noted that having the technical ability to produce different grades is not the same as producing those grades needed by U.S. purchasers and their end-use customers.27 Petitioner noted that it “produces a significant volume and variety of the NBR … as one-to-one substitutes for different NBR grades supplied by foreign producers” and that its U.S. plant has produced “equivalent substitutes for *** percent of all NBR grades supplied to the U.S. market since 2018.”28 26 Hearing transcript, p. 125 (Cail). 27 Respondent Arlanxeo’s posthearing brief, p. 3. 28 Petitioner’s posthearing brief, pp. 3-4, annex III, and exh. III-1. In Exh. III-1, ***. II-29 However, multiple purchasers listed exact grades for which they were unable to use domestic equivalents. Others noted that, generally, there were no domestic substitutes for the grades that they use. Respondents argue that there are numerous grades of NBR that are unavailable domestically - or for which Zeon would use imports from its Japanese parent company to supply - and listed grades noted by purchasers which were unavailable domestically based on quality, performance, and/or availability reasons.29 Mountville, a large purchaser of floor mats, also noted that Zeon has insufficient capacity in the United States to produce the grade of NBR it requires.30 Another purchaser noted that for larger orders with consistency requirements, NBR produced using a continuous process will yield better results.31 In addition, the U.S. producer, importers, and purchasers were asked to assess how often differences other than price were significant in sales of NBR from the United States, subject, and nonsubject countries. Petitioner Zeon reported that there are *** differences between NBR produced in the United States and that produced in France, Mexico, and Japan, but there are *** differences between all the other country pairs. As seen in table II-16, at least one importer noted that there are never, sometimes or frequently factors other than price in the NBR market for each comparison. *** reported that there are always differences between the U.S. product and that imported from France and Mexico. Importer *** reported that availability has become a difference between the U.S. product and that imported from France since the announcement of antidumping duties, and importer *** listed lead times, quality, and product range as differentiating factors between NBR from the United States and that imported from Mexico. As reported by purchasers in table II-17, a plurality of purchasers indicated that there are always factors other than price that are important in distinguishing U.S. NBR from French NBR and Mexican NBR. Six purchasers also noted there are always non-price differences between NBR from the United States and South Korea, and seven noted there are always non- price differences between NBR produced in France and Mexico. Grade/material availability, quality, and technical characteristics were most often cited as reasons for differences. 29 Respondent Arlanxeo’s posthearing brief, responses to questions, pp. 39-40, Respondents Dynasol and Negromex’s posthearing brief, exh. 1, pp. 5-11, Respondents ITT, Inc. and WAM’s posthearing brief, pp. 4-7, and Respondent Kumho’s posthearing brief, exh. 1, p. 4 and pp. 5-8. 30 Hearing transcript, pp. 152-153 (Hart). 31 Ibid, pp. 241-242 (Plaza). II-30 Table II-16 NBR: Count of importers reporting the significance of differences other than price between product produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pair Country pair Always Frequently Sometimes Never U.S. vs. France *** *** *** *** U.S. vs. Mexico *** *** *** *** U.S. vs. South Korea *** *** *** *** France vs. Mexico *** *** *** *** France vs. South Korea *** *** *** *** Mexico vs. South Korea *** *** *** *** U.S. vs. Japan *** *** *** *** U.S. vs. other *** *** *** *** France vs. Japan *** *** *** *** France vs. other *** *** *** *** Mexico vs. Japan *** *** *** *** Mexico vs. other *** *** *** *** South Korea vs. Japan *** *** *** *** South Korea vs. other *** *** *** *** Japan vs. other *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table II-17 NBR: Count of purchasers reporting the significance of differences other than price between product produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pair Country pair Always Frequently Sometimes Never U.S. vs. France 11 3 6 4 U.S. vs. Mexico 8 2 7 2 U.S. vs. South Korea 6 2 7 3 France vs. Mexico 7 2 7 3 France vs. South Korea 3 2 7 4 Mexico vs. South Korea 3 2 5 4 U.S. vs. Japan 4 2 6 3 U.S. vs. other 3 2 4 1 France vs. Japan 6 2 7 4 France vs. other 3 2 4 2 Mexico vs. Japan 3 1 5 5 Mexico vs. other 2 2 4 1 South Korea vs. Japan 1 2 5 6 South Korea vs. other 2 2 4 1 Japan vs. other 1 2 5 1 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. II-31 Elasticity estimates This section discusses elasticity estimates; parties were encouraged to comment on these estimates. Parties did not comment on demand or supply elasticities. U.S. supply elasticity The domestic supply elasticity for NBR measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied by the U.S. producer to changes in the U.S. market price of NBR. The elasticity of domestic supply depends on several factors including the level of excess capacity, the ease with which Zeon can alter capacity, its ability to shift somewhat to production of other products, *** of inventories, and the *** alternate markets for U.S.-produced NBR. Analysis of these factors above indicates that the U.S. industry has the ability to increase or decrease shipments to the U.S. market to a *** degree; an estimate in the range of 6 to 10 is suggested. U.S. demand elasticity The U.S. demand elasticity for NBR measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of NBR. This estimate depends on factors discussed above such as the reformulations that would be necessary to switch to non-NBR inputs in the manufacture of downstream products (since reformulation and certification of new suppliers is required even among NBR products), as well as the nontrivial component share of the NBR in the production of any downstream products. Based on the available information, the aggregate demand for NBR is likely to be moderately to highly inelastic based on usage; a range of -0.25 to -0.75 is suggested. II-32 Substitution elasticity The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the domestic and imported products.32 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as product performance, quality (e.g., chemistry, appearance, etc.), product certification or qualification, and conditions of sale (e.g., availability of specific formulations and grades, reliability of delivery, sales terms/discounts/promotions, etc.). Whereas certain purchasers are more able to substitute NBR from one source for another, others have stricter NBR needs and are not as easily able to switch between NBR from different sources for these reasons. Based on available information, the elasticity of substitution between U.S.-produced NBR and imported NBR is likely to be in the range of 2 to 4. Petitioner Zeon argues that the elasticity of substitution is likely higher than “moderate,” describing it as “somewhere between a moderate and significant amount of substitutional elasticity from supply sources for the same grade of NBR, and the same grade being the same Mooney viscosity, same ACN cost,”33 “highly substitutable,”34 “largely substitutable,”35 or having “very high substitution elasticity.”36 Multiple respondents noted agreement with the Commission staff characterization of “moderately” substitutable.37 No party, however, offered an alternative estimate to the likely substitution elasticity range from the prehearing staff report. 32 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject imports and the domestic like products to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switch from the U.S. product to the subject products (or vice versa) when prices change. 33 Hearing transcript, p. 145 (Arkan). 34 Petitioner’s posthearing brief, p. 5. 35 Petitioner’s prehearing brief, p. 2. 36 Petitioner’s prehearing brief, p. 21. 37 See, e.g., hearing transcript, p. 185 (Kendler) and p. 208 (Peterson). 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 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 response of one firm that accounted for 100 percent of U.S. production of NBR during 2021. U.S. producer The Commission issued a U.S. producer questionnaire to one firm, Zeon, based on information contained in the petitions. Zeon provided usable data on its operations. Staff believes that this response represents all U.S. production of NBR.1 Table III-1 presents U.S. producer Zeon, its production locations, position on the petitions, and share of total production. Table III-1 NBR: U.S. producer, its position on the petitions, production locations, and share of reported production, 2021 Firm Position on petitions Production location(s) Share of production Zeon Petitioner Louisville, KY 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 1 Zeon is the only known U.S. producer of NBR. Conference transcript, pp. 12-13 (Recchio), p. 118 (Quintero). Lion Elastomers LLC, announced on October 27, 2021, that it would be starting production of NBR in the second half of 2022. Petitioner’s prehearing brief, p. 19 and exhibit 6, and hearing transcript, p. 258 (Arkan). ***. Email from *** of ***, June 7, 2022. III-2 Table III-2 presents information on U.S. producer Zeon’s ownership, related and/or affiliated firms. Table III-2 NBR: U.S. producer Zeon’s ownership, related and/or affiliated firms Reporting firm Relationship type and related firm Details of relationship Zeon *** *** Zeon *** *** Zeon *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires, petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 28-29. As indicated in table III-2, Zeon *** related to subject producers of NBR and *** related to U.S. importers of NBR from subject sources. Zeon *** directly import NBR from subject sources and *** purchase NBR from subject sources from U.S. importers. Zeon, however, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Zeon Corporation, a Japanese producer of NBR, ***. Zeon also directly imports NBR from ***.2 Table III-3 presents U.S. producer Zeon’s reported changes in operations since January 1, 2019. Table III-3 NBR: U.S. producer Zeon’s reported changes in operations, since January 1, 2019 Item Firm name and narrative response on changes in operations Other *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 2 Zeon accounted for ***. See part IV for more information on imports from ***. III-3 U.S. production, capacity, and capacity utilization Table III-4 and figure III-1 present U.S. producer Zeon’s production, capacity, and capacity utilization. Production decreased by *** percent during 2019-20, then increased by *** percent during 2020-21, for an overall *** percent decrease during 2019-21.3 ***.4 Zeon states that these ***.5 3 Zeon ***. See Zeon’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, question II-5, and email from ***, July 20, 2021. ***. Email from ***, April 28, 2022. 4 Zeon’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, question II-2b and email from ***, May 27, 2022. 5 Email from ***, June 3, 2022. ***. III-4 Given that capacity was unchanged during 2019-21,6 capacity utilization trends mirrored production trends. Capacity utilization decreased by *** percentage points during 2019-20 and increased by *** percentage points during 2020-21, for an overall decrease in capacity utilization of *** percentage points during 2019-21. 6 Capacity was calculated based on operating *** hours per week, and *** weeks per year. Production constraints include: ***. Zeon’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, questions II-3d and II-7. III-5 Table III-4 NBR: U.S. producer Zeon’s average production capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by period Quantities in 1,000 pounds; ratios and shares in percent Firm Measure 2019 2020 2021 Capacity Quantity *** *** *** Production: NIBR Quantity *** *** *** Production: XNBR Quantity *** *** *** Production: All other NBR Quantity *** *** *** Production: All NBR Quantity *** *** *** Capacity utilization Ratio *** *** *** Production: NIBR Share *** *** *** Production: XNBR Share *** *** *** Production: All other NBR Share *** *** *** Production: All NBR Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: NIBR is “acrylonitrile-isoprene-butadiene rubber” and is produced by incorporating isoprene during the production (polymerization) process of NBR. XNBR is “carboxylated NBR” and is produced by incorporating methacrylic acid during the production (polymerization) process of NBR. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. Figure III-1 NBR: U.S. producer Zeon’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by period * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. III-6 Zeon produced *** NBR using batch production and *** NBR using continuous production.7 Around *** of Zeon’s NBR production consisted of XNBR, with the remaining *** consisting of all other NBR during 2019-2021. Zeon reported *** production of NIBR during 2019-2021. Zeon reported that it ***. In 2021, around *** percent (*** pounds) of Zeon’s U.S.- produced NBR was sold to U.S. customers that required a custom specification. The most common custom specifications requested were: ***. In 2021, around *** percent (*** pounds) of Zeon’s U.S.-produced NBR was custom-produced and only sold to one customer, including ***. 7 Continuous production is an NBR production process that relies on a series of linked reactors through which producers feed input monomers to generate NBR. Batch production as an NBR production process in which producers feed input monomers into separate reactors that are not linked in a series (see part I for further details). III-7 Alternative products As shown in table III-5, between *** and *** percent of the product produced during 2019-21 by U.S. producer Zeon was NBR. Zeon reported production of *** using the same machinery or workers used to produce NBR. During 2019-21, out-of-scope production increased by *** percent and its share of total production increased by *** percentage points. Zeon reported that ***. With respect to workers, ***.8 Table III-5 NBR: U.S. producer Zeon’s overall capacity and production on the same equipment as subject production, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratio and share in percent Item Measure 2019 2020 2021 Overall capacity Quantity *** *** *** NBR production Quantity *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Latex NBR Quantity *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Other products Quantity *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: All products Quantity *** *** *** Total production Quantity *** *** *** Overall capacity utilization Ratio *** *** *** NBR production Share *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Latex NBR Share *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Other products Share *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: All products Share *** *** *** Total production Share 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 “---“. “Out-of-scope production: Latex NBR” does not include latex NBR that was used to produce in-scope NBR. 8 Zeon’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, question II-4(b). III-8 U.S. producer’s U.S. shipments and exports Table III-6 presents U.S. producer Zeon’s U.S. shipments, export shipments, and total shipments. Total shipments increased during 2019-21, by *** percent in quantity and *** percent in value. Both U.S. shipments and export shipments decreased from 2019 to 2020, then increased from 2020 to 2021.9 U.S. shipments decreased during 2019-20 by quantity (*** percent) and value (*** percent), then increased during 2020-2021 by quantity (*** percent) and value (*** percent), for an overall decrease in quantity (*** percent) and increase in value (*** percent) during 2019-21. Export shipments decreased during 2019-20 by quantity (*** percent) and value (*** percent), then increased during 2020-21 by quantity (*** percent) and value (*** percent), for an overall 2019-2021 increase in quantity (*** percent) and value (*** percent).10 Average unit values for both U.S. shipments and export shipments decreased from 2019-20, then increased from 2020-21. U.S. shipment, export shipment, and total shipment average unit values increased overall during 2019-21 by *** percent, *** percent, and *** percent, respectively. The share of total shipments (by quantity) accounted for by export shipments ranged from *** to *** percent throughout the period for which data were collected. Zeon exported NBR to ***. 9 ***. Zeon’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, question II-2b. 10 ***. Zeon’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, question II-2b. III-9 Table III-6 NBR: U.S. producer Zeon’s shipments, by destination and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per pound; shares in percent Item Measure 2019 2020 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 U.S. shipments Share of value *** *** *** Export shipments Share of value *** *** *** Total shipments Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table III-7 presents U.S. producer Zeon’s U.S. shipments by shipment type (i.e., commercial shipments and internal consumption). *** percent of Zeon’s U.S. shipments, by quantity, consisted of commercial shipments throughout the period for which data were collected. U.S. commercial shipments decreased during 2019-20 by *** percent in quantity and *** percent in value, then increased during 2020-21 by *** percent in quantity and *** percent in value, for an overall decrease in quantity by *** percent and increase in value by *** percent during 2019-21. Internal consumption increased in quantity (*** percent) and value (*** percent) during 2019-21. Zeon internally consumes NBR to produce ***. It also reported ***11 *** 11 Zeon explained ***. Email from ***, July 28, 2021. III-10 ***.12 Internal consumption increased during 2019-21 because ***.13 Both U.S. commercial shipment and internal consumption average unit values increased during 2019-21, by *** percent and *** percent, respectively. Table III-7 NBR: U.S. producer Zeon’s U.S. shipments, by type and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per pound; shares in percent Item Measure 2019 2020 2021 Commercial U.S. shipments Quantity *** *** *** Internal consumption Quantity *** *** *** U.S. shipments Quantity *** *** *** Commercial U.S. shipments Value *** *** *** Internal consumption Value *** *** *** U.S. shipments Value *** *** *** Commercial U.S. shipments Unit value *** *** *** Internal consumption Unit value *** *** *** U.S. shipments Unit value *** *** *** Commercial U.S. shipments Share of quantity *** *** *** Internal consumption Share of quantity *** *** *** U.S. shipments Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 Commercial U.S. shipments Share of value *** *** *** Internal consumption Share of value *** *** *** U.S. shipments Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 12 *** U.S. shipments of NBR that were reported as internal consumption were sold as is (i.e., diverted back into the open market for NBR). Zeon’s preliminary phase U.S. producers’ questionnaire, question II-10. 13 Email from ***, July 28, 2021. III-11 U.S. producer’s inventories Table III-8 presents U.S. producer Zeon’s end-of-period inventories and the ratio of these inventories to U.S. producer Zeon’s production, U.S. shipments, and total shipments. End- of-period inventories decreased by *** percent during 2019-21. The inventory ratio to U.S. production, U.S. shipments, and total shipments each increased from 2019 to 2020, then decreased from 2020 to 2021. During 2019-21, the inventory ratio to U.S. production decreased by *** percentage points, the inventory ratio to U.S. shipments decreased by *** percentage points, and the inventory ratio to total shipments decreased by *** percentage points. Table III-8 NBR: U.S. producer Zeon’s inventories and their ratio to select items, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratio in percent Item 2019 2020 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. III-12 U.S. employment, wages, and productivity Table III-9 shows the U.S. producer’s employment-related data. Production and related workers (PRWs) increased by *** percent during 2019-20 and returned to 2019 levels in 2021.14 Total hours worked and hours worked per PRW decreased *** percent during 2019-21. Wages paid increased by *** percent and hourly wages increased by *** percent during 2019-21, while production decreased, resulting in decreased productivity by *** pounds per hour and increased unit labor costs by *** per pound.15 Table III-9 NBR: U.S. producer Zeon’s employment related information, by period Item 2019 2020 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 (pounds per hour) *** *** *** Unit labor costs (dollars per pound) *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 14 ***. Zeon’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, question II-2b. 15 ***. Zeon’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, question II-2b. IV-1 Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares U.S. importers The Commission issued importer questionnaires to 25 firms believed to be importers of subject NBR, including U.S. producer Zeon.1 Usable questionnaire responses were received from 18 companies,2 representing an estimated *** percent of U.S. imports from France,3 *** U.S. imports from Mexico,4 *** percent of U.S. imports from South Korea, *** 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 subheading 4002.59.00 in 2021. 2 Three firms, ***, certified that they have not imported NBR into the United States since January 1, 2019. Two firms, *** were not responsive. Two firms confirmed that they imported NBR into the United States since January 1, 2019, but did not complete an importer questionnaire: ***. 3 *** imported from France *** pounds of out-of-scope merchandise under HTS subheading 4002.59.00 in 2021. Subtracting this quantity from official import statistics, questionnaire responses account for *** percent of official import statistics for France in 2021. ***. Email from ***, April 12, 2022. The quantities of imports from France reported by *** and ***, the two firms that did not complete an importer questionnaire, accounted for *** percent of 2021 official import statistics for France (after adjusting for out-of-scope merchandise imported by ***). Therefore, staff estimate questionnaire responses account for *** percent of imports from France in 2021. 4 After adjusting for *** pounds of out-of-scope merchandise imported in 2021 by *** under HTS subheading 4002.59.00, questionnaire responses accounted for *** percent of 2021 official import statistics. ***. Therefore, staff believe *** accounts for all NBR imported from Mexico. The difference between questionnaire data and official import statistics is likely due to timing differences as to when imports are accounted for, as questionnaire coverage was *** percent in 2019. IV-2 percent of U.S. imports from the largest nonsubject source Japan,5 and *** percent of U.S. imports from all other sources in 2021 under HTS subheading 4002.59.00. Table IV-1 lists all responding U.S. importers of NBR from France, Mexico, South Korea, nonsubject source Japan,6 and all other sources, their locations, and their shares of U.S. imports, in 2021. Table IV-1 NBR: U.S. importers, their headquarters, and share of imports within each source, 2021 Share in percent Firm Headquarters France Mexico South Korea Subject sources Advance Schaumburg, IL *** *** *** *** Arlanxeo USA Pittsburgh, PA *** *** *** *** Armacell Chapel Hill, NC *** *** *** *** ARP Amherst, NY *** *** *** *** Axiom Akron, OH *** *** *** *** Cascadia Redmond, WA *** *** *** *** ContiTech Fairlawn, OH *** *** *** *** Dynasol Houston, TX *** *** *** *** HB Chemical Twinsburg, OH *** *** *** *** Intertex Carrollton, GA *** *** *** *** LG Chem America Atlanta, GA *** *** *** *** Milin Simcoe, ON *** *** *** *** Mitsui White Plains, NY *** *** *** *** OMNOVA USA Beachwood, OH *** *** *** *** Parker Hannafin Cleveland, OH *** *** *** *** Posco Anaheim, CA *** *** *** *** T.L. Squire Akron, OH *** *** *** *** Zeon Louisville, KY *** *** *** *** All firms Various 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table continued. 5 *** imported *** pounds of NBR from Japan under an HTS subheading other than 4002.59.00 in 2021. Therefore, this quantity was added to official import statistics data under HTS subheading 4002.59.00 to estimate questionnaire coverage for imports from Japan in 2021. 6 ***. Zeon’s U.S. importers’ questionnaire response, question II-4. IV-3 Table IV-1 Continued NBR: U.S. importers, their headquarters, and share of imports within each source, 2021 Share in percent Firm Headquarters Japan All other sources Nonsubject sources All import sources Advance Schaumburg, IL *** *** *** *** Arlanxeo USA Pittsburgh, PA *** *** *** *** Armacell Chapel Hill, NC *** *** *** *** ARP Amherst, NY *** *** *** *** Axiom Akron, OH *** *** *** *** Cascadia Redmond, WA *** *** *** *** ContiTech Fairlawn, OH *** *** *** *** Dynasol Houston, TX *** *** *** *** HB Chemical Twinsburg, OH *** *** *** *** Intertex Carrollton, GA *** *** *** *** LG Chem America Atlanta, GA *** *** *** *** Milin Simcoe, ON *** *** *** *** Mitsui White Plains, NY *** *** *** *** OMNOVA USA Beachwood, OH *** *** *** *** Parker Hannafin Cleveland, OH *** *** *** *** Posco Anaheim, CA *** *** *** *** T.L. Squire Akron, OH *** *** *** *** Zeon Louisville, KY *** *** *** *** All firms Various 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 “---“. IV-4 U.S. imports Table IV-2 presents data for U.S. imports of NBR from France, Mexico, South Korea, nonsubject source Japan, and all other sources.7 Import quantities and values from France, South Korea, total subject sources, and all other sources each decreased during 2019-20, then increased from 2020-21, with overall increases during the 2019-21 period. Importers *** cited COVID-19 as the reason for their U- shaped importing trends over the 2019-21 period. ***. In addition to the COVID-19 recovery, ***.8 On the other hand, imports from Mexico,9 nonsubject source Japan, and total nonsubject sources decreased overall during 2019-21. Average unit values (AUVs) of imports from subject sources were lower than AUVs of nonsubject sources throughout the period for which data were collected. AUVs for each import source decreased from 2019 to 2020, then increased from 2020 to 2021.10 Imports from subject sources increased as a share of total imports, by quantity, over each comparison in the data collection period, with the highest share reported in 2021 period, at *** percent. Imports from nonsubject sources decreased as a share of total imports, by quantity, during 2019-21 by *** percentage points.11 During 2019-21, the ratio of subject imports to U.S. production increased from *** to *** percent, while the ratio of nonsubject imports to U.S. production decreased, from *** to ***. 7 Table IV-2 is compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Official import statistics for HTS subheading 4002.59.00 are presented in appendix F. 8 Email from ***, March 20, 2022. 9 ***. *** U.S. importers’ questionnaire response, question III-14. 10 A decrease in demand and raw materials prices in 2020 that put downward pressure on NBR prices were cited as reasons for lower average unit values in 2020 than in 2019 and 2021. Emails from ***, April 8, 2022, and ***, April 21, 2022. 11 The share of imports from Japan decreased by *** percent, while the share of imports from all other sources increased by *** percent during 2019-21. IV-5 Several importers continue to report challenges related to COVID-19, including continued decreased demand in the automotive sector, supply chain bottlenecks as overall NBR demand begins to recover, logistics and transportation delays, increased lead times, and uncertainty in arrival schedules.12 Table IV-2 NBR: U.S. imports by source and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per pound Source Measure 2019 2020 2021 France Quantity *** *** *** Mexico Quantity *** *** *** South Korea Quantity *** *** *** Subject sources Quantity 72,219 54,068 73,423 Japan Quantity *** *** *** All other sources Quantity *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Quantity *** *** *** All import sources Quantity *** *** *** France Value *** *** *** Mexico Value *** *** *** South Korea Value *** *** *** Subject sources Value 77,912 49,427 84,561 Japan Value *** *** *** All other sources Value *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Value *** *** *** All import sources Value *** *** *** France Unit value *** *** *** Mexico Unit value *** *** *** South Korea Unit value *** *** *** Subject sources Unit value 1.08 0.91 1.15 Japan Unit value *** *** *** All other sources Unit value *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Unit value *** *** *** All import sources Unit value *** *** *** Table continued. 12 U.S. importers’ questionnaire, question II-2b, and foreign producer/exporter questionnaire, question II-2b. IV-6 Table IV-2 Continued NBR: Share of U.S. imports by source and period Share and ratio in percent Source Measure 2019 2020 2021 France Share of quantity *** *** *** Mexico Share of quantity *** *** *** South Korea Share of quantity *** *** *** Subject sources Share of quantity *** *** *** Japan Share of quantity *** *** *** All other sources Share of quantity *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Share of quantity *** *** *** All import sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 France Share of value *** *** *** Mexico Share of value *** *** *** South Korea Share of value *** *** *** Subject sources Share of value *** *** *** Japan Share of value *** *** *** All other sources Share of value *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Share of value *** *** *** All import sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 France Ratio *** *** *** Mexico Ratio *** *** *** South Korea Ratio *** *** *** Subject sources Ratio *** *** *** Japan Ratio *** *** *** All other sources Ratio *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Ratio *** *** *** All import sources Ratio *** *** *** Table continued. IV-7 Table IV-2 Continued NBR: Percentage change of U.S. imports by source and period %Δ in percent Source Measure 2019-21 2019-20 2020-21 France %Δ Quantity ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Mexico %Δ Quantity ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** South Korea %Δ Quantity ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Subject sources %Δ Quantity ▲1.7 ▼(25.1) ▲35.8 Japan %Δ Quantity ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** All other sources %Δ Quantity ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Nonsubject sources %Δ Quantity ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** All import sources %Δ Quantity ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** France %Δ Value ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Mexico %Δ Value ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** South Korea %Δ Value ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Subject sources %Δ Value ▲8.5 ▼(36.6) ▲71.1 Japan %Δ Value ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** All other sources %Δ Value ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Nonsubject sources %Δ Value ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** All import sources %Δ Value ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** France %Δ Unit value ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Mexico %Δ Unit value ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** South Korea %Δ Unit value ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Subject sources %Δ Unit value ▲6.8 ▼(15.3) ▲26.0 Japan %Δ Unit value ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** All other sources %Δ Unit value ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Nonsubject sources %Δ Unit value ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** All import sources %Δ Unit value ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 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 production. IV-8 Figure IV-1 NBR: U.S. import quantities and average unit values, by source and period * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. IV-9 U.S. imports of NIBR, XNBR, and all other NBR Table IV-3 presents data for U.S. imports from all sources of NIBR, XNBR, and all other NBR.13 NIBR and XNBR each accounted for ***, by quantity, of total imports throughout the period for which data were collected. *** NIBR from 2019 to 2021 was imported from ***. During 2019-21, *** percent of XNBR imports came from subject sources (***) and *** percent came from nonsubject sources (imported by ***). AUVs of NIBR and XNBR imports were consistently higher than AUVs of all other NBR imports. Table IV-3 NBR: U.S. imports from all sources, by type and by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per pound Product type Measure 2019 2020 2021 NIBR Quantity *** *** *** XNBR Quantity *** *** *** All other NBR Quantity *** *** *** All NBR Quantity *** *** *** NIBR Value *** *** *** XNBR Value *** *** *** All other NBR Value *** *** *** All NBR Value *** *** *** NIBR Unit Value *** *** *** XNBR Unit Value *** *** *** All other NBR Unit Value *** *** *** All NBR Unit Value *** *** *** NIBR Share of Quantity *** *** *** XNBR Share of Quantity *** *** *** All other NBR Share of Quantity *** *** *** All NBR Share of Quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 NIBR Share of Value *** *** *** XNBR Share of Value *** *** *** All other NBR Share of Value *** *** *** All NBR Share of Value 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 13 NIBR is “acrylonitrile-isoprene-butadiene rubber” and is produced by incorporating isoprene during the production (polymerization) process of NBR. XNBR is “carboxylated NBR” and is produced by incorporating methacrylic acid during the production (polymerization) process of NBR. IV-10 Negligibility The statute requires that an investigation be terminated without an injury determination if imports of the subject merchandise are found to be negligible.14 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 imports from such countries are deemed not to be negligible.15 Imports from France accounted for *** percent, imports from Mexico accounted for *** percent, and imports from South Korea accounted for *** percent of total imports of NBR by quantity during June 2020 through May 2021. Table IV-4 NBR: U.S. imports in the twelve-month period preceding the filing of the petitions, June 2020 through May 2021 Quantity in 1,000 pounds; share in percent Source of imports Quantity Share of quantity France *** *** Mexico *** *** South Korea *** *** Subject sources 56,295 *** Japan *** *** All other sources *** *** Nonsubject sources *** *** All sources *** 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 14 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)). 15 Section 771 (24) of the Act (19 U.S.C § 1677(24)). IV-11 Critical circumstances On June 24, 2022, Commerce issued its final determination that “critical circumstances” exist with regard to imports from France of NBR produced and exported by all producers and exporters from France other than Arlanxeo France and from South Korea from LG Chem and the companies covered by the all-others rate.16 17 In these investigations, if both Commerce and the Commission make affirmative final critical circumstances determinations, certain subject imports may be subject to antidumping duties retroactive by 90 days from February 2, 2022, the effective date of Commerce’s preliminary affirmative LTFV determination.18 Tables IV-5 through IV-8 and figures IV-2 and IV-3 present this data. Table IV-5 NBR: U.S. imports from France subject to Commerce’s affirmative preliminary critical circumstances determination Quantity in 1,000 pounds Month Relation to petition Quantity January 2021 Before *** February 2021 Before *** March 2021 Before *** April 2021 Before *** May 2021 Before *** June 2021 Before *** July 2021 After *** August 2021 After *** September 2021 After *** October 2021 After *** November 2021 After *** December 2021 After *** Table continued. 16 87 FR 37833, June 24, 2022 and 87 FR 37825, June 24, 2022, referenced in app. A. When petitioners file timely allegations of critical circumstances, Commerce examines whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that (1) either there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at LTFV and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales; and (2) there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. 17 Commerce found that critical circumstances do not exist for Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. 87 FR 37825, June 24, 2022. 18 Zeon takes no position with respect to critical circumstances. Zeon’s postconference brief, Responses to the Commissioners’ Questions, p. 35 IV-12 Table IV-5 Continued NBR: U.S. imports from France potentially subject to Commerce’s affirmative final critical circumstances determination Quantity in 1,000 pounds Comparison pre- and post- petition period Cumulative before period quantity Cumulative after period quantity Difference in percent 1 month *** *** *** 2 months *** *** *** 3 months *** *** *** 4 months *** *** *** 5 months *** *** *** 6 months *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. Figure IV-2 NBR: U.S. imports from France potentially subject to Commerce’s final critical circumstances determination, January 2021 through December 2021 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. IV-13 Table IV-6 NBR: U.S. importers’ U.S. inventories of imports from France for analysis in relation to Commerce’s affirmative final critical circumstances determination, by date Quantity in 1,000 pounds; index in percent Date Quantity Index June 30, 2021 *** 100.0 July 31, 2021 *** *** August 31, 2021 *** *** September 30, 2021 *** *** October 31, 2021 *** *** November 30, 2021 *** *** December 31, 2021 *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Index based on end-of-period inventories on June 30, 2021, equal to 100.0 percent. Table IV-7 NBR: U.S. imports from South Korea subject to Commerce’s affirmative final critical circumstances determination Quantity in 1,000 pounds Month Relation to petition Quantity January 2021 Before *** February 2021 Before *** March 2021 Before *** April 2021 Before *** May 2021 Before *** June 2021 Before *** July 2021 After *** August 2021 After *** September 2021 After *** October 2021 After *** November 2021 After *** December 2021 After *** Table continued. IV-14 Table IV-7 Continued NBR: U.S. imports from South Korea potentially subject to Commerce’s affirmative final critical circumstances determination Quantity in 1,000 pounds Comparison pre- and post- petition period Cumulative before period quantity Cumulative after period quantity Difference in percent 1 month *** *** *** 2 months *** *** *** 3 months *** *** *** 4 months *** *** *** 5 months *** *** *** 6 months *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Figure IV-3 NBR: U.S. imports from South Korea potentially subject to Commerce’s final critical circumstances determination, January 2021 through December 2021 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. IV-15 Table IV-8 NBR: U.S. importers’ U.S. inventories of imports from South Korea for analysis in relation to Commerce’s affirmative final critical circumstances determination, by date Quantity in 1,000 pounds; index in percent Date Quantity Index June 30, 2021 *** 100.0 July 31, 2021 *** *** August 31, 2021 *** *** September 30, 2021 *** *** October 31, 2021 *** *** November 30, 2021 *** *** December 31, 2021 *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Index based on end-of-period inventories on June 30, 2021, equal to 100.0 percent. IV-16 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. Fungibility19 Table IV-9 and figure IV-4 present quantity and shares of U.S. producer Zeon’s and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments by form: (1) bale/slab; (2) ground, particulate, pellet, or powder; and (3) liquid. As shown in table IV-9, NBR in bale/slab form represented the majority or all (in the case of imports from ***) of U.S. shipments for each source. U.S. shipments in ground, particulate, pellet, or powder form were reported from all sources except ***. Only *** reported U.S. shipments in liquid form. Table IV-9 NBR: U.S. producer Zeon’s and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments, by source and form, 2021 Quantity in 1,000 pounds Source Bale/slab Ground Liquid All forms U.S. producers *** *** *** *** France *** *** *** *** Mexico *** *** *** *** South Korea *** *** *** *** Subject sources *** *** *** *** Japan *** *** *** *** All other sources *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** All import sources *** *** *** *** All sources *** *** *** *** Table continued. 19 Zeon estimates that the grades of NBR supplied by subject imports for which Zeon did not have an equivalent substitute grade which it produced in its Louisville factory since 2018 is roughly *** percent of the roughly *** metric tons of NBR rubber consumed in the U.S. market in 2021. Zeon’s postconference brief, Responses to the Commissioners’ Questions, p. 17 IV-17 Table IV-9 Continued NBR: U.S. producer Zeon’s and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments, by source and form, 2021 Share across in percent Source Bale/slab Ground Liquid All forms U.S. producers *** *** *** 100.0 France *** *** *** 100.0 Mexico *** *** *** 100.0 South Korea *** *** *** 100.0 Subject sources *** *** *** 100.0 Japan *** *** *** 100.0 All other sources *** *** *** 100.0 Nonsubject sources *** *** *** 100.0 All import sources *** *** *** 100.0 All sources *** *** *** 100.0 Table continued. Table IV-9 Continued NBR: U.S. producer Zeon’s and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments, by source and form, 2021 Share down in percent Source Bale/slab Ground Liquid All forms U.S. producers *** *** *** *** France *** *** *** *** Mexico *** *** *** *** South Korea *** *** *** *** Subject sources *** *** *** *** Japan *** *** *** *** All other sources *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** All import sources *** *** *** *** All sources 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 “---“. IV-18 Figure IV-4 NBR: U.S. shipments, by source and form * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. IV-19 Table IV-10 and figure IV-5 present shares of the U.S. producer Zeon’s and U.S. importers’ 2021 U.S. shipments by acrylonitrile (“ACN") content. As shown in table IV-10, U.S. shipments from *** had ACN content that were within all five ranges specified, while U.S. shipments from *** had ACN content ranges that were within four of the five ranges specified (all but ACN content greater than 41 percent). The ACN content range that represented the highest share of 2021 U.S. shipments for *** was equal to or greater than 31 percent and less than or equal to 35 percent. The ACN content ranges that represented the highest shares of *** were: (1) equal to or greater than 26 percent and less than 31 percent; and (2) greater than 35 percent and less than or equal to 41 percent. Table IV-10 NBR: U.S. producer Zeon’s and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments, by source and ACN content, 2021 Quantity in 1,000 pounds Source <26% >=26% and <31%” >=31% and <=35% >35% and <=41% >41% All ACN contents U.S. producers *** *** *** *** *** *** France *** *** *** *** *** *** Mexico *** *** *** *** *** *** South Korea *** *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources *** *** *** *** *** *** Japan *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources *** *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** *** *** All import sources *** *** *** *** *** *** All sources *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. IV-20 Table IV-10 Continued NBR: U.S. producer Zeon’s and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments, by source and ACN content, 2021 Share across in percent Source <26% >=26% and <31%” >=31% and <=35% >35% and <=41% >41% All ACN contents U.S. producers *** *** *** *** *** 100.0 France *** *** *** *** *** 100.0 Mexico *** *** *** *** *** 100.0 South Korea *** *** *** *** *** 100.0 Subject sources *** *** *** *** *** 100.0 Japan *** *** *** *** *** 100.0 All other sources *** *** *** *** *** 100.0 Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** *** 100.0 All import sources *** *** *** *** *** 100.0 All sources *** *** *** *** *** 100.0 Table continued. Table IV-10 Continued NBR: U.S. producer Zeon’s and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments, by source and ACN content, 2021 Share down in percent Source <26% >=26% and <31%” >=31% and <=35% >35% and <=41% >41% All ACN contents U.S. producers *** *** *** *** *** *** France *** *** *** *** *** *** Mexico *** *** *** *** *** *** South Korea *** *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources *** *** *** *** *** *** Japan *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources *** *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** *** *** All import sources *** *** *** *** *** *** All sources 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. IV-21 Figure IV-5 NBR: U.S. shipments, by source and ACN content * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. *** reported U.S. shipments of NBR for which their customers require custom specifications and *** reported U.S. shipments of custom-produced grades that are only sold to one customer and not offered for sale to other customers. ***. IV-22 Geographical markets Table IV-11 presents the quantity and shares of U.S. imports of NBR in 2021 by border of entry based on official import statistics. NBR imports entered through all four borders of entry by both subject and nonsubject sources. NBR imports from Mexico entered almost exclusively through ports located in the South, the majority of NBR imports from France and all other sources entered through ports located in the East, and the majority of NBR imports from Japan entered through ports located in the North. Table IV-11 NBR: U.S. imports by source and border of entry, 2021 Quantity in 1,000 pounds Source East North South West All borders France 24,727 323 8,875 - 33,924 Mexico - - 12,252 6 12,258 South Korea 13,222 8,927 379 10,891 33,419 Subject sources 37,949 9,250 21,506 10,897 79,601 Japan 393 13,837 4,514 1,143 19,887 All other sources 8,384 862 532 568 10,346 Nonsubject sources 8,777 14,699 5,046 1,711 30,233 All import sources 46,726 23,949 26,552 12,607 109,834 Table continued. Table IV-11 Continued NBR: U.S. imports by source and border of entry, 2021 Share across in percent Source East North South West All borders France 72.9 1.0 26.2 - 100.0 Mexico - - 100.0 0.0 100.0 South Korea 39.6 26.7 1.1 32.6 100.0 Subject sources 47.7 11.6 27.0 13.7 100.0 Japan 2.0 69.6 22.7 5.7 100.0 All other sources 81.0 8.3 5.1 5.5 100.0 Nonsubject sources 29.0 48.6 16.7 5.7 100.0 All import sources 42.5 21.8 24.2 11.5 100.0 Table continued. IV-23 Table IV-11 Continued NBR: U.S. imports by source and border of entry, 2021 Share down in percent Source East North South West All borders France 52.9 1.3 33.4 - 30.9 Mexico - - 46.1 0.0 11.2 South Korea 28.3 37.3 1.4 86.4 30.4 Subject sources 81.2 38.6 81.0 86.4 72.5 Japan 0.8 57.8 17.0 9.1 18.1 All other sources 17.9 3.6 2.0 4.5 9.4 Nonsubject sources 18.8 61.4 19.0 13.6 27.5 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 statistical reporting number 4002.59.0000, accessed May 9, 2022. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. IV-24 Presence in the market Table IV-12 and figures IV-6 and IV-7 present monthly official U.S. import statistics for subject and nonsubject sources. U.S. imports of NBR from each source were present in every month from January 2019 to February 2022. Table IV-12 NBR: Quantity of U.S. imports, by source and month Quantity in 1,000 pounds Year Month France Mexico South Korea Subject 2019 January 4,131 1,738 3,123 8,992 2019 February 1,315 1,931 1,875 5,120 2019 March 3,365 1,439 3,969 8,773 2019 April 2,763 1,018 2,368 6,149 2019 May 3,868 1,840 2,740 8,448 2019 June 1,988 1,449 3,014 6,451 2019 July 958 979 3,623 5,559 2019 August 2,023 856 1,786 4,665 2019 September 3,364 1,325 1,700 6,389 2019 October 1,954 1,881 1,976 5,810 2019 November 1,905 1,842 2,201 5,947 2019 December 2,568 1,354 1,775 5,697 2020 January 3,803 1,355 1,656 6,814 2020 February 1,222 1,090 2,158 4,470 2020 March 2,709 2,105 1,521 6,335 2020 April 3,461 1,353 2,696 7,510 2020 May 3,157 876 1,379 5,412 2020 June 1,048 942 1,596 3,586 2020 July 963 1,252 1,418 3,633 2020 August 1,050 1,061 1,552 3,663 2020 September 1,975 1,175 1,645 4,795 2020 October 1,380 765 1,723 3,868 2020 November 956 1,140 757 2,854 2020 December 3,457 1,199 1,235 5,890 Table continued. IV-25 Table IV-12 Continued NBR: Quantity of U.S. imports, by source and month Quantity in 1,000 pounds Year Month France Mexico South Korea Subject 2021 January 3,076 1,580 1,352 6,007 2021 February 3,043 1,223 2,576 6,842 2021 March 2,918 783 4,160 7,860 2021 April 3,676 740 2,217 6,633 2021 May 2,336 1,153 2,788 6,277 2021 June 1,480 874 4,160 6,514 2021 July 2,337 1,062 2,536 5,935 2021 August 3,649 741 2,277 6,667 2021 September 4,023 1,007 4,078 9,107 2021 October 1,875 912 3,665 6,452 2021 November 2,986 1,286 2,994 7,266 2021 December 2,527 898 616 4,041 2022 January 3,507 674 1,139 5,320 2022 February 838 994 999 2,831 2022 March 949 880 798 2,627 Table continued. IV-26 Table IV-12 Continued NBR: Quantity of U.S. imports, by source and month Quantity in 1,000 pounds Year Month Japan All other Nonsubject sources All import sources 2019 January 2,081 1,227 3,308 12,300 2019 February 1,814 1,746 3,560 8,680 2019 March 3,463 1,044 4,507 13,280 2019 April 4,271 2,530 6,801 12,950 2019 May 2,429 867 3,296 11,744 2019 June 2,102 572 2,674 9,125 2019 July 2,249 453 2,703 8,262 2019 August 2,031 707 2,738 7,403 2019 September 1,794 795 2,589 8,978 2019 October 1,788 476 2,264 8,075 2019 November 1,121 633 1,754 7,701 2019 December 1,641 338 1,979 7,676 2020 January 1,354 560 1,914 8,728 2020 February 2,524 271 2,795 7,265 2020 March 1,733 396 2,129 8,465 2020 April 3,498 501 3,999 11,509 2020 May 3,488 1,341 4,830 10,242 2020 June 1,662 726 2,388 5,974 2020 July 744 904 1,648 5,281 2020 August 1,727 263 1,989 5,652 2020 September 1,418 516 1,933 6,728 2020 October 442 341 783 4,652 2020 November 771 641 1,412 4,265 2020 December 1,087 1,199 1,235 5,890 Table continued. IV-27 Table IV-12 Continued NBR: Quantity of U.S. imports, by source and month Quantity in 1,000 pounds Year Month Japan All other Nonsubject sources All import sources 2021 January 1,089 219 1,308 7,315 2021 February 313 243 556 7,398 2021 March 1,053 352 1,406 9,266 2021 April 1,803 290 2,093 8,726 2021 May 1,696 992 2,688 8,965 2021 June 2,415 1,170 3,585 10,099 2021 July 2,177 739 2,916 8,851 2021 August 2,695 112 2,807 9,474 2021 September 1,389 1,745 3,134 12,241 2021 October 1,541 2,263 3,804 10,256 2021 November 1,680 701 2,381 9,647 2021 December 2,036 1,521 3,557 7,597 2022 January 319 588 194 1,880 2022 February 156 68 58 3,334 2022 March 206 20 193 2,341 Source: Compiled from official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using statistical reporting number 4002.59.0000, accessed May 9, 2022. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. IV-28 Figure IV-6 NBR: U.S. imports from individual subject sources, by source and by month Source: Compiled from official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using statistical reporting number 4002.59.0000, accessed May 9, 2022. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. Figure IV-7 NBR: 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 statistical reporting number 4002.59.0000, accessed May 9, 2022. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 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 2019 2020 2021 2022 Quantity (thousands of pounds) France Mexico South Korea 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 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 2019 2020 2021 2022 Quantity (1,000 pounds) Subject Nonsubject IV-29 Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares Quantity Table IV-13 and figure IV-8 present data on apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares by quantity for NBR. Apparent U.S. consumption quantity decreased during 2019-20 by 21.4 percent, then increased by 17.2 percent during 2020-21, for an overall 7.8 percent decrease during 2019-21. Subject imports accounted for almost two-thirds of the U.S. market during 2019-21 (between *** and *** percent, while nonsubject imports accounted for more than one-fourth of the market (between *** and *** percent). Lastly, the U.S. producer’s U.S. shipments account for up to one-eighth of the market (between *** and *** percent). U.S. shipment quantity increased and gained market share during 2019-21 for imports from France (quantity increased *** percent and gained *** percentage points of market share). U.S. shipment quantities decreased but gained market share during 2019-21 for the following sources: U.S. producer Zeon (quantity decreased *** percent but gained *** percentage points of market share), South Korea (quantity decreased *** percent but gained *** percentage points in market share), nonsubject source Japan (quantity decreased *** percent but gained *** percentage points in market share), and total nonsubject sources (quantity decreased *** percent but gained *** percentage points in market share). U.S. shipment quantities decreased and lost market share during 2019-21 for the following sources: total subject sources (quantity decreased *** percent and lost *** percentage points in market share), Mexico (quantity decreased *** percent and lost *** percentage points in market share), and all other sources (quantity decreased *** percent and lost *** percentage points in market share). IV-30 Table IV-13 NBR: Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares based on quantity, by source and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; shares in percent Source Measure 2019 2020 2021 U.S. producers Quantity *** *** *** France Quantity *** *** *** Mexico Quantity *** *** *** South Korea Quantity *** *** *** Subject Quantity 68,994 53,199 61,642 Japan Quantity *** *** *** All other sources Quantity *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Quantity *** *** *** All import sources Quantity *** *** *** All sources Quantity 110,392 86,802 101,744 U.S. producers Share *** *** *** France Share *** *** *** Mexico Share *** *** *** South Korea Share *** *** *** Subject Share 62.5 61.3 60.6 Japan Share *** *** *** All other sources Share *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Share *** *** *** All import sources Share *** *** *** All sources Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Figure IV-8 NBR: Apparent U.S. consumption based on quantity, by source and period * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. IV-31 Value Table IV-14 and figure IV-9 present data on apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares by value for NBR. Apparent U.S. consumption value decreased during 2019-20 by 28.8 percent, then increased during 2020-21 by 49.1 percent, for an overall increase during 2019-21 of 6.2 percent. U.S. shipment values increased and gained market share during 2019-21 for the following sources: U.S. producer Zeon (value increased *** percent and gained *** percentage points in market share), France (value increased *** percent and gained *** percentage points in market share), and South Korea (value increased *** percent and gained *** percentage points in market share), and Japan (value increased *** percent and gained *** percentage points in market share). U.S. shipment values increased but lost market share during 2019-21 for the following sources: total subject sources (value increased *** percent but lost *** percentage points in market share) and total nonsubject sources (value increased *** percent but lost *** percentage points in market share). U.S. shipment values decreased and lost market share during 2019-21 for the following sources: Mexico (value decreased *** percent and lost *** percentage points in market share) and all other sources (value decreased *** percent and lost *** percentage points in market share). IV-32 Table IV-14 NBR: Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares based on value, by source and period Value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent Source Measure 2019 2020 2021 U.S. producers Value *** *** *** France Value *** *** *** Mexico Value *** *** *** South Korea Value *** *** *** Subject Value 84,870 57,462 89,843 Japan Value *** *** *** All other sources Value *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Value *** *** *** All import sources Value *** *** *** All sources Value 155,405 110,700 165,054 U.S. producers Share *** *** *** France Share *** *** *** Mexico Share *** *** *** South Korea Share *** *** *** Subject Share 54.6 51.9 54.4 Japan Share *** *** *** All other sources Share *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Share *** *** *** All import sources Share *** *** *** All sources Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Figure IV-9 NBR: Apparent U.S. consumption based on value, by source and period * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. V-1 Part V: Pricing data Factors affecting prices Raw material costs Major raw materials for NBR include monomers acrylonitrile (“ACN”) and 1,3-butadiene (“butadiene”).1 As stated by the petitioner, “Pricing of NBR most generally tracks with monomer cost. During the POI and continuing to today, Zeon Chemicals prices its NBR on a formula basis.”2 Respondent Negromex estimated that 75 percent of the cost of raw materials is attributable to acrylonitrile and butadiene.3 A representative for petitioner Zeon stated that its monomer costs are “indexed to the public index at a 70/30 ratio of butadiene to acrylonitrile, and that tracks with … published information.”4 U.S. producer Zeon reported that its raw material costs as a share of COGS *** from *** percent in 2019 to *** percent in 2021. Acrylonitrile prices increased in the first half of 2019 reportedly due to unexpected outages and a force majeure in the global market but declined through mid-2020. Acrylonitrile prices increased through March 2021 due to supply chain issues and a mid-February 2021 winter storm that caused another force majeure by oil refiners in the U.S. Gulf region. Acrylonitrile prices decreased since that occurrence but have remained higher than most months since January 2019.5 Butadiene prices generally decreased through mid-2020 due to declining automotive sector demand and early economic impacts of COVID-19, then increased through August 2021 because of increasing downstream demand and weather-related production outages. Though butadiene prices decreased through the end of 2021, they have increased every month in 2022 (figure V-1 and table V-1).6 1 Petition, p. 9. 2 Hearing transcript, p. 28 (Cail). 3 Conference transcript, p. 114 (Quintero). 4 Hearing transcript, p. 76 (Cail). 5 “NBR Raw Materials: April 2022,” Dynasol Group, submitted with foreign producer Negromex’s questionnaire response. 6 Ibid. V-2 Figure V-1 Raw materials: Prices of ***, monthly, January 2019-March 2022 Price in cents per pound * * * * * * * Source: *** data provided by Respondent Negromex, April 25, 2022. During the hearing, representatives of petitioner Zeon discussed its price setting methods, stating that “in most cases for NBR, customer prices are based on four components: the domestic market price; butadiene and acrylonitrile monomer index; conversion costs; and an ocean freight surcharge.”7 Though the ocean freight surcharge only is relevant for imports, the other three portions apply to sales of domestic product. Zeon reported that these conversion costs, which include “non-monomer raw materials, fixed costs, and profit margin,” had decreased.8 Petitioner stated that conversion costs change one to four times per year.9 7 Hearing transcript, p. 36 (Dalton). 8 Ibid. 9 Hearing transcript, p. 83 (Cail). V-3 Table V-1 Raw materials: Prices of ***, cents per pound, monthly, by raw material, January 2019-March 2022 Price in cents per pound Year Month Acrylonitrile price Butadiene price 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 *** *** 2021 July *** *** 2021 August *** *** 2021 September *** *** 2021 October *** *** 2021 November *** *** 2021 December *** *** 2022 January *** *** 2022 February *** *** 2022 March *** *** Source: *** data provided by Respondent Negromex, April 25, 2022. V-4 Transportation costs to the U.S. market Transportation costs for NBR shipped from subject countries to the United States averaged 6.4 percent of NBR customs value of imports from France, 2.6 from Mexico, and 12.5 percent from South Korea during 2021. These estimates were derived from official import data and represent the transportation and other charges on imports.10 U.S. inland transportation costs U.S. producer Zeon reported that *** for transportation and 8 of 14 responding importers reported that their purchasers typically arrange for transportation. U.S. producer Zeon reported that their U.S. inland transportation costs were *** percent of total cost. The five responding importers estimating inland transportation costs reported that they ranged from 1 to 5 percent of total cost. Pricing practices Pricing methods U.S. producer Zeon reported using ***. Importers *** reported setting prices using transaction-by-transaction negotiations, contracts, price lists, and other methods (table V-2). Table V-2 NBR: U.S. producer’s and importers’ reported price setting methods Count in number of firms reporting Method U.S. producer U.S. importers Transaction-by-transaction *** 10 Contract *** 6 Set price list *** 2 Other *** 4 Responding firms 1 13 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. 10 The estimated transportation costs were obtained by subtracting the customs value from the c.i.f. value of the imports for 2021 and then dividing by the customs value based on the HTS statistical reporting number 4002.59.0000. V-5 U.S. producer Zeon stated that the majority of its sales are made ***.11 Importers reported selling slightly less than half of their 2021 NBR sales on the spot market, with most of the remainder sold via annual contracts (table V-3). Zeon’s contracts typically ***. Three importers reported sales through annual contracts and two reported sales through long-term contracts. All four responding importers12 indicated that their contracts are indexed to raw material indices and two of three reported that their annual contract prices cannot be renegotiated. Petitioner Zeon stated that some of its customers are given pricing on a monthly or quarterly basis, but others have agreements where pricing moves fully at Zeon’s discretion.13 Importer *** reported that contracts with its customers adjust prices on a quarterly basis based on the Platts index and freight cost changes. Table V-3 NBR: U.S. producer’s and importers’ shares of U.S. commercial shipments by type of sale, 2021 Share in percent Item U.S. producer Subject U.S. importers Long-term contracts *** *** Annual contract *** *** 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. 11 In the preliminary phase of these investigations, a representative for Zeon reported that the majority of its sales were made on the spot market, ***. Conference transcript, p. 75 (Cail). 12 Importer *** did not report selling via annual contracts (***) but indicated its annual contracts index to raw material costs. 13 Conference transcript, p. 76 (Cail). V-6 Sales terms and discounts U.S. producer Zeon typically quotes prices on *** and 6 of 11 importers typically quote prices on a delivered basis. Zeon reported *** discounts14, and charges ***. Most importers (9 of 13) reported no discount policies. Four importers reported offering total volume discounts and one uses a quantity discount. Importer *** reported that it has *** but does not offer discounts to other customers. Price leadership Eight of 21 responding purchasers reported that there were no price leaders in the NBR market, while 10 reported that Zeon was a leader, 4 reported that Arlanxeo was a leader, and 1 each reported that INSA,15 Intertex,16 and Kumho were price leaders. Purchaser *** stated that Zeon is the firm that most frequently issues price changes and Arlanxeo is the largest supplier of NBR globally. Three purchasers indicated that pricing may be formula-based, which was noted as lending some transparency to price changes in the market. Purchaser *** noted distinctions in pricing leadership between Zeon,17 Arlanxeo, and INSA. Purchaser *** reported Arlanxeo increased prices eight times in 2021 ahead of their competitors. Purchaser *** noted that Kumho leads by often having the lowest price, and *** reported that Intertex leads by having the lowest price. 14 Zeon reported ***. 15 INSA refers to INSA GPRO, a Chinese producer, and a joint venture between “GPRO Investment Holding Group (one of China Top 500 enterprises) and Dynasol Group (joint ventured by KUO Group in Mexico and REPSOL Group in Spain, one of the 10 largest synthetic rubber producers in the world).” Entry for INSA GPRO at LinkedIn.com, found at https://www.linkedin.com/company/insa-gpro-nanjing- synthetic-rubber, retrieved April 28, 2022. 16 Intertex World Resources, Inc. describes itself as “a leading value-added distributor of synthetic rubber, carbon black, process oils and rubber chemicals.” Intertexworld.com, found at http://www.intertexworld.com/index-2.html, retrieved April 28, 2022. 17 According to this purchaser, Zeon “seem{s} to prime the pump when price increases are looming but not very transparent as to what the cost drivers are,” Arlanxeo has “pricing {that} is based on a formula using raw material inputs, exchange rates, and energy surcharges so it's quite transparent and easy to understand. It goes up when these inputs go up and vice versa. They tend to increase and decrease as well but are more transparent as to what the input drivers are,” and INSA “quote{s} us but are not formula based as Arlanxeo is and we do no current business with them as their product is suspect in our application.” V-7 Price data The Commission requested the U.S. producer and importers to provide quarterly data for the total quantity and f.o.b. value of the following NBR products shipped to unrelated U.S. customers during January 2019-December 2021. Product 1.--NBR with Acrylonitrile content greater than or equal to 31% (inclusive) and less than or equal to 35% (inclusive) and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, without any third monomer, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25-45 kgs. Product 2.--NBR with Acrylonitrile content greater than or equal to 31% (inclusive) and less than or equal to 35% (inclusive) and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, without any third monomer, ground/particulate/pellet form, sold in 20-30 kg bags. Product 3.--NBR with Acrylonitrile content greater than or equal to 26% (exclusive) and less than or equal to 31% (exclusive) or Acrylonitrile content greater than 35% (exclusive) and less than or equal to 41% (exclusive), and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, without any third monomer, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25-45 kgs. Product 4.--NBR with Acrylonitrile content less than 26% (inclusive) or Acrylonitrile content greater than 41% (inclusive), and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, without any third monomer, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25-45 kgs. Product 5.--XNBR, any Acrylonitrile content, made from methacrylic acid, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25-45 kgs. U.S. producer Zeon and nine importers (***) provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters.18 19 Pricing data for nonsubject source Japan are presented in Appendix G. No importers reported pricing data for product 2 from South Korea or product 5 from Mexico, South Korea, or Japan. Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for *** percent of the U.S. producer’s shipments of NBR, *** percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from 18 Per-unit pricing data are calculated from total quantity and total value data provided by the U.S. producer and importers. The precision and variation of these figures may be affected by rounding, limited quantities, and producer or importer estimates. 19 ***. V-8 France, *** percent of subject imports from Mexico, and *** subject imports from South Korea during 2021.20 Price data for products 1-5 are presented in tables V-4 to V-8 and figures V-2 to V-6. 20 Pricing coverage is based on U.S. shipments reported in questionnaires. V-9 Table V-4 NBR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Quantity in 1,000 pounds; prices in dollars per pound; margins in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity France price France quantity France margin 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table V-4 Continued NBR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Quantity in 1,000 pounds; prices in dollars per pound; margins in percent Period Mexico price Mexico quantity Mexico margin South Korea price South Korea quantity South Korea margin 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 1: NBR with Acrylonitrile content greater than or equal to 31% (inclusive) and less than or equal to 35% (inclusive) and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, without any third monomer, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25-45 kgs. V-10 Table V-5 NBR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Quantity in 1,000 pounds; prices in dollars per pound; margins in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity France price France quantity France margin 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table V-5 Continued NBR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Quantity in 1,000 pounds; prices in dollars per pound; margins in percent Period Mexico price Mexico quantity Mexico margin South Korea price South Korea quantity South Korea margin 2019 Q1 *** *** *** -- 0 -- 2019 Q2 *** *** *** -- 0 -- 2019 Q3 *** *** *** -- 0 -- 2019 Q4 *** *** *** -- 0 -- 2020 Q1 *** *** *** -- 0 -- 2020 Q2 *** *** *** -- 0 -- 2020 Q3 *** *** *** -- 0 -- 2020 Q4 *** *** *** -- 0 -- 2021 Q1 *** *** *** -- 0 -- 2021 Q2 *** *** *** -- 0 -- 2021 Q3 *** *** *** -- 0 -- 2021 Q4 *** *** *** -- 0 -- Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 2: NBR with Acrylonitrile content greater than or equal to 31% (inclusive) and less than or equal to 35% (inclusive) and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, without any third monomer, ground/particulate/pellet form, sold in 20-30 kg bags. V-11 Table V-6 NBR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Quantity in 1,000 pounds; prices in dollars per pound; margins in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity France price France quantity France margin 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table V-6 Continued NBR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Quantity in 1,000 pounds; prices in dollars per pound; margins in percent Period Mexico price Mexico quantity Mexico margin South Korea price South Korea quantity South Korea margin 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 3: NBR with Acrylonitrile content greater than or equal to 26% (exclusive) and less than or equal to 31% (exclusive) or Acrylonitrile content greater than 35% (exclusive) and less than or equal to 41% (exclusive), and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, without any third monomer, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25-45 kgs. V-12 Table V-7 NBR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Quantity in 1,000 pounds; prices in dollars per pound; margins in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity France price France quantity France margin 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table V-7 Continued NBR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Quantity in 1,000 pounds; prices in dollars per pound; margins in percent Period Mexico price Mexico quantity Mexico margin South Korea price South Korea quantity South Korea margin 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 4: NBR with Acrylonitrile content less than 26% (inclusive) or Acrylonitrile content greater than 41% (inclusive), and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, without any third monomer, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25-45 kgs. V-13 Table V-8 NBR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 5 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Quantity in 1,000 pounds; prices in dollars per pound; margins in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity France price France quantity France margin 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 5: XNBR, any Acrylonitrile content, made from methacrylic acid, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25-45 kgs. V-14 Figure V-2 NBR: 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: NBR with Acrylonitrile content greater than or equal to 31% (inclusive) and less than or equal to 35% (inclusive) and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, without any third monomer, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25-45 kgs. V-15 Figure V-3 NBR: 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: NBR with Acrylonitrile content greater than or equal to 31% (inclusive) and less than or equal to 35% (inclusive) and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, without any third monomer, ground/particulate/pellet form, sold in 20-30 kg bags. V-16 Figure V-4 NBR: 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: NBR with Acrylonitrile content greater than or equal to 26% (exclusive) and less than or equal to 31% (exclusive) or Acrylonitrile content greater than 35% (exclusive) and less than or equal to 41% (exclusive), and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, without any third monomer, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25-45 kgs. V-17 Figure V-5 NBR: 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: Specialty NBR with Acrylonitrile content less than 26% or greater than 41%; Hot Polymerized, and/or containing methacrylic acid, ground/particulate/pellet form, sold in 20-30 kg bags. V-18 Figure V-6 NBR: 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: XNBR, any Acrylonitrile content, made from methacrylic acid, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25-45 kgs. V-19 Price trends In general, prices increased considerably during January 2019-December 2021. Table V-9 summarizes the price trends, by country and by product. As shown in the table, domestic price increases ranged from *** percent to *** percent while import price increases ranged from *** percent to *** percent. The price increases from any source were highest for products 1 and 3, the highest-volume import products.21 Minimum price increases were at least *** percent for these products. Table V-9 NBR: Summary of price data, by product and source Volume in 1,000 pounds, price in dollars per pound Product Source Number of quarters Quantity Low price High price First quarter price Last quarter price Percent change in price over period Product 1 United States 12 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 1 France 12 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 1 Mexico 12 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 1 South Korea 12 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 United States 12 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 France 12 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 Mexico 12 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 South Korea 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- Product 3 United States 12 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 France 12 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 Mexico 12 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 South Korea 12 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 United States 12 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 France 12 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 Mexico 12 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 South Korea 12 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 5 United States 12 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 5 France 12 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 5 Mexico 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- Product 5 South Korea 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Percent change column is percentage change from the first quarter 2019 to the last quarter of 2021. 21 These were also the highest-volume (product 3) and lowest-volume (product 1) domestic products. V-20 Price comparisons As shown in tables V-10 and V-11, prices for product imported from subject sources were below those for U.S.-produced product in 131 of 144 instances (*** pounds); margins of underselling ranged from 0.9 percent to 67.3 percent. In the remaining 13 instances (*** pounds), prices for product from France and Mexico were between 3.0 percent and 31.0 percent above prices for the domestic product. As shown in table V-12, average underselling margins were highest in 2020 (42.7, 36.5, and 54.9 percent for France, Mexico, and South Korea, respectively). Table V-10 NBR: Instances of underselling and the range and average of margins, by source Quantity in 1,000 pounds; margin in percent Item Number of quarters Quantity Average margin Minimum margin Maximum margin France, Product 1 12 *** *** *** *** France, Product 2 1 *** *** *** *** France, Product 3 12 *** *** *** *** France, Product 4 12 *** *** *** *** France, Product 5 12 *** *** *** *** Total, France 49 *** *** *** *** Mexico, Product 1 12 *** *** *** *** Mexico, Product 2 10 *** *** *** *** Mexico, Product 3 12 *** *** *** *** Mexico, Product 4 12 *** *** *** *** Mexico, Product 5 0 --- --- --- --- Total, Mexico 46 *** *** *** *** South Korea, Product 1 12 *** *** *** *** South Korea, Product 2 0 --- --- --- --- South Korea, Product 3 12 *** *** *** *** South Korea, Product 4 12 *** *** *** *** South Korea, Product 5 0 --- --- --- --- Total, South Korea 36 *** *** *** *** Total, Product 1 36 *** *** *** *** Total, Product 2 11 *** *** *** *** Total, Product 3 36 *** *** *** *** Total, Product 4 36 *** *** *** *** Total, Product 5 12 *** *** *** *** Total, all products and sources 131 158,648 34.6 0.9 67.3 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-21 Table V-11 NBR: Instances of overselling and the range and average of margins, by source Quantity in 1,000 pounds; margin in percent Item Number of quarters Quantity Average margin Minimum margin Maximum margin France, Product 1 0 *** *** *** *** France, Product 2 11 *** *** *** *** France, Product 3 0 *** *** *** *** France, Product 4 0 *** *** *** *** France, Product 5 0 *** *** *** *** Total, France 11 *** *** *** *** Mexico, Product 1 0 *** *** *** *** Mexico, Product 2 2 *** *** *** *** Mexico, Product 3 0 *** *** *** *** Mexico, Product 4 0 *** *** *** *** Mexico, Product 5 0 *** *** *** *** Total, Mexico 2 *** *** *** *** South Korea, Product 1 0 *** *** *** *** South Korea, Product 2 0 *** *** *** *** South Korea, Product 3 0 *** *** *** *** South Korea, Product 4 0 *** *** *** *** South Korea, Product 5 0 *** *** *** *** Total, South Korea 0 *** *** *** *** Total, Product 1 0 *** *** *** *** Total, Product 2 13 *** *** *** *** Total, Product 3 0 *** *** *** *** Total, Product 4 0 *** *** *** *** Total, Product 5 0 *** *** *** *** Total, all products and sources 13 2,551 (14.7) (3.0) (31.0) 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-12 NBR: Average margin of underselling, by source and year Margin in percent Year France Mexico South Korea 2019 *** *** *** 2020 *** *** *** 2021 *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. V-22 Conversion costs As noted earlier, producer Zeon’s sales prices include raw material costs as well as conversion costs, and conversion costs vary between one and four times per year.22 These conversion costs are related to contract pricing, as spot prices are “just a price” as a representative from Zeon noted at the hearing.23 Commissioners asked how the conversion costs changed over the period 2019-21. In its posthearing brief, Zeon presented quarterly data showing average conversion costs based on differing ACN content of NBR (table V-13). The lowest average conversion cost - $*** per pound - was for the central ACN percentage (≥31 and ≤35) products and highest - $*** per pound - for the highest ACN products. As shown in the last row of table V-13, products with higher ACN content displayed less conversion cost variability that those with lower ACN content (i.e., the difference between the highest price and the lowest price). High and low prices did not consistently appear across all product types, but the lowest conversion cost occurred for two products in the first quarter of 2019 and the highest conversion cost occurred for two products in the last quarter of 2021, leading to the overall average quarterly conversion cost being lowest in the first quarter of the period of investigation and the highest occurring in the last quarter. The second- and third-lowest conversion costs, however, appeared in the second and third quarter of 2021. This is due to average conversion costs generally increasing from the first quarter of 2019 to the second quarter of 2020, then decreasing until the second quarter of 2021 before increasing in the third and fourth quarters of 2021.24 22 Hearing transcript, p. 83 (Cail). 23 Ibid, p. 84. 24 The petitioner stated that this data “does not fully capture the trend of conversion price erosion because it does not allow for an apples-to-apples comparison of conversion price across the POI for the same grade of NBR. There are significant differences in conversion price charged based on the customer and NBR grad supplied in a given quarter.” Petitioner also described some reasons for differences among the trends and levels in the conversion costs for each of the five ACN levels. Petitioner’s posthearing brief, Exhs. I-13 - I-18. V-23 Table V-13 NBR: Zeon’s conversion cost, by product ACN percentage, quarterly, January 2019-December 2021 Conversion cost in dollars per pound of NBR; H and L signify high and low quarter for each product Period ACN % ≤26 ACN % >26 and <31 ACN % ≥31 and ≤35 ACN % >35 and <41 ACN % ≥41 All NBR 2019 Q1 *** L *** L *** *** *** *** L 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** H *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** H *** *** *** *** H *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** L *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** H *** *** *** L *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** L *** *** *** 2021 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q4 *** *** *** H *** *** H *** H Average *** *** *** *** *** *** High - low difference *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Petitioner’s posthearing brief, exh. I-13. Lost sales and lost revenue U.S. producer Zeon reported that it had to ***. During the preliminary phase of these investigations, Zeon identified *** firms with which they lost sales or revenue (*** consisting of lost sales allegations, *** consisting of lost revenue allegations, and *** consisting of both types of allegations). *** allegations included France, *** allegations included South Korea, and *** included Mexico. Respondents Dynasol and Kumho responded to each of the allegations in their prehearing briefs.25 Staff contacted *** purchasers and received responses from 38 purchasers. Responding purchasers reported purchasing 200.6 million pounds of NBR and importing 6.2 million pounds of NBR during 2019-21 (table V-14). Overall, their purchases/imports decreased from 68.0 million pounds in 2019 to 60.0 million pounds in 2020 before increasing to 78.9 million pounds in 2021. 25 Respondent Negromex’s prehearing brief, exh. 4 and respondent Kumho’s prehearing brief, pp. 41- 47. V-24 During 2021, responding purchasers sourced *** percent of their purchases and imports from the U.S. producer, *** percent from France, *** percent from Mexico, and *** percent from South Korea; *** percent were from nonsubject countries. Japan accounted for more than almost 60 percent of nonsubject purchases/imports reported by purchasers. The largest changes in sourcing during 2019-21 were attributable to Mexico, which decreased by 9.7 percentage points, and South Korea, which increased by 7.5 percentage points.26 As a result, combined subject import source share fell slightly from 73.9 percent in 2019 to 72.2 percent in 2021. Purchasers were asked about changes in their purchasing patterns from different sources since 2019. Of the responding purchasers, six reported decreasing purchases from the domestic producer, five reported fluctuating purchases, six reported constant purchases, and four reported increasing purchases.27 Explanations for decreasing purchases of domestic product included three purchasers that reported decreased downstream demand requirements, one that reported availability issues, one that reported quality issues, and one that reported that Zeon was promoting its NBR imported from Japan, and that the firm would buy domestic product when product from Japan was unavailable. Among those purchasers reporting fluctuating demand, two reported changing customer requirements, one reported that COVID-19 impacted their purchases and were put on allocation due to shortages or forces majeure, one reported a decrease in 2020 due to the pandemic and an increase in worldwide demand in 2021, and one reported that availability caused the fluctuations. Explanations for increasing purchases of domestic product included that it was the only source for a certain type of NBR and that one firm was starting to buy U.S. product to stabilize its supply. 26 Purchaser *** reported that after it received notice of LG Chem’s expected shutdown of South Korean NBR operations at the end of 2021, it “made large last-buy from LG Chem.” Its purchases of product from South Korea in 2021 increased by *** compared with 2019. Its purchase changes from other sources over this period were much smaller: it also increased purchases from Mexico by ***, and decreased its purchases from domestic producers by *** and from France by ***. The difference between its purchases from South Korea in 2021 accounts for the majority of the *** increase in all purchases and imports from South Korea between 2019 and 2021 and is greater than the increase from all subject countries combined (7.1 million pounds). 27 No purchasers reported that they did not know the source of the NBR that they purchased. V-25 Table V-14 NBR: Purchasers’ reported purchases and imports, by firm, 2019-21 Quantity in 1,000 pounds, change in share in percentage points Firm Domestic quantity Subject quantity All other quantity Change in domestic share Change in subject share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. V-26 Table V-14 Continued NBR: Purchasers’ reported purchases and imports, by firm, 2019-21 Quantity in 1,000 pounds, change in share 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-27 Of the 37 responding purchasers, 22 reported that they had purchased imported NBR from France, Mexico, and/or South Korea instead of U.S.-produced product (16 from France, 11 from Mexico, and 10 from South Korea). Thirteen of these purchasers reported that subject import prices were lower than U.S.-produced product (7 for product from France, 4 for product from Mexico, and 8 for product from South Korea). Three of these 12 indicated that price was a primary reason for purchasing product from subject countries rather than U.S.-produced product – one from each subject country (table V-16). These purchases totaled *** million pounds of NBR, with the majority (***) attributable to imports from South Korea (table V-16).28 Purchasers most frequently noted that the product that they purchased was only available from import sources; other reasons identified by purchasers include availability, customer specifications, domestic producers not selling through distributors, historical supply relationship, reliability, quality issues, technical criteria, and the diversification of supply as non- price reasons for purchasing imported rather than U.S.-produced product. None of the 16 responding purchasers reported that the U.S. producer had reduced prices in order to compete with lower-priced imports from France, Mexico, and/or South Korea. 28 ***. Petitioner Zeon believes that the *** accurately reflects sales that Zeon lost. Petitioner’s posthearing brief, exh. I, pp. 7-9. In this discussion, Petitioner also alleges further lost sales and lost revenues in 2021. Ibid, exh. I-10. V-28 Table V-15 NBR: Purchasers’ responses to purchasing subject imports instead of domestic product, by firm Quantity in 1,000 pounds Firm Purchased subject imports instead of domestic Imports priced lower Choice based on price Quantity Explanation *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. V-29 Table V-15 Continued NBR: Purchasers’ responses to purchasing subject imports instead of domestic product, by firm Quantity in 1,000 pounds Firm Purchased subject imports instead of domestic Imports priced lower Choice based on price Quantity Explanation *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. V-30 Table V-15 Continued NBR: Purchasers’ responses to purchasing subject imports instead of domestic product, by firm Quantity in 1,000 pounds Firm Purchased subject imports instead of domestic Imports priced lower Choice based on price Quantity Explanation *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms Yes--22; No--15 Yes--13; No--8 Yes--3; No--19 2,289 NA Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. V-31 Table V-16 NBR: Purchasers’ responses to purchasing subject imports instead of domestic product, by country Quantity in 1,000 pounds Source Purchased subject imports instead of domestic Imports priced lower Choice based on price Quantity France 16 7 1 670 Mexico 11 4 1 40 South Korea 10 8 1 1,579 Subject sources 22 13 3 2,289 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VI-1 Part VI: Financial experience of the U.S. producer Background1 The sole U.S. producer, Zeon, provided usable financial results on its NBR operations. These data are believed to account for all U.S. production of NBR during the period examined. Zeon’s financial results were reported on a calendar-year and GAAP basis. Staff verified the results of Zeon with its corporate records. The verification adjustments were incorporated into this report. Zeon’s U.S. producer questionnaire response was changed to revise ***.2 Operations on NBR Table VI-1 presents data on the U.S. producer’s operations in relation to NBR, while table VI-2 presents corresponding changes in AUVs. 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 Staff verification report, Zeon, June 16, 2022. VI-2 Table VI-1 NBR: Results of operations of U.S. producer Zeon, by item and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; ratios and shares in percent Item Measure 2019 2020 2021 Commercial sales Quantity *** *** *** Internal consumption Quantity *** *** *** Total net sales Quantity *** *** *** Commercial sales Value *** *** *** Internal consumption Value *** *** *** Total net sales Value *** *** *** COGS: Raw materials Value *** *** *** COGS: Direct labor Value *** *** *** COGS: Other factory Value *** *** *** COGS: Total Value *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) Value *** *** *** SG&A expenses Value *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) Value *** *** *** Interest expense Value *** *** *** All other expenses Value *** *** *** All other income Value *** *** *** Net income or (loss) Value *** *** *** Depreciation/amortization Value *** *** *** Cash flow Value *** *** *** COGS: Raw materials Ratio to NS *** *** *** COGS: Direct labor Ratio to NS *** *** *** COGS: Other factory Ratio to NS *** *** *** COGS: Total 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 *** *** *** COGS: Raw materials Share of COGS *** *** *** COGS: Direct labor Share of COGS *** *** *** COGS: Other factory Share of COGS *** *** *** COGS: Total Share of COGS *** *** *** Table continued. VI-3 Table VI-1 Continued NBR: Results of operations of U.S. producer Zeon, by item and period Unit values in dollars per pound; count in number of firms reporting Item Measure 2019 2020 2021 Commercial sales Unit value *** *** *** Internal consumption Unit value *** *** *** Total net sales Unit value *** *** *** COGS: Raw materials Unit value *** *** *** COGS: Direct labor Unit value *** *** *** COGS: Other factory Unit value *** *** *** COGS: Total 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. Table VI-2 NBR: Changes in AUVs between comparison periods Changes in percent Item 2019-21 2019-20 2020-21 Commercial sales *** *** *** Internal consumption *** *** *** Total net sales *** *** *** COGS: Raw materials *** *** *** COGS: Direct labor *** *** *** COGS: Other factory *** *** *** COGS: Total *** *** *** Table continued. VI-4 Table VI-2 Continued NBR: Changes in AUVs between comparison periods Changes in dollars per pound Item 2019-21 2019-20 2020-21 Commercial sales *** *** *** Internal consumption *** *** *** Total net sales *** *** *** COGS: Raw materials *** *** *** COGS: Direct labor *** *** *** COGS: Other factory *** *** *** COGS: Total *** *** *** 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. Net sales Zeon’s net sales were comprised of ***. The company reported that ***.3 4 The company’s net sales, by both quantity and value, decreased from 2019 to 2020 and then increased from 2020 to 2021, resulting in an overall net increase between 2019 and 2021. The net sales AUV for NBR decreased from $*** in 2019 to $*** in 2020 and increased to $*** in 2021.5 3 Emails from ***. 4 Email from ***. 5 The trends in Zeon’s total net sales generally reflect the trends in its ***. The company’s ***. The majority of Zeon’s ***. Emails from ***. VI-5 Cost of goods sold and gross profit or loss Zeon’s raw material costs represented the largest share of the company’s COGS in 2019 and 2021, and the second-largest share in 2020. As a ratio to net sales and on a per-pound basis, raw material costs decreased from 2019 to 2020 and increased in 2021, but remained below the 2019 cost.6 Table VI-3 presents Zeon’s raw materials, by type. As seen in the table, butadiene and acrylonitrile represent ***. The unit values represent the input’s cost for each pound of NBR produced rather than the acquisition cost, so the relative amounts needed to produce NBR will affect their unit values. Zeon reported that its ***.7 6 Zeon adjusts its major monomer input to a moving average at the beginning of each month. Any changes in the moving average price of the monomer inputs result in a finished goods (“FG”) inventory revaluation adjustment (either an increase or decrease), which is offset in COGS. Hearing transcript, p. 37 (Dalton). Similarly, the company ***. Staff verification report, Zeon, June 16, 2022, pp. 9-10 fn.11. During the period examined, ***. Staff verification report, Zeon, June 16, 2022, p. 13 fn.13. From Zeon’s perspective, ***. See Staff verification report, Zeon, June 16, 2022, pp. 14-15. ***. Staff verification report, Zeon, June 16, 2022, p. 14. 7 Zeon’s U.S. producer questionnaire, section III-9c. VI-6 Table VI-3 NBR: Raw material costs in 2021, by type Value in 1,000 dollars; unit values in dollars per pound; share of value in percent Item Value Unit value Share of value Butadiene *** *** *** Acrylonitrile *** *** *** Other material inputs *** *** *** Total raw materials *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Zeon’s direct labor, which was the smallest component of COGS, increased each year from 2019 to 2021. The company reported that the increase in direct labor from 2019 to 2020 was largely the result of ***.8 It also reported that its 2020 and 2021 labor costs increased ***.9 ***.10 On a per-pound basis, direct labor costs increased from 2019 to 2020 and decreased in 2021, but remained above the 2019 per-pound cost. The last component of COGS, other factory costs, was the second largest component in 2019 and 2021, and the largest component in 2020. On an actual basis, other factory costs increased each year from 2019 to 2021. The company reported that the increase in other factory costs on an actual basis between 2019 and 2020 was the result of ***.11 The increase in other factory costs between 2020 and 2021 on an actual basis was the result of ***.12 On a per- pound basis, the company’s other factory costs increased from 2019 to 2020 and decreased in 2021, but remained higher than the 2019 per-pound cost. 8 Email from ***. 9 Zeon’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, section III-18. Zeon reported that it ***. Ibid. 10 Email from ***. 11 The company does not ***. Email from ***. In order to include the ***. Email from ***. 12 Email from ***. VI-7 Changes in the company’s net sales volumes were the largest factor in the changes to the company’s other factory cost AUVs.13 The company’s COGS to net sales ratio increased from *** percent in 2019 to *** percent in 2020 and then decreased to *** percent in 2021. This resulted in the company’s gross profit decreasing from $*** in 2019 to *** in 2020, before improving to *** in 2021.14 SG&A expenses and operating income or loss As seen in table VI-1, Zeon’s SG&A expenses decreased irregularly from 2019 to 2021. As a ratio to net sales, they fluctuated within a relatively narrow range, increasing from *** percent in 2019 to *** percent in 2020 and decreasing to *** percent in 2021. The company’s operating income from NBR had similar trends as gross profit. It worsened from 2019 to 2020 and improved in 2021, with the company experiencing ***.15 16 13 Other factory costs include both variable and fixed costs, so a change in the net sales volume will affect the other factory cost AUV by spreading the fixed costs between a smaller or larger volume of goods. 14 Without the FG inventory revaluation adjustments, the company’s gross profit would have been ***. Staff verification report, Zeon, June 16, 2022, p. 14 fn.16. In its posthearing brief, petitioners also presented Zeon’s financial results excluding these FG inventory revaluation adjustments. Petitioner’s posthearing brief, p. 15. Staff notes that there were a few very minor rounding differences between the adjusted profitability values reported in petitioner’s posthearing brief (which appear to be based on the rounded values that are required in the U.S. producers’ questionnaire) and what was calculated by staff during verification. 15 Without the FG inventory revaluation adjustments, the company’s operating income would have been ***. Staff verification report, Zeon, June 16, 2022, p. 14 fn.16. 16 The U.S. producer questionnaire asked companies to describe any effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had on their overall financial performance. Zeon reported: ***. Zeon’s U.S. producer questionnaire, section III-18. VI-8 All other expenses and net income or loss Classified below operating income are interest expense, other expenses, and other income. Zeon reported ***. The company reported this ***.17 In 2019, the net amount of post- operating income items was ***. Overall, net income worsened from 2019 to 2020, but improved in 2021.18 19 Capital expenditures, R&D expenses, assets, and operating ROA Table VI-4 presents data on Zeon’s capital expenditures, R&D expenses, assets, and its operating ROA from its NBR operations.20 Table VI-5 presents the firm’s narrative descriptions of the nature, focus, and significance of its capital expenditures, R&D expenses, its major asset categories, and any significant changes in asset levels over time. The company’s capital expenditures increased in 2020 and decreased in 2021. R&D expenses decreased in 2020 and increased in 2021. However, both capital expenditures and R&D expenses were lower in 2021 than in 2019. The company’s reported assets associated with NBR decreased irregularly from 2019 to 2021, whereas the company’s operating ROA increased irregularly. 17 Email from ***. 18 Without the FG inventory revaluation adjustments, the company’s net income would have been ***. Staff verification report, Zeon, June 16, 2022, p. 14 fn.16. 19 A variance analysis is not shown due to the ***. 20 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 on a product-specific basis. VI-9 Table VI-4 NBR: U.S. producer Zeon’s capital expenditures, R&D expenses, assets, and operating ROA, by period Value in 1,000 dollars; ratios in percent Item Measure 2019 2020 2021 Capital expenditures Value *** *** *** R&D expenses Value *** *** *** Net assets Value *** *** *** Operating ROA Ratio *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table VI-5 NBR: Narrative descriptions of capital expenditures, R&D expenses, and total assets Item Narrative Capital expenditures *** R&D expenses *** Net assets *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VI-10 Capital and investment The Commission requested the U.S. producer of NBR to describe any actual or potential negative effects of imports of NBR from France, Korea, and Mexico on their firms’ growth, investment, ability to raise capital, development and production efforts, or the scale of capital investments. Table VI-6 presents the categories for which Zeon reported an impact and table VI-7 provides the corresponding narrative responses. Table VI-6 NBR: Count of firms indicating actual and anticipated negative effects of imports from subject sources on investment, growth, and development since January 1, 2019, by effect Effects as reported by Zeon Effect Category Count Cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects Investment *** Denial or rejection of investment proposal Investment *** Reduction in the size of capital investments Investment *** Return on specific investments negatively impacted Investment *** Other investment effects Investment *** Rejection of bank loans Growth *** Lowering of credit rating Growth *** Problem related to the issue of stocks or bonds Growth *** Ability to service debt Growth *** Other growth and development effects Growth *** Anticipated negative effects of imports Future *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VI-11 Table VI-7 NBR: Narratives relating to actual and anticipated negative effects of imports on investment, growth, and development, since January 1, 2019 Item Firm name and narrative on impact of imports *** *** *** *** *** *** VI-12 Item Firm name and narrative on impact 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 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 France The Commission issued foreign producers’ or exporters’ questionnaires to two firms believed to produce and/or export NBR from France.3 Usable responses to the Commission’s questionnaire were received from these two firms: Arlanxeo Emulsion Rubber France SAS (“Arlanxeo France”) and OMNOVA Solutions SAS (“OMNOVA France”). These firms’ exports to the United States accounted for *** U.S. imports of NBR from France in 2021.4 According to estimates requested of the responding producers in France, the production of NBR in France reported in questionnaires accounts for approximately *** percent of overall production of NBR in France.5 Table VII-1 presents information on the NBR operations of the responding producers and exporters in France. Table VII-1 NBR: Summary data for producers in France, 2021 Quantity in 1,000 pounds; share in percent Firm Production (1,000 pounds) Share of reported production (percent) Exports to the United States (1,000 pounds) Share of reported exports to the United States (percent) Total shipments (1,000 pounds) Share of firm's total shipments exported to the United States (percent) Arlanxeo France *** *** *** *** *** *** OMNOVA France *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** 100.0 *** 100.0 *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 3 These firms were identified through a review of information submitted in the petitions and presented in third-party sources. 4 Exports from France accounted for *** percent of U.S. imports from France in 2021, as reported in questionnaire responses. The difference between the import and export quantities is likely due to timing differences and recordkeeping. 5 ***. VII-4 Changes in operations As presented in table VII-2, *** reported shutdowns and curtailments *** and *** reported an acquisition since January 1, 2019. Table VII-2 NBR: Reported changes in operations in France since January 1, 2019, by firm Item Firm name and accompanying narrative response Acquisitions *** Prolonged shutdowns or curtailments *** Prolonged shutdowns or curtailments *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Operations on NBR Table VII-3 presents information on the NBR operations of the responding producers and exporters in France. Capacity decreased during 2019-21 by *** percent and is projected to not change in 2022 and 2023.6 NBR production in France decreased during 2019-20 by *** percent, then increased by *** percent during 2020-21, for an overall *** percent increase during 2019-21, and is projected to increase from 2021 to 2023 by *** percent.7 Decreased capacity and increased production resulted in a *** percentage point increase in capacity utilization during 2019-21. 6 ***. 7 ***. VII-5 Exports to all other markets than the United States accounted for approximately *** of total shipments,8 while exports to the United States accounted for between *** (in 2020) and *** percent (in 2021) of total shipments during 2019-21. Home market shipments accounted for less than *** percent of total shipments throughout the period for which data were collected. Exports to the United States increased by *** percent during 2019-21,9 while exports to all other markets decreased by *** percent, during 2019-21. Correspondingly, exports to the United States as a share of total shipments increased by *** percentage points during 2019-21. End-of-period inventories decreased by *** percent during 2019-21 but are projected to increase by *** percent during 2021-22 and by *** percent during 2021-23. Given that inventories decreased by a greater percentage than total shipments during 2019-21, the ratio of inventories to total shipments decreased from *** percent in 2019 to *** percent in 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic ***. 8 All other export markets include ***. 9 Exports to the United States are projected to decrease by *** percent during 2021-22 and by *** percent during 2021-23. This decrease is driven by ***. VII-6 Table VII-3 NBR: Data on industry in France, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds Item 2019 2020 2021 Projection 2022 Projection 2023 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. Table VII-3 Continued NBR: Data on industry in France, by period Ratio and share in percent Item 2019 2020 2021 Projection 2022 Projection 2023 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 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 “---“. VII-7 Table VII-4 presents NBR production in France by type (NIBR, XNBR, and all other NBR).10 *** from France produces XNBR, while *** NIBR. Table VII-4 NBR: Production in France, by product type and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; shares in percent Item Measure 2019 2020 2021 NIBR Quantity *** *** *** XNBR Quantity *** *** *** All other NBR Quantity *** *** *** All NBR Quantity *** *** *** NIBR Share *** *** *** XNBR Share *** *** *** All other NBR Share *** *** *** All NBR Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table VII-5 presents data regarding continuous vs. batch production methods used to produce NBR in France in 2021.11 *** reported using both methods to produce NBR, the *** is produced using the continuous method. Table VII-5 NBR: Production in France, by production process, 2021 Quantity in 1,000 pounds, shares in percent Item Quantity Share Batch *** *** Continuous *** *** Total *** 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 10 NIBR is “acrylonitrile-isoprene-butadiene rubber” and is produced by incorporating isoprene during the production (polymerization) process of NBR. XNBR is “carboxylated NBR” and is produced by incorporating methacrylic acid during the production (polymerization) process of NBR. 11 Continuous production is an NBR production process that relies on a series of linked reactors through which producers feed input monomers to generate NBR. Batch production is an NBR production process in which producers feed input monomers into separate reactors that are not linked in a series. VII-8 Alternative products As shown in table VII-6, responding firms in France produced other products on the same equipment and machinery used to produce NBR. *** reported increases in out-of-scope production, resulting in a *** percent increase during 2019-21. These out-of-scope products include ***. Table VII-6 NBR: Producers’ in France overall capacity and production on the same equipment as subject production, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratio and share in percent Item Measure 2019 2020 2021 Overall capacity Quantity *** *** *** NBR production Quantity *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Latex NBR Quantity *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Other products Quantity *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: All products Quantity *** *** *** Total production Quantity *** *** *** Overall capacity utilization Ratio *** *** *** NBR production Share *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Latex NBR Share *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Other products Share *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: All products Share *** *** *** Total production Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VII-9 Exports According to GTA, the leading export markets for NBR from France are the United States and Germany (table VII-7). During 2021, the United States was the top export market for NBR from France, accounting for 23.7 percent, followed by Germany, accounting for 18.2 percent. Table VII-7 NBR: Exports from France, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars Destination market Measure 2019 2020 2021 United States Quantity 30,201 25,182 33,924 Germany Quantity 30,548 26,777 26,101 China Quantity 13,401 13,218 15,512 Turkey Quantity 4,361 5,871 8,655 Japan Quantity 8,384 5,658 8,046 Taiwan Quantity 9,039 7,862 7,390 Italy Quantity 6,308 9,026 7,102 Spain Quantity 4,082 4,175 4,359 Sweden Quantity 3,160 3,169 3,836 All other destination markets Quantity 39,236 32,587 28,477 All destination markets Quantity 148,720 133,524 143,402 United States Value 38,190 28,229 40,433 Germany Value 43,116 34,544 41,679 China Value 18,950 17,616 24,844 Turkey Value 5,810 6,210 12,487 Japan Value 11,154 6,429 10,482 Taiwan Value 11,387 8,128 9,810 Italy Value 7,714 8,231 11,174 Spain Value 5,279 4,738 6,360 Sweden Value 3,925 3,440 5,718 All other destination markets Value 50,038 37,344 41,842 All destination markets Value 195,562 154,907 204,829 Table continued. VII-10 Table VII-7 Continued NBR: Exports from France, by period Unit values in dollars per pound; shares in percent Destination market Measure 2019 2020 2021 United States Unit value 1.26 1.12 1.19 Germany Unit value 1.41 1.29 1.60 China Unit value 1.41 1.33 1.60 Turkey Unit value 1.33 1.06 1.44 Japan Unit value 1.33 1.14 1.30 Taiwan Unit value 1.26 1.03 1.33 Italy Unit value 1.22 0.91 1.57 Spain Unit value 1.29 1.13 1.46 Sweden Unit value 1.24 1.09 1.49 All other destination markets Unit value 1.28 1.15 1.47 All destination markets Unit value 1.31 1.16 1.43 United States Share of quantity 20.3 18.9 23.7 Germany Share of quantity 20.5 20.1 18.2 China Share of quantity 9.0 9.9 10.8 Turkey Share of quantity 2.9 4.4 6.0 Japan Share of quantity 5.6 4.2 5.6 Taiwan Share of quantity 6.1 5.9 5.2 Italy Share of quantity 4.2 6.8 5.0 Spain Share of quantity 2.7 3.1 3.0 Sweden Share of quantity 2.1 2.4 2.7 All other destination markets Share of quantity 26.4 24.4 19.9 All destination markets Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official import statistics from France under HS subheading 4002.59, as reported by various national statistical authorities in the IHS/GTA database, accessed May 10, 2022. Note: United States is shown at the top. All remaining top export destinations are shown in descending order of 2021 data. VII-11 The industry in Mexico The Commission issued a foreign producers’ or exporters’ questionnaire to one firm believed to produce and/or export NBR from Mexico.12 A usable response to the Commission’s questionnaire was received from this firm, Industrias Negromex, S.A. de C.V. (“Negromex”). This firm’s exports to the United States accounted for *** U.S. imports of NBR from Mexico in 2021.13 According to an estimate requested of Negromex, the production of NBR in Mexico reported in its questionnaire accounts for *** percent of NBR production in Mexico.14 Table VII- 8 presents information on the NBR operations of Negromex in Mexico. Table VII-8 NBR: Summary data for producers in Mexico, 2021 Quantity in 1,000 pounds; share in percent Firm Production (1,000 pounds) Share of reported production (percent) Exports to the United States (1,000 pounds) Share of reported exports to the United States (percent) Total shipments (1,000 pounds) Share of firm's total shipments exported to the United States (percent) Negromex *** 100.0 *** 100.0 *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 12 This firm was identified through a review of information submitted in the petitions and presented in third-party sources. 13 Exports from Mexico accounted for *** percent of U.S. imports from Mexico in 2021, as reported in the questionnaire response. The difference between the import and export quantities is likely due to timing differences and recordkeeping. 14 ***. VII-12 Changes in operations As presented in table VII-9, Negromex reported an operational and/or organizational change (a revised labor agreement) since January 1, 2019. Table VII-9 NBR: Reported changes in operations in Mexico since January 1, 2019, by firm Item Firm name and accompanying narrative response Revised labor agreements *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Operations on NBR Table VII-10 presents information on the NBR operations of Negromex in Mexico. Negromex’s NBR capacity decreased by *** percent during 2019-21 and is projected to remain unchanged in 2022 and 2023.15 Negromex’s NBR production decreased by *** percent during 2019-21 but is projected to increase by *** percent between 2021 and 2023. A larger decrease in capacity than production resulted in a *** percentage point increase in capacity utilization between 2019 and 2021. Negromex does not produce *** XNBR.16 Export shipments accounted for the majority (over *** percent) of Negromex’s total NBR shipments during the data collection period. Roughly *** of export shipments went to the United States and *** went to all other markets over the data collection period.17 Export shipments to the United States decreased, while home market shipments and export shipments 15 ***. Email from ***, April 15, 2022. 16 Conference transcript, p. 128 (Quintero). 17 All other export markets include ***. VII-13 to all other markets increased during the 2019-21 period, resulting in a *** percentage point decrease in export shipments to the United States as a share of total shipments. Export shipments to the United States, home market shipments, and export shipments to all other markets are each projected to remain unchanged from their 2021 levels in 2022 and 2023.18 End-of-period inventories decreased *** percent during 2019-20, then increased *** percent during 2020-21, for an overall *** percent decrease during 2019-21. The ratio of inventories to total shipments ranged from *** to *** percent during the data collection period. Table VII-10 NBR: Data on industry in Mexico, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds Item 2019 2020 2021 Projection 2022 Projection 2023 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. 18 ***. VII-14 Table VII-10 Continued NBR: Data on industry in Mexico, by period Ratio and share in percent Item 2019 2020 2021 Projection 2022 Projection 2023 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 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 “---“. As shown in table VII-11, Negromex produces NBR using both batch and continuous methods,19 *** of which is produced using the continuous method. Table VII-11 NBR: Production in Mexico, by production process, 2021 Quantity in 1,000 pounds, shares in percent Item Quantity Share Batch *** *** Continuous *** *** Total *** 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 19 Conference transcript, p. 111. VII-15 Alternative products As shown in table VII-12, Negromex produced other products (***) on the same equipment or machinery used to produce NBR. Given that NBR production decreased while production of other products increased during 2019-21, out-of-scope production as a share of total production increased by *** percentage points during 2019-21. Table VII-12 NBR: Producer in Mexico overall capacity and production on the same equipment as subject production, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratio and share in percent Item Measure 2019 2020 2021 Overall capacity Quantity *** *** *** NBR production Quantity *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Latex NBR Quantity *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Other products Quantity *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: All products Quantity *** *** *** Total production Quantity *** *** *** Overall capacity utilization Ratio *** *** *** NBR production Share *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Latex NBR Share *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Other products Share *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: All products Share *** *** *** Total production Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VII-16 Exports According to GTA, the leading export markets for NBR from Mexico are the United States, Spain, and Turkey (table VII-13). During 2021, the United States was the top export market for NBR from Mexico, accounting for 45.3 percent, followed by Spain, accounting for 18.9 percent. Table VII-13 NBR: Exports from Mexico, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars Destination market Measure 2019 2020 2021 United States Quantity 17,650 14,312 12,258 Spain Quantity 5,058 4,471 5,124 Turkey Quantity 3,003 4,170 4,529 Germany Quantity 1,277 1,086 1,072 Brazil Quantity 986 1,328 909 China Quantity 834 781 840 Colombia Quantity 536 141 616 India Quantity 553 356 451 Canada Quantity 196 102 344 All other destination markets Quantity 1,678 1,141 899 All destination markets Quantity 31,772 27,887 27,041 United States Value 16,675 10,893 14,847 Spain Value 4,538 2,965 6,354 Turkey Value 2,675 2,987 5,134 Germany Value 1,206 845 1,237 Brazil Value 1,009 983 1,136 China Value 743 581 773 Colombia Value 624 137 856 India Value 481 199 325 Canada Value 391 194 716 All other destination markets Value 1,801 1,188 1,359 All destination markets Value 30,142 20,971 32,736 Table continued. VII-17 Table VII-13 Continued NBR: Exports from Mexico, by period Unit values in dollars per pound; shares in percent Destination market Measure 2019 2020 2021 United States Unit value 0.94 0.76 1.21 Spain Unit value 0.90 0.66 1.24 Turkey Unit value 0.89 0.72 1.13 Germany Unit value 0.94 0.78 1.15 Brazil Unit value 1.02 0.74 1.25 China Unit value 0.89 0.74 0.92 Colombia Unit value 1.16 0.97 1.39 India Unit value 0.87 0.56 0.72 Canada Unit value 1.99 1.90 2.08 All other destination markets Unit value 1.07 1.04 1.51 All destination markets Unit value 0.95 0.75 1.21 United States Share of quantity 55.6 51.3 45.3 Spain Share of quantity 15.9 16.0 18.9 Turkey Share of quantity 9.5 15.0 16.7 Germany Share of quantity 4.0 3.9 4.0 Brazil Share of quantity 3.1 4.8 3.4 China Share of quantity 2.6 2.8 3.1 Colombia Share of quantity 1.7 0.5 2.3 India Share of quantity 1.7 1.3 1.7 Canada Share of quantity 0.6 0.4 1.3 All other destination markets Share of quantity 5.3 4.1 3.3 All destination markets Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official import statistics from Mexico under HS subheading 4002.59, as reported by various national statistical authorities in the IHS/GTA database, accessed May 10, 2022. Note: United States is shown at the top. All remaining top export destinations are shown in descending order of 2021 data. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. VII-18 The industry in South Korea The Commission issued foreign producers’ or exporters’ questionnaires to two firms believed to produce and/or export NBR from South Korea.20 A usable response to the Commission’s questionnaire was received from one firm: Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. (“Kumho”).21 Kumho’s exports to the United States accounted for *** percent of U.S. imports of NBR from South Korea in 2021. According to an estimate requested of Kumho, its production of NBR in South Korea reported in its questionnaire response accounts for approximately *** percent of overall production of NBR in South Korea.22 Table VII-14 presents information on the NBR operations of Kumho in South Korea. Table VII-14 NBR: Summary data for producer in South Korea, 2021 Quantity in 1,000 pounds; share in percent Firm Production (1,000 pounds) Share of reported production (percent) Exports to the United States (1,000 pounds) Share of reported exports to the United States (percent) Total shipments (1,000 pounds) Share of firm's total shipments exported to the United States (percent) Kumho *** 100.0 *** 100.0 *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 20 These firms were identified through a review of information submitted in the petitions and presented in third-party sources. 21 The other firm, ***. Email from ***, July 19, 2021. As shown in table IV-1, ***. 22 ***. Respondent Kumho’s postconference brief, exh. 24. LG Chem circulated a letter to its customers on January 28, 2022, advising them that the company had decided to continue its NBR operations. Hearing transcript, pp. 24-25 (Cail) and ***. Staff note that U.S. shipments of NBR imports from LG Chem accounted for *** percent of U.S. apparent consumption in 2021 and U.S. imports of NBR from LG Chem accounted for *** percent of U.S. imports from South Korea and *** percent of U.S. imports from subject sources in 2021. While ***. VII-19 Changes in operations Kumho reported *** operational or organizational changes since January 1, 2019. Operations on NBR Table VII-15 presents information on the NBR operations of the responding producer Kumho in South Korea. Production increased by *** percent from 2019-21 and is projected to increase *** percent from 2021-2023. Capacity did not change during 2019-21 and is not projected to change in 2021-23. Given an increase in production and *** in capacity, capacity utilization increased *** percentage points during 2019-21 to *** percent. Kumho does not produce *** XNBR23 and *** of its NBR was produced using the *** method. Export shipments accounted for the majority of Kumho’s total NBR shipments, ranging from *** to *** percent of total shipments, the majority of which go to export markets other than the United States.24 Exports to the United States, exports to all other markets, and home market shipments all increased during 2019-21 by ***, ***, and *** percent, respectively.25 The share of exports to the United States and home market shipments to total shipments increased during 2019-21, by *** and *** percentage points, respectively, while the share of exports to all other markets to total shipments decreased by *** percentage points during 2019-21. Exports to the United States and home market shipments are projected to decrease from 2021 to 2023, by *** and *** percent, respectively, while exports to all other markets are projected to increase during the same period by *** percent.26 23 Conference transcript, p. 123 (Kendler). 24 Kumho’s other export markets include ***. 25 ***. 26 ***. VII-20 End-of-period inventories increased by *** percent during 2019-21. The ratio of inventories to total shipments ranged from *** to *** percent during the data collection period. Table VII-15 NBR: Data on industry in South Korea, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds Item 2019 2020 2021 Projection 2022 Projection 2023 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 *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table VII-15 Continued NBR: Data on industry in South Korea, by period Ratio and share in percent Item 2019 2020 2021 Projection 2022 Projection 2023 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 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VII-21 Alternative products Responding firm Kumho reported *** other products produced on the same equipment or machinery, or using the same workers, used to produce NBR. Kumho explained that ***. VII-22 Exports According to GTA, the leading export markets for NBR from South Korea are China, the United States, and India (table VII-16). During 2021, China was the top export market for NBR from South Korea, accounting for 29.9 percent, followed by the United States, accounting for 11.2 percent. Table VII-16 NBR: Exports from South Korea, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars Destination market Measure 2019 2020 2021 United States Quantity 29,128 19,245 32,975 China Quantity 74,199 101,277 88,285 India Quantity 38,404 32,319 31,036 Vietnam Quantity 20,544 21,365 18,897 Italy Quantity 13,693 14,954 15,024 Turkey Quantity 9,536 9,743 13,065 Indonesia Quantity 10,170 9,017 11,435 Thailand Quantity 8,588 8,207 11,260 Germany Quantity 12,641 11,790 11,025 All other destination markets Quantity 60,737 61,186 61,953 All destination markets Quantity 277,640 289,104 294,954 United States Value 25,914 13,106 35,422 China Value 61,110 65,674 91,998 India Value 31,521 22,522 34,407 Vietnam Value 18,613 15,807 21,369 Italy Value 10,764 9,522 16,445 Turkey Value 7,868 6,649 15,556 Indonesia Value 9,787 7,688 14,568 Thailand Value 7,340 5,817 12,396 Germany Value 10,708 7,896 12,660 All other destination markets Value 50,518 41,850 67,900 All destination markets Value 234,142 196,531 322,721 Table continued. VII-23 Table VII-16 Continued NBR: Exports from South Korea, by period Unit values in dollars per pound; shares in percent Destination market Measure 2019 2020 2021 United States Unit value 0.89 0.68 1.07 China Unit value 0.82 0.65 1.04 India Unit value 0.82 0.70 1.11 Vietnam Unit value 0.91 0.74 1.13 Italy Unit value 0.79 0.64 1.09 Turkey Unit value 0.83 0.68 1.19 Indonesia Unit value 0.96 0.85 1.27 Thailand Unit value 0.85 0.71 1.10 Germany Unit value 0.85 0.67 1.15 All other destination markets Unit value 0.83 0.68 1.10 All destination markets Unit value 0.84 0.68 1.09 United States Share of quantity 10.5 6.7 11.2 China Share of quantity 26.7 35.0 29.9 India Share of quantity 13.8 11.2 10.5 Vietnam Share of quantity 7.4 7.4 6.4 Italy Share of quantity 4.9 5.2 5.1 Turkey Share of quantity 3.4 3.4 4.4 Indonesia Share of quantity 3.7 3.1 3.9 Thailand Share of quantity 3.1 2.8 3.8 Germany Share of quantity 4.6 4.1 3.7 All other destination markets Share of quantity 21.9 21.2 21.0 All destination markets Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official exports statistics under HS subheading 4002.59 as reported by South Korea Trade Statistics Promotion Institute (KTSPI) in the Global Trade Atlas database, accessed May 10, 2022. Note: United States is shown at the top. All remaining top export destinations are shown in descending order of 2021 data. VII-24 Subject countries combined Table VII-17 presents summary data on NBR operations of the reporting subject producers in the subject countries. Table VII-17 NBR: Data on the industry in subject countries, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds Item 2019 2020 2021 Projection 2022 Projection 2023 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. Table VII-17 Continued NBR: Data on the industry in subject countries, by period Ratio and share in percent Item 2019 2020 2021 Projection 2022 Projection 2023 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 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VII-25 U.S. inventories of imported merchandise Table VII-18 presents data on U.S. importers’ reported inventories of NBR. Inventories of imports from subject sources decreased during 2019-20 by 9.6 percent, then increased during 2020-21 by 110.5 percent, for an overall 90.2 percent increase during 2019-21.27 The ratio of inventories of subject imports to U.S. shipments of imports increased by *** percentage points, from *** percent in 2019 to *** percent in 2021. Inventories of imports from nonsubject sources increased during 2019-20 by *** percent, then decreased during 2020-21 by *** percent, for an overall *** percent decrease during 2019-21. The ratio of inventories of nonsubject imports to U.S. shipments ranged from *** percent in 2019 to *** percent in 2020. 27 Most of the increase in inventories of NBR from subject sources during 2020-21 was from *** increase in end-of-period inventories of NBR from *** and from U.S. importers’ increase in end-of- period inventories of NBR from ***. Arlanxeo (Arlanxeo USA and Arlanxeo France) explained that increased U.S. inventories of subject imports in 2021 reflected a choice by subject importers to maintain additional inventories in the United States, rather than abroad, as a result of the continuing supply chain issues and shipping constraints associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Arlanxeo USA *** its days inventory outstanding from an average of *** days in 2019 and *** days in 2020, to *** days in 2021. Respondent Arlanxeo’s posthearing brief, responses to questions, pp. 32-35. Staff note that ***, which may have contributed to the increase in end-of-period inventories of NBR from ***. VII-26 Table VII-18 NBR: U.S. importers’ inventories and their ratio to select items, by source and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratio in percent Measure Source 2019 2020 2021 Inventories quantity France *** *** *** Ratio to imports France *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports France *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports France *** *** *** Inventories quantity Mexico *** *** *** Ratio to imports Mexico *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports Mexico *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports Mexico *** *** *** 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 9,549 8,631 18,165 Ratio to imports Subject *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports Subject *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports Subject *** *** *** Inventories quantity Japan *** *** *** Ratio to imports Japan *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports Japan *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports Japan *** *** *** Inventories quantity All other *** *** *** Ratio to imports All other *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports All other *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports All other *** *** *** 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. VII-27 U.S. importers’ outstanding orders The Commission requested that importers indicate whether they imported or arranged for the importation of NBR after December 31, 2021. Their reported data is presented in table VII-19. Table VII-19 NBR: U.S. importers’ arranged imports, by source and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds Source Jan-Mar 2022 Apr-Jun 2022 Jul-Sept 2022 Oct-Dec 2022 Total France *** *** *** *** *** Mexico *** *** *** *** *** South Korea *** *** *** *** *** Subject *** *** *** *** *** Japan *** *** *** *** *** All other *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** *** All import sources *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VII-28 Third-country trade actions NBR from France and South Korea is subject to antidumping or countervailing duties in countries other than the United States. Brazil applies antidumping duties to imports of NBR from both South Korea and France.28 China applies antidumping duties to imports of NBR from South Korea and Japan.29 India applies antidumping duties to imports of NBR from South Korea.30 On May 12, 2021, the Government of India published its final findings to impose 28 On March 2, 2018, preliminary duties on France and South Korea were imposed. The rate of duty on imports from France was USD 0.64 or 0.75 per kg depending on the company. The rate of duty on imports from the South Korea was USD 0.23 or 0.45 per kg depending on the company. The duty was in effect for six months. On August 13, 2018, Brazilian authorities imposed a final definitive antidumping duty to imports of NBR from France and South Korea. The rate of duty on imports from South Korea was USD 0.15 or 0.34 per kg. The rate of duty on imports from France was USD 0.65 or 0.92 per kg depending on the company. The measure is in force for a period of 5 years. AD duties do not apply to nitrile rubbers in liquid form and nitrile rubbers in powder produced through the spray drying process with a particle size equal to or less than 0.16 mm. Brazilian Executive Secretary of the Foreign Trade Chamber, “Resolution No. 53 of August 10, 2018,” August 13, 2018, Google translation from Portuguese to English available, http://www.camex.gov.br/component/content/article/62-resolucoes-da-camex/em- vigor/2066-resolucao-n-53-de-10-de-agosto-de-2018; Global Trade Alert, “Brazil: Definitive Anti- dumping Duty on Imports of Nitrile Rubber (NBR) from France and the Republic of Korea,” March 2, 2018, https://www.globaltradealert.org/intervention/57568/anti-dumping/brazil-definitive- antidumping-duty-on-imports-of-nitrile-rubber-nbr-from-france-and-the-republic-of-korea. 29 Temporary anti-dumping duties began July 16, 2018. The final order began November 9, 2018 and is in effect for 5 years. The final ADD rates for South Korea were as follows: Kumho Petrochemical, 12.0 percent; LG Chem, 15.0 percent; all others, 37.3 percent. The final ADD rates from Japan were as follows: Zeon Corporation, 28.1 percent; JSR Corporation, 16 percent; all others, 56.4 percent. Reuters, “China Imposes Temporary Anti-dumping Measures on Japan, S. Korea Nitrile Rubber,” July 16, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/china-antidumping-rubber/china-imposes-temporary-anti-dumping- measures-on-japan-s-korea-nitrile-rubber-idUKB9N1U401P; Rubber and Plastics News, “China Places Tariffs on Nitrile Rubber from South Korea, Japan,” July 17, 2018, https://www.rubbernews.com/article/20180717/NEWS/180719947/china-places-tariffs-on-nitrile- rubber-from-south-korea-japan. 30 On March 15, 1996, the Government of India initiated an investigation of NBR from Germany and South Korea. There is a long history of imposition of duties on South Korea. The government of India voted on November 24, 2020, in its sunset investigation, to continue AD duties on South Korea. These duties are to be imposed 5 years from the publication of the notice on November 24, 2020. The AD duty rates are as follows: Kumho Petrochemical Company Ltd., US $47.43 per metric ton; others, US $327.12 per metric ton. Certain products are excluded from the AD duties, which are latex NBR, powder NBR, and carboxylate NBR. Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, Notice of Initiation of Investigation, March 15, 1996, https://www.dgtr.gov.in/sites/default/files/Initiation_9.pdf. Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, Notification Final Findings, November 24, 2020, pp. 36-37 (AD duties) and p. 37 (certain product exclusions), https://www.dgtr.gov.in/sites/default/files/NCV%20NBR%20Final%20Finding-1%20%281%29.pdf. VII-29 antidumping duties to imports from the EU, China, Russia, and Japan.31 Subsequently, on July 20, 2021, the Central Government of India decided not to impose antidumping duties on NBR from China, the EU, Japan, and Russia.32 Respondent Negromex of Mexico is not aware of any orders imposed by third countries on its exports.33 Information on nonsubject countries Global capacity of solid NBR was *** metric tons in 2022. Global production was at *** metric tons and global consumption was at *** metric tons in 2021.34 The capacities of each of the global producers are listed in table VII-20. Global production by region is depicted in table VII-21. Global consumption by region is depicted in table VII-22. Global consumption by region and end use category is shown in table VII-23. In 31 On May 26, 2020, the government of India initiated an antidumping investigation on NBR from China, the European Union, Japan, and Russia. On May 12, 2021, final findings were published, and all four countries were found to be dumping, and the AD duties were published. The imposition was expected within 3 months of the published final findings. The AD duties were determined for all countries and companies to be a rate of US $2086.78 per metric ton, with the exception of JSR Japan that had a rate of “not applicable.” Liquid NBR, latex NBR, powdered NBR, and carboxylated NBR are excluded from the scope (final determination, p. 6 of 61). Government of India, Directorate General of Trade Remedies, Department of Commerce, “Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of ‘Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber’ (NBR) originating in or exported from China PR, European Union, Japan and Russia,” Case No.: 6/18/2020-DGTR, accessed July 30, 2021, https://www.dgtr.gov.in/anti-dumping- cases/anti-dumping-investigation-concerning-imports-%E2%80%9Cacrylonitrile-butadiene- rubber%E2%80%9D; the antidumping duties are published in the final findings from the Indian government, May 12, 2021, pp. 59-61, https://www.dgtr.gov.in/sites/default/files/Final%20findings%20of%20NBR%20dated%2012th%20May %2C%202021%20in%20word%20revised.pdf; The Economic Times, “Commerce Ministry seeks anti- dumping duty on certain rubber imported from 4 countries,” May 13, 2021, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/foreign-trade/comm-min-seeks-anti-dumping- duty-on-certain-rubber-imported-from-4-countries/articleshow/82606187.cms; Jestin, Priya, “India to Impose Anti-dumping duty on NBR from China, Japan, EU, and Russia,” May 18, 2021, https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2021/05/18/10640517/india-to-impose-antidumping- duty-on-nbr-from-china-japan-eu-russia. 32 The Central Government of India decided not to impose antidumping duties on all 4 countries of the investigation (China, EU, Japan, and Russia) published in its final findings. Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Tax Research Unit, “Office Memorandum,” July 20, 2021. https://www.dgtr.gov.in/sites/default/files/OM_NBR_ADD.pdf. A list of the proceedings, including the final findings, is published by the Government of India: Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber” (NBR) originating in or exported from China PR, European Union, Japan and Russia. | Directorate General of Trade Remedies | MOCI | GOI (dgtr.gov.in). 33 Respondent Negromex’s postconference brief, p. 23. 34 IHS Markit, Chemical Economics Handbook, Nitrile Elastomers, April 2022, pp. 9, 13-14. VII-30 2021, China had the largest production volume of *** metric tons, followed by South Korea with *** metric tons, Western Europe with *** metric tons, Japan with *** metric tons, and Central and Eastern Europe with *** metric tons.35 Global consumption by end use was the highest in the automotive category at *** metric tons in 2021, followed by technical rubber goods at *** metric tons, and all other uses at *** metric tons.36 Non-latex NBR global exports are shown in table VII-24. The largest global exporter by quantity in 2021 was South Korea with a 34.7 percent share ($322.7 million), followed by France with a 16.9 percent share ($204.8 million), and Japan with a 13.7 percent share ($156.2 million). 35 IHS Markit, Chemical Economics Handbook, Nitrile Elastomers, April 2022, p. 13. 36 IHS Markit, Chemical Economics Handbook, Nitrile Elastomers, April 2022, p. 17. VII-31 Table VII-20 NBR: Annual capacities, as of March 2022, by producer and by country or region Quantity in 1,000 metric tons; share in percent Company Company global rank Country / Region Quantity Share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All companies *** *** *** *** Source: IHS Markit, Chemical Economics Handbook, Nitrile Elastomers, April 2022, p. 9. Note: Shares may not round to total due to rounding. Note: Joint ventures have been split accordingly. “World: other” represents producers in India, Mexico, and Taiwan. VII-32 Table VII-21 NBR: Global production quantity, 2021 (dry basis), by country or region Quantity in 1,000 metric tons Country / region NBR solid United States *** Canada *** Mexico *** Central and South America *** Total Americas *** Western Europe *** Central and Eastern Europe *** Middle East *** Africa *** Total EMEA *** China (mainland) *** India *** Japan *** Malaysia *** South Korea *** Taiwan *** Thailand *** Other *** Total Asia *** Global total *** Source: IHS Markit, Chemical Economics Handbook, Nitrile Elastomers, April 2022, p. 13. Note: These numbers may vary by up to +/- 10 percent due to the nature of wet basis to dry basis status. EMEA is Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. VII-33 Table VII-22 NBR: Global consumption quantity, 2021 (dry basis), by country or region Quantity in 1,000 metric tons Country / region NBR solid United States *** Canada *** Mexico *** Central and South America *** Total Americas *** Western Europe *** Central and Eastern Europe *** Middle East *** Africa *** Total EMEA *** China (mainland) *** India *** Japan *** Malaysia *** South Korea *** Taiwan *** Thailand *** Other *** Total Asia *** Global total *** Source: IHS Markit, Chemical Economics Handbook, Nitrile Elastomers, April 2022, p. 14. Note: These numbers may vary by up to +/- 10 percent due to the nature of wet basis to dry basis status. EMEA is Europe, the Middle East and Africa. VII-34 Table VII-23 NBR: Global consumption quantity of NBR solid by major region and end use category, 2021 and 2026 (predicted) Quantity in 1,000 metric tons; annual average growth rate in percent Country / region End use category 2021 2026 (predicted) Annual average growth rate United States Automotive *** *** *** Western Europe Automotive *** *** *** China Automotive *** *** *** Japan Automotive *** *** *** Total Automotive *** *** *** United States Rubber goods *** *** *** Western Europe Rubber goods *** *** *** China Rubber goods *** *** *** Japan Rubber goods *** *** *** Total Rubber goods *** *** *** United States Other *** *** *** Western Europe Other *** *** *** China Other *** *** *** Japan Other *** *** *** Total Other *** *** *** United States All categories *** *** *** Western Europe All categories *** *** *** China All categories *** *** *** Japan All categories *** *** *** Total All categories *** *** *** Source: IHS Markit, Chemical Economics Handbook, Nitrile Elastomers, April 2022, p. 17. VII-35 Table VII-24 NBR: Global exports, by source and period Value in 1,000 dollars; quantity in 1,000 pounds Exporting country Measure 2019 2020 2021 United States Quantity 32,722 27,216 33,854 France Quantity 148,720 133,524 143,402 Mexico Quantity 31,772 27,887 27,041 South Korea Quantity 277,640 289,104 294,954 Subject Quantity 458,132 450,515 465,398 Japan Quantity 101,347 105,331 115,955 Russia Quantity 76,046 72,807 82,883 Belgium Quantity 22,982 22,626 31,326 Poland Quantity 20,057 17,596 23,155 China Quantity 29,406 26,688 20,335 Taiwan Quantity 14,571 12,700 19,802 Netherlands Quantity 10,192 12,155 15,012 Germany Quantity 12,110 9,897 12,155 All other exporters Quantity 27,192 26,969 29,516 All reporting exporters Quantity 804,757 784,501 849,392 United States Value 133,235 108,906 155,276 France Value 195,562 154,907 204,829 Mexico Value 30,142 20,971 32,736 South Korea Value 234,142 196,531 322,721 Subject Value 459,847 372,410 560,286 Japan Value 130,445 117,594 156,177 Russia Value 57,829 43,355 84,489 Belgium Value 80,900 80,374 104,790 Poland Value 17,659 13,193 25,327 China Value 33,615 28,161 33,312 Taiwan Value 17,878 16,168 25,709 Netherlands Value 32,107 36,863 47,798 Germany Value 55,679 46,648 61,599 All other exporters Value 34,454 26,606 40,204 All reporting exporters Value 1,053,647 890,276 1,294,968 Table continued. VII-36 Table VII-24 Continued NBR: Global exports, by source and period Unit values in dollars per pound; shares in percent Exporting country Measure 2019 2020 2021 United States Unit value 4.07 4.00 4.59 France Unit value 1.31 1.16 1.43 Mexico Unit value 0.95 0.75 1.21 South Korea Unit value 0.84 0.68 1.09 Subject Unit value 1.00 0.83 1.20 Japan Unit value 1.29 1.12 1.35 Russia Unit value 0.76 0.60 1.02 Belgium Unit value 3.52 3.55 3.35 Poland Unit value 0.88 0.75 1.09 China Unit value 1.14 1.06 1.64 Taiwan Unit value 1.23 1.27 1.30 Netherlands Unit value 3.15 3.03 3.18 Germany Unit value 4.60 4.71 5.07 All other exporters Unit value 1.27 0.99 1.36 All reporting exporters Unit value 1.31 1.13 1.52 United States Share of quantity 4.1 3.5 4.0 France Share of quantity 18.5 17.0 16.9 Mexico Share of quantity 3.9 3.6 3.2 South Korea Share of quantity 34.5 36.9 34.7 Subject Share of quantity 56.9 57.4 54.8 Japan Share of quantity 12.6 13.4 13.7 Russia Share of quantity 9.4 9.3 9.8 Belgium Share of quantity 2.9 2.9 3.7 Poland Share of quantity 2.5 2.2 2.7 China Share of quantity 3.7 3.4 2.4 Taiwan Share of quantity 1.8 1.6 2.3 Netherlands Share of quantity 1.3 1.5 1.8 Germany Share of quantity 1.5 1.3 1.4 All other exporters Share of quantity 3.4 3.4 3.5 All reporting exporters Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official exports statistics under HS subheading 4002.59 as reported by various national statistical authorities supplemented with official import statistics from France and Mexico under HS subheading 4002.59 as reported by various national statistical authorities in the IHS/GTA database, accessed May 10, 2022. Note: United States is shown at the top, followed by the countries under investigation, then all remaining top exporting countries in descending order of 2021 data. Mirror data is presented for France, as its export data was suppressed by France ***. 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 35825, July 7, 2021 Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber From France, Korea, and Mexico; Institution of Anti-Dumping Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-07-07/pdf/2021-14403.pdf 86 FR 40192, July 27, 2021 Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber From France, the Republic of Korea, and Mexico: Initiation of Less- Than-Fair Value Investigations https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-07-27/pdf/2021-15895.pdf 86 FR 46885, August 20, 2021 Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber From France, Korea, and Mexico https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-08-20/pdf/2021-17844.pdf 87 FR 5787, February 2, 2022 Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber From France: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2022-02-02/pdf/2022-02112.pdf A-4 Citation Title Link 87 FR 5796, February 2, 2022 Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2022-02-02/pdf/2022-02113.pdf 87 FR 5790, February 2, 2022 Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber From Mexico: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2022-02-02/pdf/2022-02114.pdf 87 FR 11481, March 1, 2022 Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber (NBR) From France, Mexico, and South Korea; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Anti-Dumping Duty Investigations https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2022-03-01/pdf/2022-04252.pdf 87 FR 37833, June 24, 2022 Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber From France: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2022-06-24/pdf/2022-13560.pdf A-5 Citation Title Link 87 FR 37825, June 24, 2022 Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber From the Republic of Korea: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2022-06-24/pdf/2022-13561.pdf 87 FR 37829, June 24, 2022 Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber From the Republic of Mexico: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2022-06-24/pdf/2022-13562.pdf B-1 APPENDIX B LIST OF HEARING WITNESSES B-3 CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING Those listed below appeared in the United States International Trade Commission’s hearing via videoconference: Subject: Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France, Mexico, and South Korea Inv. Nos.: 731-TA-1567-1569 (Final) Date and Time: June 1, 2022 - 9:30 a.m. OPENING REMARKS: In Support of Imposition (Mert E. Arkan, Barnes Richardson & Colburn LLP) In Opposition to Imposition (Brady W. Mills, Morris Manning & Martin LLP) In Support of Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders: Barnes Richardson & Coburn LLP Washington, DC on behalf of Zeon Chemicals L.P. Zeon GP, LLC Michael Recchio, President & CEO, ZCLP Brian Cail, Vice President of Sales & Marketing, ZCLP LaStacia Dalton, Vice President of Administration and CFO, ZCLP Mert E. Arkan ) – OF COUNSEL B-4 In Opposition to Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders: Morris Manning & Martin LLP Washington, DC on behalf of ARLANXEO Emulsion Rubber France S.A.S. ARLANXEO USA LLC John Dennerlein, Sales Manager, ARLANXEO USA LLC Jason Suslak, Head of M&A and General Counsel, ARLANXEO USA LLC Kyle Kuczynski, VP Finance, Jasper Rubber Products, Inc. Emma K. Peterson, Director of International Trade Analytics, Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP Shannon J. Crowe, International Trade Specialist, Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP Brady W. Mills ) ) – OF COUNSEL Will Planert ) White & Case LLP Washington, DC on behalf of Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. (“KKPC”) Henry Shin, Regional Export Manager, Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Ellen Clunk, Purchasing and Supply Chain Director – North America, Hexpol Compounding LLC Bill Crowe, Global Lead Buyer, The Flint Group/Day International, Inc. David Hart, Chairman of the Board, Mountville Mills, Inc. William J. Moran ) Ron Kendler ) – OF COUNSEL C. Alex Dilley ) B-5 In Opposition to Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders (continued): Alston & Bird LLP Washington, DC on behalf of ITT Inc. (“ITT”) and its subsidiary Wolverine Advanced Materials Mary Beth Gustafsson, Senior Vice President, General Counsel, ITT Inc./Wolverine Advanced Materials Chunlian “Lian” Yang ) – OF COUNSEL Clark Hill PLLC Washington, DC on behalf of Negromex, S.A. de C.V. Dynasol. LLC Daniela Quintero, Global Commercial Intelligence Manager, Dynasol, LLC Jose Plaza, Commercial Manager America, Dynasol, LLC Alejandro Morlett, Counsel, Industrias Negromex, S.A. de C.V. William C. Sjoberg ) ) – OF COUNSEL Maram T. Salaheldin ) REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS: In Support of Imposition (Mert E. Arkan, Barnes Richardson & Colburn LLP) In Opposition to Imposition (William C. Sjoberg, Clark Hill PLLC) -END- C-1 APPENDIX C SUMMARY DATA Table C-1 NBR: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, by period 2019 2020 2021 2019-21 2019-20 2020-21 U.S. consumption quantity: Amount...................................................... 110,392 86,802 101,744 ▼(7.8) ▼(21.4) ▲17.2 Producers' share (fn1)............................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Importers' share (fn1): France.................................................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Mexico.................................................... *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** South Korea........................................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Subject sources................................... 62.5 61.3 60.6 ▼(1.9) ▼(1.2) ▼(0.7) Japan...................................................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** All other sources..................................... *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Nonsubject sources............................. *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** All import sources............................. *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** U.S. consumption value: Amount...................................................... 155,405 110,700 165,054 ▲6.2 ▼(28.8) ▲49.1 Producers' share (fn1)............................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Importers' share (fn1): France.................................................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Mexico.................................................... *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** South Korea........................................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Subject sources................................... 54.6 51.9 54.4 ▼(0.2) ▼(2.7) ▲2.5 Japan...................................................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** All other sources..................................... *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Nonsubject sources............................. *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** All import sources............................. *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** U.S. importers' U.S. shipments of imports from: France: Quantity.................................................. *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Value...................................................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit value............................................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Ending inventory quantity....................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Mexico: Quantity.................................................. *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Value...................................................... *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit value............................................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Ending inventory quantity....................... *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** South Korea: Quantity.................................................. *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Value...................................................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit value............................................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Ending inventory quantity....................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Table continued. C-3 Quantity=1,000 pounds; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per pound; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted Reported data Period changes Calendar year Comparison years Table C-1 continued NBR: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, by period 2019 2020 2021 2019-21 2019-20 2020-21 U.S. importers' U.S. shipments of imports from:--Continued Subject sources: Quantity.................................................. 68,994 53,199 61,642 ▼(10.7) ▼(22.9) ▲15.9 Value...................................................... 84,870 57,462 89,843 ▲5.9 ▼(32.3) ▲56.4 Unit value............................................... $1.23 $1.08 $1.46 ▲18.5 ▼(12.2) ▲34.9 Ending inventory quantity....................... 9,549 8,631 18,165 ▲90.2 ▼(9.6) ▲110.5 Japan: Quantity.................................................. *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Value...................................................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit value............................................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Ending inventory quantity....................... *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** All other sources: Quantity.................................................. *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Value...................................................... *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit value............................................... *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Ending inventory quantity....................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Nonsubject sources: Quantity.................................................. *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Value...................................................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit value............................................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Ending inventory quantity....................... *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** All import sources: Quantity.................................................. *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Value...................................................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit value............................................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Ending inventory quantity....................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** U.S. producers': Average capacity quantity......................... *** *** *** *** *** *** Production quantity.................................... *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Capacity utilization (fn1)............................ *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** U.S. shipments: Quantity.................................................. *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Value...................................................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit value............................................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Export shipments: Quantity.................................................. *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Value...................................................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit value............................................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Ending inventory quantity.......................... *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Inventories/total shipments (fn1)............... *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** Production workers.................................... *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** Hours worked (1,000s).............................. *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Wages paid ($1,000)................................. *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Hourly wages (dollars per hour)................ *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Productivity (pounds per hour).................. *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit labor costs.......................................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Table continued. C-4 Quantity=1,000 pounds; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per pound; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted Reported data Period changes Calendar year Comparison years Table C-1 continued NBR: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, by period 2019 2020 2021 2019-21 2019-20 2020-21 U.S. producers':--Continued Net sales: Quantity.................................................. *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Value...................................................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit value............................................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Cost of goods sold (COGS)....................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Gross profit or (loss) (fn2)......................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** SG&A expenses........................................ *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Operating income or (loss) (fn2)................ *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Net income or (loss) (fn2).......................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit COGS................................................ *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Unit SG&A expenses................................. *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit operating income or (loss) (fn2)......... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit net income or (loss) (fn2)................... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** COGS/sales (fn1)...................................... *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1)...... *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Net 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. Note.--Shares and ratios shown as “0.0” percent represent non-zero values less than “0.05” percent (if positive) and greater than fn2.--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. 508-compliant tables containing these data are contained in parts III, IV, VI, and VII of this report. C-5 Quantity=1,000 pounds; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per pound; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted Reported data Period changes Calendar year Comparison years D-1 APPENDIX D DETAILED CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION SHIPMENT DATA D-3 Table D-1 NBR: U.S. producer’s U.S. shipments by channel of distribution and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit values in dollars per pound; shares in percent Channel Measure 2019 2020 2021 Distributors Quantity *** *** *** Custom mixers Quantity *** *** *** Other end users Quantity *** *** *** All channels Quantity *** *** *** Distributors Value *** *** *** Custom mixers Value *** *** *** Other end users Value *** *** *** All channels Value *** *** *** Distributors Unit value *** *** *** Custom mixers Unit value *** *** *** Other end users Unit value *** *** *** All channels Unit value *** *** *** Distributors Share of quantity *** *** *** Custom mixers Share of quantity *** *** *** Other end users Share of quantity *** *** *** All channels Share of quantity *** *** *** Distributors Share of value *** *** *** Custom mixers Share of value *** *** *** Other end users Share of value *** *** *** All channels Share of value *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. D-4 Table D-2 NBR: U.S. importers' U.S. shipments of imports from France by channel of distribution and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit values in dollars per pound; shares in percent Channel Measure 2019 2020 2021 Distributors Quantity *** *** *** Custom mixers Quantity *** *** *** Other end users Quantity *** *** *** All channels Quantity *** *** *** Distributors Value *** *** *** Custom mixers Value *** *** *** Other end users Value *** *** *** All channels Value *** *** *** Distributors Unit value *** *** *** Custom mixers Unit value *** *** *** Other end users Unit value *** *** *** All channels Unit value *** *** *** Distributors Share of quantity *** *** *** Custom mixers Share of quantity *** *** *** Other end users Share of quantity *** *** *** All channels Share of quantity *** *** *** Distributors Share of value *** *** *** Custom mixers Share of value *** *** *** Other end users Share of value *** *** *** All channels Share of value *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. D-5 Table D-3 NBR: U.S. importers' U.S. shipments of imports from Mexico by channel of distribution and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit values in dollars per pound; shares in percent Channel Measure 2019 2020 2021 Distributors Quantity *** *** *** Custom mixers Quantity *** *** *** Other end users Quantity *** *** *** All channels Quantity *** *** *** Distributors Value *** *** *** Custom mixers Value *** *** *** Other end users Value *** *** *** All channels Value *** *** *** Distributors Unit value *** *** *** Custom mixers Unit value *** *** *** Other end users Unit value *** *** *** All channels Unit value *** *** *** Distributors Share of quantity *** *** *** Custom mixers Share of quantity *** *** *** Other end users Share of quantity *** *** *** All channels Share of quantity *** *** *** Distributors Share of value *** *** *** Custom mixers Share of value *** *** *** Other end users Share of value *** *** *** All channels Share of value *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. D-6 Table D-4 NBR: U.S. importers' U.S. shipments of imports from South Korea by channel of distribution and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit values in dollars per pound; shares in percent Channel Measure 2019 2020 2021 Distributors Quantity *** *** *** Custom mixers Quantity *** *** *** Other end users Quantity *** *** *** All channels Quantity *** *** *** Distributors Value *** *** *** Custom mixers Value *** *** *** Other end users Value *** *** *** All channels Value *** *** *** Distributors Unit value *** *** *** Custom mixers Unit value *** *** *** Other end users Unit value *** *** *** All channels Unit value *** *** *** Distributors Share of quantity *** *** *** Custom mixers Share of quantity *** *** *** Other end users Share of quantity *** *** *** All channels Share of quantity *** *** *** Distributors Share of value *** *** *** Custom mixers Share of value *** *** *** Other end users Share of value *** *** *** All channels Share of value *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. D-7 Table D-5 NBR: U.S. importers' U.S. shipments of imports from subject sources by channel of distribution and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit values in dollars per pound; shares in percent Channel Measure 2019 2020 2021 Distributors Quantity *** *** *** Custom mixers Quantity *** *** *** Other end users Quantity *** *** *** All channels Quantity *** *** *** Distributors Value *** *** *** Custom mixers Value *** *** *** Other end users Value *** *** *** All channels Value *** *** *** Distributors Unit value *** *** *** Custom mixers Unit value *** *** *** Other end users Unit value *** *** *** All channels Unit value *** *** *** Distributors Share of quantity *** *** *** Custom mixers Share of quantity *** *** *** Other end users Share of quantity *** *** *** All channels Share of quantity *** *** *** Distributors Share of value *** *** *** Custom mixers Share of value *** *** *** Other end users Share of value *** *** *** All channels Share of value *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. D-8 Table D-6 NBR: U.S. importers' U.S. shipments of imports from Japan by channel of distribution and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit values in dollars per pound; shares in percent Channel Measure 2019 2020 2021 Distributors Quantity *** *** *** Custom mixers Quantity *** *** *** Other end users Quantity *** *** *** All channels Quantity *** *** *** Distributors Value *** *** *** Custom mixers Value *** *** *** Other end users Value *** *** *** All channels Value *** *** *** Distributors Unit value *** *** *** Custom mixers Unit value *** *** *** Other end users Unit value *** *** *** All channels Unit value *** *** *** Distributors Share of quantity *** *** *** Custom mixers Share of quantity *** *** *** Other end users Share of quantity *** *** *** All channels Share of quantity *** *** *** Distributors Share of value *** *** *** Custom mixers Share of value *** *** *** Other end users Share of value *** *** *** All channels Share of value *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. D-9 Table D-7 NBR: U.S. importers' U.S. shipments of imports from all other sources by channel of distribution and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit values in dollars per pound; shares in percent Channel Measure 2019 2020 2021 Distributors Quantity *** *** *** Custom mixers Quantity *** *** *** Other end users Quantity *** *** *** All channels Quantity *** *** *** Distributors Value *** *** *** Custom mixers Value *** *** *** Other end users Value *** *** *** All channels Value *** *** *** Distributors Unit value *** *** *** Custom mixers Unit value *** *** *** Other end users Unit value *** *** *** All channels Unit value *** *** *** Distributors Share of quantity *** *** *** Custom mixers Share of quantity *** *** *** Other end users Share of quantity *** *** *** All channels Share of quantity *** *** *** Distributors Share of value *** *** *** Custom mixers Share of value *** *** *** Other end users Share of value *** *** *** All channels Share of value *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. D-10 Table D-8 NBR: U.S. importers' U.S. shipments of imports from nonsubject sources by channel of distribution and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit values in dollars per pound; shares in percent Channel Measure 2019 2020 2021 Distributors Quantity *** *** *** Custom mixers Quantity *** *** *** Other end users Quantity *** *** *** All channels Quantity *** *** *** Distributors Value *** *** *** Custom mixers Value *** *** *** Other end users Value *** *** *** All channels Value *** *** *** Distributors Unit value *** *** *** Custom mixers Unit value *** *** *** Other end users Unit value *** *** *** All channels Unit value *** *** *** Distributors Share of quantity *** *** *** Custom mixers Share of quantity *** *** *** Other end users Share of quantity *** *** *** All channels Share of quantity *** *** *** Distributors Share of value *** *** *** Custom mixers Share of value *** *** *** Other end users Share of value *** *** *** All channels Share of value *** *** *** 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 “---“. D-11 Table D-9 NBR: U.S. importers' U.S. shipments of imports from all import sources by channel of distribution and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit values in dollars per pound; shares in percent Channel Measure 2019 2020 2021 Distributors Quantity *** *** *** Custom mixers Quantity *** *** *** Other end users Quantity *** *** *** All channels Quantity *** *** *** Distributors Value *** *** *** Custom mixers Value *** *** *** Other end users Value *** *** *** All channels Value *** *** *** Distributors Unit value *** *** *** Custom mixers Unit value *** *** *** Other end users Unit value *** *** *** All channels Unit value *** *** *** Distributors Share of quantity *** *** *** Custom mixers Share of quantity *** *** *** Other end users Share of quantity *** *** *** All channels Share of quantity *** *** *** Distributors Share of value *** *** *** Custom mixers Share of value *** *** *** Other end users Share of value *** *** *** All channels Share of value *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. E-1 APPENDIX E PURCHASERS’ DESCRIPTIONS REGARDING SUPPLY CONSTRAINTS E-3 Table E-1 NBR: Purchasers’ descriptions regarding supply constraints since January 1, 2019 Firm Supply constraints before the petitions were filed Supply constraints after the petitions were filed *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. E-4 Table E-1 Continued NBR: Purchasers’ descriptions regarding supply constraints since January 1, 2019 Firm Supply constraints before the petitions were filed Supply constraints after the petitions were filed *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. E-5 Table E-1 Continued NBR: Purchasers’ descriptions regarding supply constraints since January 1, 2019 Firm Supply constraints before the petitions were filed Supply constraints after the petitions were filed *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. F-1 APPENDIX F OFFICIAL IMPORT STATISTICS F-3 Table F-1 NBR: U.S. imports based on official statistics, by source and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit values in dollars per pound Source Measure 2019 2020 2021 France Quantity 30,202 25,182 33,924 Mexico Quantity 17,651 14,312 12,258 South Korea Quantity 30,147 19,336 33,419 Subject sources Quantity 78,000 58,830 79,601 Japan Quantity 26,785 20,449 19,887 All other sources Quantity 11,389 6,646 10,346 Nonsubject sources Quantity 38,175 27,095 30,233 All import sources Quantity 116,174 85,926 109,834 France Value 40,259 30,158 43,978 Mexico Value 17,029 11,180 15,093 South Korea Value 29,818 15,088 40,113 Subject sources Value 87,106 56,425 99,185 Japan Value 42,252 24,207 25,095 All other sources Value 14,978 7,526 15,307 Nonsubject sources Value 57,230 31,733 40,402 All import sources Value 144,336 88,158 139,586 France Unit value 1.33 1.20 1.30 Mexico Unit value 0.96 0.78 1.23 South Korea Unit value 0.99 0.78 1.20 Subject sources Unit value 1.12 0.96 1.25 Japan Unit value 1.58 1.18 1.26 All other sources Unit value 1.32 1.13 1.48 Nonsubject sources Unit value 1.50 1.17 1.34 All import sources Unit value 1.24 1.03 1.27 Table continued. F-4 Table F-1 Continued NBR: U.S. imports based on official statistics, by source and period Shares and ratios in percent; ratios represent the ratio to U.S. production Source Measure 2019 2020 2021 France Share of quantity 26.0 29.3 30.9 Mexico Share of quantity 15.2 16.7 11.2 South Korea Share of quantity 25.9 22.5 30.4 Subject sources Share of quantity 67.1 68.5 72.5 Japan Share of quantity 23.1 23.8 18.1 All other sources Share of quantity 9.8 7.7 9.4 Nonsubject sources Share of quantity 32.9 31.5 27.5 All import sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 France Share of value 27.9 34.2 31.5 Mexico Share of value 11.8 12.7 10.8 South Korea Share of value 20.7 17.1 28.7 Subject sources Share of value 60.3 64.0 71.1 Japan Share of value 29.3 27.5 18.0 All other sources Share of value 10.4 8.5 11.0 Nonsubject sources Share of value 39.7 36.0 28.9 All import sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 France Ratio *** *** *** Mexico Ratio *** *** *** South Korea Ratio *** *** *** Subject sources Ratio *** *** *** Japan Ratio *** *** *** All other sources Ratio *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Ratio *** *** *** All import sources Ratio *** *** *** Source: Data for are compiled from official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using statistical reporting number 4002.59.0000, accessed May 9, 2022. Imports are based on the imports for consumption and landed duty paid values data series. Other data are compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. G-1 APPENDIX G NONSUBJECT COUNTRY PRICE DATA G-3 One importer, ***, reported price data for imported product from Japan. It reported data for products 1-4. Price data reported by *** accounted for *** percent of U.S. commercial shipments of NBR from Japan in 2021. These price items and accompanying data are comparable to those presented in tables V-4 to V-7. Price and quantity data for Japan are shown in tables G-1 to G-4 and in figures G-1 to G-4 (with domestic and subject sources). As shown in table G-5, in comparing nonsubject country pricing data with U.S. producer pricing data, it should be noted that ***. Prices for product imported from Japan were lower than prices for U.S.-produced product in 23 of 48 instances (*** pounds) and higher in 25 instances (*** pounds). Comparisons are highly product-specific, with these quarters reflecting higher-priced nonsubject product imported from Japan occurring across extremely low-volume quarters and products – ***. Nonsubject prices for NBR imported from Japan were higher than prices of product imported from subject sources in the majority of quarters: 41 of 48 quarters when compared with product from France, 29 of 48 when comparing to Mexico, and 35 of 36 quarters when comparing to South Korea. For the comparisons to France and South Korea, a majority of the quantities of product imported from Japan were sold at a higher price (*** pounds of nonsubject NBR imported from Japan sold at a higher price than subject imports compared with *** pounds sold at a lower price when comparing to NBR imported from France, and *** pounds compared with less than *** pounds when comparing to South Korea). Comparing to product imported from Mexico, the majority of the product imported from Japan was priced lower (*** pounds compared with *** pounds). G-4 Table G-1 NBR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Quantity in 1,000 pounds; prices in dollars per pound; margins in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity Japan price Japan quantity 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** 2021 Q3 *** *** *** *** 2021 Q4 *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 1: NBR with Acrylonitrile content greater than or equal to 31% (inclusive) and less than or equal to 35% (inclusive) and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, without any third monomer, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25-45 kgs. Table G-2 NBR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Quantity in 1,000 pounds; prices in dollars per pound; margins in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity Japan price Japan quantity 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** 2021 Q3 *** *** *** *** 2021 Q4 *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 2: NBR with Acrylonitrile content greater than or equal to 31% (inclusive) and less than or equal to 35% (inclusive) and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, without any third monomer, ground/particulate/pellet form, sold in 20-30 kg bags. G-5 Table G-3 NBR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Quantity in 1,000 pounds; prices in dollars per pound; margins in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity Japan price Japan quantity 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** 2021 Q3 *** *** *** *** 2021 Q4 *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 3: NBR with Acrylonitrile content greater than or equal to 26% (exclusive) and less than or equal to 31% (exclusive) or Acrylonitrile content greater than 35% (exclusive) and less than or equal to 41% (exclusive), and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, without any third monomer, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25-45 kgs. Table G-4 NBR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Quantity in 1,000 pounds; prices in dollars per pound; margins in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity Japan price Japan quantity 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** 2021 Q3 *** *** *** *** 2021 Q4 *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 4: NBR with Acrylonitrile content less than 26% (inclusive) or Acrylonitrile content greater than 41% (inclusive), and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, without any third monomer, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25-45 kgs. G-6 Figure G-1 NBR: 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: NBR with Acrylonitrile content greater than or equal to 31% (inclusive) and less than or equal to 35% (inclusive) and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, without any third monomer, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25-45 kgs. G-7 Figure G-2 NBR: 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: NBR with Acrylonitrile content greater than or equal to 31% (inclusive) and less than or equal to 35% (inclusive) and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, without any third monomer, ground/particulate/pellet form, sold in 20-30 kg bags. G-8 Figure G-3 NBR: 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: NBR with Acrylonitrile content greater than or equal to 26% (exclusive) and less than or equal to 31% (exclusive) or Acrylonitrile content greater than 35% (exclusive) and less than or equal to 41% (exclusive), and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, without any third monomer, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25-45 kgs. G-9 Figure G-4 NBR: 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: Specialty NBR with Acrylonitrile content less than 26% or greater than 41%; Hot Polymerized, and/or containing methacrylic acid, ground/particulate/pellet form, sold in 20-30 kg bags. G-10 Table G-5 NBR: Summary of higher/lower prices, by source, January 2019-December 2021 Quantity in 1,000 pounds Nonsubject source Comparison source Number of quarters nonsubject lower Quantity of nonsubject lower Number of quarters nonsubject higher Quantity of nonsubject higher Japan United States 23 *** 25 *** Japan France 7 *** 41 *** Japan Mexico 19 *** 29 *** Japan South Korea 1 *** 35 *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination – AD – Final - France === 37833Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Notices (CBP) to continue the suspension of liquidation of all appropriate entries of UAN, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 2, 2022, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in this investigation in the Federal Register. Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price in this final determination, as follows: (1) the cash deposit rate for each of the respondents listed in the table above is the company- specific cash deposit rate listed for the respondent in the table; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent listed in the table above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate is the company- specific cash deposit rate listed for the producer of the subject merchandise in the table above; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters is the ‘‘All Others’’ cash deposit rate listed in the table above. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. In the event that a countervailing duty (CVD) order is issued, and suspension of liquidation is resumed in the companion CVD investigation of UAN from Russia, Commerce will instruct CBP to require, for this antidumping duty investigation, cash deposits adjusted by the amount of export subsidies, as appropriate. These adjustments are reflected in the final column of the rate table, above. Until such suspension of liquidation is resumed in the companion CVD investigation, and so long as suspension of liquidation continues under this antidumping duty investigation, the cash deposit rates for this antidumping duty investigation will be the rates identified in the estimated weighted- average dumping margin column in the rate table, above. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of its final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated, and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction. Notification to Interested Parties This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c). Dated: June 17, 2022. Lisa W. Wang, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is all mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate in aqueous or ammonia solution, regardless of nitrogen concentration by weight, and regardless of the presence of additives, such as corrosion inhibiters and soluble micro or macronutrients (UAN). Subject merchandise includes merchandise matching the above description that has been processed in a third country, including by commingling, diluting, adding or removing additives, or performing any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if performed in the subject country. The scope also includes UAN that is commingled with UAN from sources not subject to this investigation. Only the subject component of such commingled products is covered by the scope of this investigation. The covered merchandise is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 3102.80.0000. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix II List of Sections in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Investigation IV. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination V. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Whether to Reconsider Russia’s Status as a Market Economy Country Comment 2: Whether to Base Acron’s Dumping Margin on Adverse Facts Available Comment 3: Whether Commerce Made Certain Ministerial Errors Comment 4: Whether to Base EuroChem’s Dumping Margin on Adverse Facts Available (AFA) Comment 5: Whether Commerce Should Grant EuroChem a Difference in Quantity Adjustment Comment 6: Whether Commerce Should Grant EuroChem a Constructed Export Price (CEP) Offset Comment 7: Whether to Apply the Cohen’s d Test to EuroChem’s Sales Comment 8: Proper Enforcement of Antidumping Duty Laws VI. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2022–13566 Filed 6–23–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–427–832] Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber From France: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (AB rubber) from France is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation is April 1, 2020, through March 31, 2021. DATES : Applicable June 24, 2022. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Patrick Barton, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0012. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On February 2, 2022, Commerce published its Preliminary VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Jun 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM 24JNN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 37834 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Notices 1 See Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 87 FR 5787 (February 2, 2022) (Preliminary Determination), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 2 See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Acrylonitrile- Butadiene Rubber from France,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum,’’ dated January 26, 2022 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum). 4 See ARLANXEO Emulsion Rubber France S.A.S.’s Letter, ‘‘Scope Brief,’’ dated February 25, 2022; see also Zeon Chemicals L.P. and Zeon GP, LLC (collectively, the petitioner)’s Letter, ‘‘Petitioner’s Rebuttal Scope Brief,’’ dated March 4, 2022. 5 See Memorandum, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigations of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France, the Republic of Korea, and Mexico: Final Scope Decision Memorandum,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Final Scope Memorandum). 6 See Preliminary Determination, 87 FR at 5792. Specifically, we added language to the scope that clarified that AB rubber products that include a third component that is not methacrylic acid or isoprene are not covered by the scope. See Final Scope Memorandum. 7 See Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘In Lieu of Verification Questionnaire,’’ dated March 17, 2022; see also Arlanxeo France’s Letter, ‘‘Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France, Case No. A–427–832: Arlanxeo’s In Lieu of On Site Verification Questionnaire Response,’’ dated March 25, 2022. Determination.1 Commerce invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination. For a complete description of the events that followed the Preliminary Determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 2 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is available electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https:// access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/ FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part In the Preliminary Determination, Commerce preliminarily determined, pursuant to section 733(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.206, that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of AB rubber produced and exported by Arlanxeo Emulsion Rubber France S.A.S. (Arlanxeo France). However, we preliminarily determined that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of AB rubber produced and exported by all other producers and exporters from France. For this final determination, we continue to find that critical circumstances do not exist for Arlanxeo France and do exist for all other producers and exporters from France, pursuant to section 735(a)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206. For a full description of methodology and results of Commerce’s final affirmative critical circumstances analyses, see Issues and Decision Memorandum. Scope Comments On January 26, 2022, we issued the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum. 3 Interested parties submitted case and rebuttal briefs concerning the scope of this investigation.4 For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record of this investigation, and accompanying analysis of all comments timely received, see the Final Scope Memorandum. 5 Based on the comments received from interested parties, we are revising the scope of this investigation as it appeared in the Preliminary Determination.6 The scope in the Appendix I reflects these changes. Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is AB rubber from France. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I. Verification Commerce was unable to conduct on- site verification of the information relied upon in making its final determination in this investigation. However, we took additional steps in lieu of an on-site verification to verify the information relied upon in making this final determination, in accordance with section 782(i) of the Act.7 Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix II. Changes From the Preliminary Determination Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes to the margin calculation for Arlanxeo France since the Preliminary Determination. See the Issues and Decision Memorandum for a discussion of these changes. All-Others Rate Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated weighted- average dumping margin for all other producers or exporters not individually investigated shall be equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. In this investigation, Commerce calculated an individual estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Arlanxeo France, the sole mandatory respondent, that is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available. Consequently, the rate calculated for Arlanxeo France is assigned as the rate for all other producers or exporters, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. Final Determination Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist: Exporter or producer Estimated weighted- average dumping margin (percent) Arlanxeo Emulsion Rubber France S.A.S ........................... 81.86 All Others .................................... 81.86 Disclosure Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in this final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation Consistent with the Preliminary Determination, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of AB rubber from France, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after February 2, 2022, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination of this investigation in the Federal Register. Section 735(c)(4) of the Act provides that if there is an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Jun 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM 24JNN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 37835Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Notices after the later of: (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered; or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. As noted above, Commerce finds that critical circumstances exist for imports of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by all other producers and exporters of AB rubber from France. Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(4) of the Act, suspension of liquidation shall continue to apply to unliquidated entries of subject merchandise produced or exported by all other producers or exporters that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), upon the publication of this notice, we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise equal to the following: (1) the cash deposit rate for the individual companies listed in the table above will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted- average dumping margin determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a company identified above but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted- average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin listed in the table above. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Because the final determination in this investigation is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of AB rubber from France no later than 45 days after this final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all cash deposits posted will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the ‘‘Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation’’ section. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice will serve as the only reminder to the parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. Notification to Interested Parties This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c). Dated: June 17, 2022. Lisa W. Wang, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is commonly referred to as acrylonitrile butadiene rubber or nitrile rubber (AB Rubber). AB Rubber is a synthetic rubber produced by the emulsion polymerization of butadiene and acrylonitrile with or without the incorporation of a third component selected from methacrylic acid or isoprene. AB Rubber products that include a third component that is not methacrylic acid or isoprene are not covered by the scope. This scope covers AB Rubber in solid or non- aqueous liquid form. The scope also includes carboxylated AB Rubber. Excluded from the scope of this investigation is AB Rubber in latex form (commonly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 4002.51.0000). Latex AB Rubber is commonly either (a) acrylonitrile/ butadiene polymer in latex form or (b) acrylonitrile/butadiene/methacrylic acid polymer in latex form. The broader definition of latex refers to a water emulsion of a synthetic rubber obtained by polymerization. Also excluded from the scope of this investigation is: (a) AB Rubber containing additives incorporated during the compounding, mixing, molding, or use of AB Rubber comprising greater than twenty percent of the total weight of the product. Additives would include, but are not limited to, fillers (e.g., carbon black, silica, clay); reinforcement agents (e.g., fibers, carbon black, silica); vulcanization agents (e.g., sulfur, sulfur complexes, peroxide); or AB Rubber containing extension oils making up greater than forty percent of the total weight of the product. Such products would be generally classified under HTSUS subheading 4005; (b) AB Rubber containing polyvinyl chloride (PVC) making up greater than twenty percent of total weight of the product; (c) hydrogenated AB Rubber (commonly referred to as HNBR) produced by subsequent dissolution and hydrogenation of AB Rubber; (d) reactive liquid polymers containing acrylonitrile and butadiene with amine, epoxy, carboxyl or methacrylate vinyl chemical functionality. Subject merchandise includes material matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise processed in a third country, including by modifying physical form or packaging with another product, or performing any other finishing, packaging, or processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the AB Rubber. The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the HTSUS at subheading 4002.59.0000. While the HTSUS subheading numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive. Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part IV. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination V. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Whether to Include Stabilizer Type as a Physical Characteristic Comment 2: Whether Certain Home Market Sales are Outside of the Ordinary Course of Trade Comment 3: Whether to Include Further Manufactured Sales in the Margin Calculations Comment 4: Whether to Exclude Fixed Overhead Volume Variance Costs from the Margin Calculations Comment 5: Whether to Use the Quarterly Cost Methodology VI. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2022–13560 Filed 6–23–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Jun 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM 24JNN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination – AD – Final - South Korea === 37825Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Notices Exporter/producer Estimated weighted- average dumping margin (percent) Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) Ltd 111.71 All Others .................................... 111.71 Disclosure Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue the suspension of liquidation of all appropriate entries of UAN, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 2, 2022, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price in this final determination, as follows: (1) the cash deposit rate for each of the respondents listed in the table above is the company- specific cash deposit rate listed for the respondent in the table; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent listed in the table above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate is the company- specific cash deposit rate listed for the producer of the subject merchandise in the table above; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters is the ‘‘all others’’ cash deposit rate listed in the table above. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. Commerce normally adjusts cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties by the amount of export subsidies countervailed in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding, when CVD provisional measures are in effect. However, Commerce did not make an affirmative determination for countervailable export subsidies in the companion CVD investigation. Therefore, there is no offset to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the CVD rate for export subsidies. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of its final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated, and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction. Notification to Interested Parties This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c). Dated: June 17, 2022. Lisa W. Wang, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is all mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate in aqueous or ammonia solution, regardless of nitrogen concentration by weight, and regardless of the presence of additives, such as corrosion inhibiters and soluble micro or macronutrients (UAN). Subject merchandise includes merchandise matching the above description that has been processed in a third country, including by commingling, diluting, adding or removing additives, or performing any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if performed in the subject country. The scope also includes UAN that is commingled with UAN from sources not subject to this investigation. Only the subject component of such commingled products is covered by the scope of this investigation. The covered merchandise is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 3102.80.0000. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Investigation IV. Changes Since the Amended Preliminary Determination V. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Particular Market Situation (PMS) (A) Natural Gas (B) Electricity Comment 2: Constructed Value (CV) Profit Calculation Comment 3: Financial Expense Ratio Calculation VI. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2022–13567 Filed 6–23–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–580–912] Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber From the Republic of Korea: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (AB rubber) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation is April 1, 2020, through March 31, 2021. DATES : Applicable June 24, 2022. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Melissa Porpotage, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Jun 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM 24JNN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 37826 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Notices 1 See Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 87 FR 5796 (February 2, 2022) (Preliminary Determination), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 2 See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Acrylonitrile- Butadiene Rubber from the Republic of Korea,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum,’’ dated January 26, 2022 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum). 4 See ARLANXEO Emulsion Rubber France S.A.S.’s Letter, ‘‘Scope Brief,’’ dated February 25, 2022; see also Zeon Chemicals L.P. and Zeon GP, LLC (collectively, the petitioner)’s Letter, ‘‘Petitioner’s Rebuttal Scope Brief,’’ dated March 4, 2022. 5 See Memorandum, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigations of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France, the Republic of Korea, and Mexico: Final Scope Decision Memorandum,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Final Scope Memorandum). 6 See Preliminary Determination, 87 FR at 5792. Specifically, we added language to the scope that clarified that AB rubber products that include a third component that is not methacrylic acid or isoprene are not covered by the scope. See Final Scope Memorandum. 7 See Commerce’s Letter, In Lieu of Verification Questionnaire, dated February 14, 2022; see also Kumho’s Letter, ‘‘Response to the Verification Questionnaire,’’ dated February 22, 2022. Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1413. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On February 2, 2022, Commerce published its Preliminary Determination.1 Commerce invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination. For a complete description of the events that followed the Preliminary Determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 2 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is available electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access. trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/ FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. Scope Comments On January 26, 2022, we issued the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum. 3 Interested parties submitted case and rebuttal briefs concerning the scope of this investigation. 4 For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record of this investigation, and accompanying analysis of all comments timely received, see the Final Scope Memorandum. 5 Based on the comments received from interested parties, we are revising the scope of this investigation as it appeared in the Preliminary Determination.6 The scope in the Appendix reflects these changes. Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is AB rubber from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I. Verification Commerce was unable to conduct on- site verification of the information relied upon in making its final determination in this investigation. However, we took additional steps in lieu of an on-site verification to verify the information relied upon in making this final determination, in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).7 Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix II. Methodology—Adverse Facts Available (AFA) For purposes of this final determination, we relied, in part, on facts available pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. As discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, because one respondent, LG Chemical, Ltd. (LG Chem), did not act to the best of its ability in responding to our requests for information, we drew adverse inferences, where appropriate, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. LG Chem did not respond to Commerce’s initial antidumping duty questionnaire and we have continued to use an adverse inference in the selection of facts available for determining the dumping rate for this company, pursuant to section 776(d) of the Act. For further information, see the section ‘‘Use of Adverse Facts Available’’ in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. Changes From the Preliminary Determination Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes to the margin calculation for Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. (Kumho) since the Preliminary Determination. See the Issues and Decision Memorandum for a discussion of these changes. All-Others Rate Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated weighted- average dumping margin for all other producers and exporters not individually investigated shall be equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. In this investigation, Commerce assigned an estimated weighted-average dumping margin based entirely on facts available, i.e., under section 776 of the Act, to LG Chem. Therefore, the only estimated weighted-average dumping margin that is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available is the margin calculated for Kumho. Thus, the estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Kumho is the margin assigned to all other producers and exporters, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part For the Preliminary Determination, in accordance with section 733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, Commerce found that critical circumstances exist, in part, with respect to imports of AB rubber from Korea. Our final determination remains unchanged. Accordingly, pursuant to section 735(a)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, we continue to find that critical circumstances exist for LG Chem and companies covered by the ‘‘all others’’ rate, but do not exist for Kumho. Final Determination Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist: Exporter or producer Estimated weighted- average dumping margin (percent) Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd .. 18.80 LG Chemical, Ltd ........................ 35.31 All Others .................................... 18.80 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Jun 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM 24JNN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 37827Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Notices Disclosure Commerce intends to disclose its calculations performed in this final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation Consistent with the Preliminary Determination, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 2, 2022, the date of publication in the Federal Register of the affirmative Preliminary Determination. Further, in accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to continue the suspension of liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, produced and/or exported by LG Chem or companies covered by the all- others rate which entered, or were withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 4, 2021, which is 90 days before the date of publication in the Federal Register of the affirmative Preliminary Determination. Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), upon the publication of this notice, we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise equal to the following: (1) the cash deposit rate for the respondents listed in the table above will be equal to the company- specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company- specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted- average dumping margin listed in the table above. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Because Commerce’s final determination in this investigation is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of subject merchandise from Korea no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all cash deposits posted will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the February 2, 2022, effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice serves as a reminder to the parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. Notification to Interested Parties This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c). Dated: June 17, 2022. Lisa W. Wang, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is commonly referred to as acrylonitrile butadiene rubber or nitrile rubber (AB Rubber). AB Rubber is a synthetic rubber produced by the emulsion polymerization of butadiene and acrylonitrile with or without the incorporation of a third component selected from methacrylic acid or isoprene. AB Rubber products that include a third component that is not methacrylic acid or isoprene are not covered by the scope. This scope covers AB Rubber in solid or non- aqueous liquid form. The scope also includes carboxylated AB Rubber. Excluded from the scope of this investigation is AB Rubber in latex form (commonly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 4002.51.0000). Latex AB Rubber is commonly either (a) acrylonitrile/ butadiene polymer in latex form or (b) acrylonitrile/butadiene/methacrylic acid polymer in latex form. The broader definition of latex refers to a water emulsion of a synthetic rubber obtained by polymerization. Also excluded from the scope of this investigation is: (a) AB Rubber containing additives incorporated during the compounding, mixing, molding, or use of AB Rubber comprising greater than twenty percent of the total weight of the product. Additives would include, but are not limited to, fillers (e.g., carbon black, silica, clay); reinforcement agents (e.g., fibers, carbon black, silica); vulcanization agents (e.g., sulfur, sulfur complexes, peroxide); or AB Rubber containing extension oils making up greater than forty percent of the total weight of the product. Such products would be generally classified under HTSUS subheading 4005; (b) AB Rubber containing polyvinyl chloride (PVC) making up greater than twenty percent of total weight of the product; (c) hydrogenated AB Rubber (commonly referred to as HNBR) produced by subsequent dissolution and hydrogenation of AB Rubber; (d) reactive liquid polymers containing acrylonitrile and butadiene with amine, epoxy, carboxyl or methacrylate vinyl chemical functionality. Subject merchandise includes material matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise processed in a third country, including by modifying physical form or packaging with another product, or performing any other finishing, packaging, or processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the AB Rubber. The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the HTSUS at subheading 4002.59.0000. While the HTSUS subheading numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive. Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Use of Adverse Facts Available IV. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination V. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Reclassification of Fumigation Expenses Comment 2: Market Rate for Affiliated Input Purchases from Hanju Co. Ltd. (Hanju) Comment 3: Short-Term Interest Income Offset VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Jun 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM 24JNN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 37828 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Notices 1 See Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions from the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With the Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 86 FR 68640 (December 3, 2021) (Preliminary Determination), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 2 See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions from the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). 3 See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity. 4 See MHTL’s Letter, ‘‘Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions from the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago: MHTL’s Response to the Department’s In Lieu of Verification Questionnaire,’’ dated December 21, 2021; see also Government of Trinidad and Tobago’s Letter, ‘‘Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions from the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago: GoTT’s Response to the Department’s In Lieu of Verification Questionnaire,’’ dated January 19, 2022. VI. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2022–13561 Filed 6–23–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–274–809] Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions From the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of urea ammonium nitrate solutions (UAN) from the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago). The period of investigation is January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020. DATES : Applicable June 24, 2022. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Thomas Martin or Ariela Garvett, AD/ CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3936 or (202) 482–3609, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On December 3, 2021, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination.1 For a complete description of the events that followed the Preliminary Determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/ public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. Period of Investigation The period of investigation is January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020. Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are UAN from Trinidad and Tobago. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix I. Scope Comments No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Preliminary Determination. Therefore, no changes were made to the scope of the investigation. Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. For a list of the issues raised by interested parties and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, see Appendix II to this notice. Methodology Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an ‘‘authority’’ that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.3 For a full description of the methodology underlying our final determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Verification Commerce was unable to conduct on- site verification of the information relied upon in making its final determination in this investigation. However, we took additional steps in lieu of on-site verifications to verify the information relied upon in making this final determination, in accordance with section 782(i) of the Act. 4 Changes Since the Preliminary Determination After evaluating the comments received from interested parties and record information, we have made no changes to the net countervailable subsidy rates calculated for Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) Limited (MHTL), the sole mandatory respondent in this investigation. For a discussion of these comments, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. All-Others Rate In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated an individual estimated countervailable subsidy rate for MHTL. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that, for companies not individually investigated, Commerce will determine an all-others rate equal to the weighted- average countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and/or producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis countervailable subsidy rates, and any rates determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Commerce calculated an individual estimated countervailable subsidy rate for MHTL, the only individually examined producer/exporter in this investigation. Because the only individually calculated rate is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, the rate calculated for MHTL is the rate assigned to all other producers and exporters not individually examined in this investigation, pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act. Final Determination Commerce determines that the following estimated net countervailable subsidy rates exist: Company Subsidy rate (percent ad valorem) Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) Limited ................................... 1.83 All Others .................................. 1.83 Disclosure Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final determination in the Federal VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Jun 23, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JNN1.SGM 24JNN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination – AD – Preliminary - Mexico === 5790 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices 1 See Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France, the Republic of Korea, and Mexico: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 86 FR 40192 (July 27, 2021) (Initiation Notice). 2 See Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France, the Republic of Korea, and Mexico: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 86 FR 64185 (November 17, 2021). 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than- Fair-Value Investigation of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from Mexico,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 4 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 5 See Initiation Notice. 6 See Memorandum, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigations of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France, the Republic of Korea, and Mexico: Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum,’’ dated concurrently with this preliminary determination (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum). produced by subsequent dissolution and hydrogenation of AB Rubber; and (d) reactive liquid polymers containing acrylonitrile and butadiene with amine, epoxy, carboxyl or methacrylate vinyl chemical functionality. Subject merchandise includes material matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise processed in a third country, including by modifying physical form or packaging with another product, or performing any other finishing, packaging, or processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the AB Rubber. The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the HTSUS at subheading 4002.59.0000. While the HTSUS subheading numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive. Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Discussion of the Methodology V. Date of Sale VI. Product Comparisons VII. Constructed Export Price VIII. Normal Value IX. Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances X. Currency Conversion XI. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2022–02112 Filed 2–1–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–201–855] Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber From Mexico: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (AB rubber) from Mexico is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2020, through March 31, 2021. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. DATES : Applicable February 2, 2022. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Dennis McClure or Faris Montgomery, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5973 or (202) 482–1537, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on July 27, 2021. 1 On November 17, 2021, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation and the revised deadline is now January 26, 2022. 2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https:// access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/ FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is AB rubber from Mexico. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I. Scope Comments In accordance with the preamble to Commerce’s regulations, 4 in the Initiation Notice Commerce set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope). 5 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record for this preliminary determination, and accompanying analysis of all comments timely received, see the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum.6 Based on Commerce’s analysis of the parties’ comments, Commerce is preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. See the revised scope in Appendix I to this notice. Methodology Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. All-Others Rate Sections 733(d)(1)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted- average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Commerce calculated an individual estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Industrias Negromex S.A. de C.V. (Negromex), the only individually examined exporter/producer in this investigation. Because the only individually calculated dumping margin is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, the estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Negromex is the margin assigned to all other producers and exporters, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. Preliminary Determination Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted- average dumping margins exist: VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:31 Feb 01, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM 02FEN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 5791Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices 7 See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements). 8 See Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD Service Requirements Due to COVID–19, 85 FR 17006 (March 26, 2020); and Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD Service Requirements Due to COVID–19; Extension of Effective Period, 85 FR 41363 (July 10, 2020). 9 See Negromex’s Letter, ‘‘Request to Postpone Final Determination,’’ dated January 7, 2022. Exporter/producer Estimated weighted- average dumping margin (percent) Industrias Negromex S.A. de C.V. ......................................... 18.43 All Others .................................... 18.43 Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all- others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondent listed above will be equal to the company- specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted- average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. Disclosure Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Verification As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination. Normally, Commerce verifies information using standard procedures, including an on- site examination of original accounting, financial, and sales documentation. However, due to current travel restrictions in response to the global COVID–19 pandemic, Commerce is unable to conduct on-site verification in this investigation. Accordingly, we intend to verify the information relied upon in making the final determination through alternative means in lieu of an on-site verification. Public Comment The deadlines for the submission of case and rebuttal briefs with respect to scope issues are specified in the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum. Interested parties will be notified of the deadline for the submission of case briefs with respect to non-scope issues at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in non- scope-related case briefs, may be submitted no later than seven days after the deadline date for case briefs.7 Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 8 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party’s name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Section 351.210(e)(2) of Commerce’s regulations requires that a request by exporters for postponement of the final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration. On January 7, 2022, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), Negromex requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.9 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) The preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, Commerce is postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, Commerce will make its final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. Notification to Interested Parties This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c). Dated: January 26, 2022. Lisa W. Wang, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is commonly referred to as acrylonitrile butadiene rubber or nitrile rubber (AB VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:31 Feb 01, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM 02FEN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 5792 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices 1 See Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2019– 2020, 86 FR 41951 (August 4, 2021) (Preliminary Results). 2 See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Korea; 2019–2020,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). 3 See Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Italy, the Republic of Korea, Spain, the Republic of Turkey, and the United Kingdom: Antidumping Duty Orders and Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Duty Determinations for Spain and the Republic of Turkey, 83 FR 23417 (May 21, 2018) (Order). 4 See Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 84 FR 13888 (April 8, 2019). 5 See Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 84 FR 27582 (June 13, 2019). Rubber). AB Rubber is a synthetic rubber produced by the emulsion polymerization of butadiene and acrylonitrile with or without the incorporation of a third component selected from methacrylic acid or isoprene. This scope covers AB Rubber in solid or non- aqueous liquid form. The scope also includes carboxylated AB Rubber. Excluded from the scope of this investigation is AB Rubber in latex form (commonly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 4002.51.0000). Latex AB Rubber is commonly either (a) acrylonitrile/ butadiene polymer in latex form or (b) acrylonitrile/butadiene/methacrylic acid polymer in latex form. The broader definition of latex refers to a water emulsion of a synthetic rubber obtained by polymerization. Also excluded from the scope of this investigation is: (a) AB Rubber containing additives incorporated during the compounding, mixing, molding, or use of AB Rubber comprising greater than twenty percent of the total weight of the product. Additives would include, but are not limited to, fillers (e.g. carbon black, silica, clay); reinforcement agents (e.g. fibers, carbon black, silica); vulcanization agents (e.g. sulfur, sulfur complexes, peroxide); or AB Rubber containing extension oils making up greater than forty percent of the total weight of the product. Such products would be generally classified under HTSUS subheading 4005; (b) AB Rubber containing polyvinyl chloride (PVC) making up greater than twenty percent of total weight of the product; (c) hydrogenated AB Rubber (commonly referred to as AB Rubber) produced by subsequent dissolution and hydrogenation of AB Rubber; (d) reactive liquid polymers containing acrylonitrile and butadiene with amine, epoxy, carboxyl or methacrylate vinyl chemical functionality. Subject merchandise includes material matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise processed in a third country, including by modifying physical form or packaging with another product, or performing any other finishing, packaging, or processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the AB Rubber. The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the HTSUS at subheading 4002.59.0000. While the HTSUS subheading numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive. Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Discussion of the Methodology V. Date of Sale VI. Product Comparisons VII. Constructed Export Price VIII. Normal Value IX. Currency Conversion X. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2022–02114 Filed 2–1–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–580–891] Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2019–2020 AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that POSCO, the sole producer and exporter subject to this review, made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), May 1, 2019, through April 30, 2020. DATES : Applicable February 2, 2022. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Lingjun Wang, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2316. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On August 4, 2021, Commerce published the Preliminary Results 1 of this administrative review. POSCO is the sole producer and exporter subject to the review. For a complete description of the events that followed the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Scope of the Order 3 The scope of the Order includes certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, less than 19.00 mm in actual solid cross- sectional diameter. On April 8, 2019, Commerce excluded from the scope of the Order grade 1078 and higher tire cord quality wire rod used in the production of tire cord wire.4 On June 13, 2019, Commerce excluded from the scope of the Order valve spring quality steel products defined as wire rod.5 For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Analysis of Comments Received We addressed all issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached in an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/ public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. Change Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the comments received from interested parties, a review of the record, and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we revised the general and administrative expenses ratio and changed the preliminary margin calculation. Final Results of the Review We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period May 1, 2019, through April 30, 2020: Producer and/or Exporter Weighted- Average Dumping Margin (percent) POSCO ....................................... 7.46 Disclosure We intend to disclose the calculations performed for the final results within five days of the publication date of this notice in the Federal Register, in VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:31 Feb 01, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM 02FEN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination – AD – Preliminary - France === 5787Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices 11 See Acron’s Letter, ‘‘Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions from the Russian Federation: Request for Extension of Final Determination an Provisional Measures,’’ dated January 14, 2022; see also EuroChem’s Letter, ‘‘Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions from the Russian Federation,’’ dated January 21, 2022. 12 See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions from the Russian Federation (A– 821–831): Petitioner’s Request for Postponement of Final Antidumping Determination,’’ dated January 21, 2022. 1 See Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France, the Republic of Korea, and Mexcio: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 86 FR 40192 (July 27, 2021) (Initiation Notice). 2 See Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France, the Republic of Korea, and Mexico: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Less-Than-Fair Value Investigations, 86 FR 64185 (November 17, 2021). 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than- Fair-Value Investigation of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). month period to a period not more than six months in duration. On January 14, 2022, and January 20, 2022, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), Acron and EuroChem, respectively, requested that Commerce postpone the final determination in this investigation up to 135 days after publication of this notice and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months. 11 Additionally, on January 21, 2022, the petitioner requested that Commerce postpone the final determination in this investigation in the event of a negative preliminary determination.12 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) The preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, Commerce is postponing the final determination in this investigation and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, Commerce will make its final determination in this investigation no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination in the Federal Register. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination, or 45 days after the final determination, whether U.S. imports of UAN are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. Notification to Interested Parties This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c). Dated: January 26, 2022. Lisa W. Wang, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is all mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate in aqueous or ammonia solution, regardless of nitrogen concentration by weight, and regardless of the presence of additives, such as corrosion inhibiters and soluble micro or macronutrients (UAN). Subject merchandise includes merchandise matching the above description that has been processed in a third country, including by commingling, diluting, adding or removing additives, or performing any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if performed in the subject country. The scope also includes UAN that is commingled with UAN from sources not subject to this investigation. Only the subject component of such commingled products is covered by the scope of this investigation. The covered merchandise is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 3102.80.0000. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive. Appendix II—List of Sections in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Application of Facts Available and Use of Adverse Inferences VI. Affiliation/Single Entity VII. Discussion of the Methodology VIII. Currency Conversion IX. Adjustments to Cash Deposit Rates for Export Subsidies in Companion CVD Investigation X. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2022–02061 Filed 2–1–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–427–832] Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber From France: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (AB rubber) from France is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). Commerce also preliminarily determines that critical circumstances exist with respect to certain imports of subject merchandise. The period of investigation is April 1, 2020, through March 31, 2021. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. DATES : Applicable February 2, 2022. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Patrick Barton, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0012. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on July 27, 2021. 1 On November 17, 2021, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination in this investigation from December 7, 2021, to January 26, 2022. 2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https:// access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/ FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:31 Feb 01, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM 02FEN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 5788 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices 4 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 5 See Initiation Notice, 86 FR at 40193. 6 See Memorandum, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigations of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France, the Republic of Korea, and Mexico: Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum). 7 The petitioner in this investigation is Zeon Chemicals L.P. and Zeon GP, LLC (collectively, the petitioner). 8 See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France: Petitioner’s Allegation of Critical Circumstances,’’ dated January 5, 2022. Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is AB rubber from France. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I. Scope Comments In accordance with the preamble to Commerce’s regulations, 4 in the Initiation Notice, Commerce set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope). 5 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of this investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record for this investigation, and accompanying analysis of all comments timely received, see the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum.6 Based on Commerce’s analysis of the parties’ comments, Commerce is preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. See the revised scope in Appendix I to this notice. Methodology Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated constructed export prices in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part On January 5, 2022, the petitioner 7 timely filed a critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of the subject merchandise from France.8 Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that Commerce will preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist in an LTFV investigation if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A) there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales; and (B) there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. In accordance with section 733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, Commerce preliminarily determines that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of AB rubber produced and exported by Arlanxeo Emulsion Rubber France S.A.S. (Arlanxeo France). Furthermore, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of AD Rubber produced and exported by all other producers and exporters from France. For a full description of Commerce’s preliminary critical circumstances determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. All-Others Rate Sections 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. In this investigation, Commerce preliminarily calculated an individual estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Arlanxeo France, the sole mandatory respondent, that is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available. Consequently, the rate calculated for Arlanxeo France is also assigned as the rate for all other producers and exporters in France, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. Preliminary Determination Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted- average dumping margins exist: Exporter/producer Estimated weighted- average dumping margin (percent) Arlanxeo Emulsion Rubber France S.A.S. .......................... 164.13 All Others .................................... 164.13 Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise described in Appendix I on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted- average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all- others estimated weighted-average dumping margin. Section 733(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of: (a) The date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered; or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. As noted above, Commerce preliminarily finds that critical circumstances exist for imports of subject merchandise produced and exported by all other producers and exporters from France. In accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of shipments of AB rubber that were produced and exported by all other producers and exporters that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication date of this notice in the Federal Register. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:31 Feb 01, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM 02FEN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 5789Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices 9 See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements). 10 See Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD Service Requirements Due to COVID–19, 85 FR 17006 (March 26, 2020); and Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD Service Requirements Due to COVID–19; Extension of Effective Period, 85 FR 41363 (July 10, 2020). 11 See Arlanxeo France’s Letter, ‘‘Acrylonitrile- Butadiene Rubber from France, Case No. A–427– 832: Request to Postpone Final Determination,’’ dated December 20, 2021. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. Disclosure Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties any calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Verification As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination. Normally, Commerce verifies information using standard procedures, including an on- site examination of original accounting, financial, and sales documentation. However, due to current travel restrictions in response to the global COVID–19 pandemic, Commerce is unable to conduct on-site verification in this investigation. Accordingly, we intend to verify the information relied upon in making the final determination through alternative means in lieu of an on-site verification. Public Comment The deadlines for the submission of case and rebuttal briefs with respect to scope issues are specified in the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum. Interested parties will be notified of the deadline for the submission of case briefs with respect to non-scope issues at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in non- scope related case briefs, may be submitted no later than seven days after the deadline date for case briefs.9 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information until further notice. 10 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party’s name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date of the hearing. Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Section 351.210(e)(2) of Commerce’s regulations requires that a request by exporters for postponement of the final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four- month period to a period not more than six months in duration. On December 20, 2021, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), Arlanxeo France requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.11 In accordance with sections 735(a)(2)(A) and 733(d)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) The preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, Commerce is postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, Commerce will make its final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of AB rubber from France are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. Notification to Interested Parties This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c) and 19 CFR 351.210(g). Dated: January 26, 2022. Lisa W. Wang, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is commonly referred to as acrylonitrile butadiene rubber or nitrile rubber (AB Rubber). AB Rubber is a synthetic rubber produced by the emulsion polymerization of butadiene and acrylonitrile with or without the incorporation of a third component selected from methacrylic acid or isoprene. This scope covers AB Rubber in solid or non- aqueous liquid form. The scope also includes carboxylated AB Rubber. Excluded from the scope of this investigation is AB Rubber in latex form (commonly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 4002.51.0000). Latex AB Rubber is commonly either (a) acrylonitrile/ butadiene polymer in latex form or (b) acrylonitrile/butadiene/methacrylic acid polymer in latex form. The broader definition of latex refers to a water emulsion of a synthetic rubber obtained by polymerization. Also excluded from the scope of this investigation is: (a) AB Rubber containing additives incorporated during the compounding, mixing, molding, or use of AB Rubber comprising greater than twenty percent of the total weight of the product. Additives would include, but are not limited to, fillers (e.g., carbon black, silica, clay); reinforcement agents (e.g., fibers, carbon black, silica); vulcanization agents (e.g., sulfur, sulfur complexes, peroxide); or AB Rubber containing extension oils making up greater than forty percent of the total weight of the product. Such products would be generally classified under HTSUS subheading 4005; (b) AB Rubber containing polyvinyl chloride (PVC) making up greater than twenty percent of total weight of the product; (c) hydrogenated AB Rubber (commonly referred to as AB Rubber) VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:31 Feb 01, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM 02FEN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 5790 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices 1 See Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France, the Republic of Korea, and Mexico: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 86 FR 40192 (July 27, 2021) (Initiation Notice). 2 See Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France, the Republic of Korea, and Mexico: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 86 FR 64185 (November 17, 2021). 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than- Fair-Value Investigation of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from Mexico,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 4 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 5 See Initiation Notice. 6 See Memorandum, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigations of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France, the Republic of Korea, and Mexico: Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum,’’ dated concurrently with this preliminary determination (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum). produced by subsequent dissolution and hydrogenation of AB Rubber; and (d) reactive liquid polymers containing acrylonitrile and butadiene with amine, epoxy, carboxyl or methacrylate vinyl chemical functionality. Subject merchandise includes material matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise processed in a third country, including by modifying physical form or packaging with another product, or performing any other finishing, packaging, or processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the AB Rubber. The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the HTSUS at subheading 4002.59.0000. While the HTSUS subheading numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive. Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Discussion of the Methodology V. Date of Sale VI. Product Comparisons VII. Constructed Export Price VIII. Normal Value IX. Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances X. Currency Conversion XI. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2022–02112 Filed 2–1–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–201–855] Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber From Mexico: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (AB rubber) from Mexico is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2020, through March 31, 2021. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. DATES : Applicable February 2, 2022. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Dennis McClure or Faris Montgomery, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5973 or (202) 482–1537, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on July 27, 2021. 1 On November 17, 2021, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation and the revised deadline is now January 26, 2022. 2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https:// access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/ FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is AB rubber from Mexico. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I. Scope Comments In accordance with the preamble to Commerce’s regulations, 4 in the Initiation Notice Commerce set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope). 5 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record for this preliminary determination, and accompanying analysis of all comments timely received, see the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum.6 Based on Commerce’s analysis of the parties’ comments, Commerce is preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. See the revised scope in Appendix I to this notice. Methodology Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. All-Others Rate Sections 733(d)(1)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted- average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Commerce calculated an individual estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Industrias Negromex S.A. de C.V. (Negromex), the only individually examined exporter/producer in this investigation. Because the only individually calculated dumping margin is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, the estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Negromex is the margin assigned to all other producers and exporters, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. Preliminary Determination Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted- average dumping margins exist: VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:31 Feb 01, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM 02FEN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Determination – AD – Preliminary - South Korea === 5796 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices 1 See Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France, the Republic of Korea, and Mexico: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 86 FR 40192 (July 27, 2021) (Initiation Notice). 2 See Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France, the Republic of Korea, and Mexico: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 86 FR 64185 (November 17, 2021). 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than- Fair-Value Investigation of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from the Republic of Korea,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 4 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 5 See Initiation Notice. 6 See Memorandum, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigations of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France, the Republic of Korea, and Mexico: Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum,’’ dated concurrently with this preliminary determination (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum). DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–580–912] Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (AB rubber) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2020, through March 31, 2021. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. DATES : Applicable February 2, 2022. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Melissa Kinter, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1413. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on July 27, 2021. 1 On November 17, 2021, Commerce postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation and the revised deadline is now January 26, 2022. 2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https:// access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/ FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is AB rubber from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I. Scope Comments In accordance with the preamble to Commerce’s regulations,4 in the Initiation Notice Commerce set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope). 5 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record for this preliminary determination, and accompanying analysis of all comments timely received, see the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum. 6 Based on Commerce’s analysis of the parties’ comments, Commerce is preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. See the revised scope in Appendix I to this notice. Methodology Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated export price in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. Furthermore, pursuant to section 776(a) and (b) of the Act, Commerce has preliminarily relied upon facts otherwise available to assign the estimated weighted-average dumping margin to mandatory respondent LG Chemical, Ltd. (LG Chem) because it did not submit a response to Commerce’s antidumping duty questionnaire. Further, Commerce preliminarily determined that LG Chem failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information and is using an adverse inference when selecting from among the facts otherwise available, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part In accordance with section 733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, Commerce preliminarily finds that critical circumstances do not exist for Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. (Kumho), but do exist for LG Chem and the companies covered by the all-others rate. For a full description of the methodology and results of Commerce’s critical circumstances analysis, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. All-Others Rate Sections 733(d)(1)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted- average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. In this investigation, Commerce preliminarily assigned a rate based entirely on facts available to LG Chem. Therefore, the only rate that is not zero, de minimis or based entirely on facts otherwise available is the rate calculated for Kumho. Consequently, the rate calculated for Kumho is also assigned as the rate for all other producers and exporters. Preliminary Determination Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted- average dumping margins exist: Exporter/producer Estimated weighted- average dumping margin (percent) Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. 19.20 LG Chemical, Ltd ........................ 35.21 All Others .................................... 19.20 VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:31 Feb 01, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM 02FEN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 5797Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices 7 See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements). 8 See Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD Service Requirements Due to COVID–19, 85 FR 17006 (March 26, 2020) (Temporary Rule); and Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD Service Requirements Due to COVID–19; Extension of Effective Period, 85 FR 41363 (July 10, 2020). 9 See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 10 See Kumho’s Letter, ‘‘Request to Postpone the Final Determination,’’ dated January 14, 2022. Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all- others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the company- specific estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted- average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin. Section 733(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. Commerce preliminarily finds that critical circumstances exist for imports of subject merchandise produced or exported by LG Chem and the companies covered by the all-others rate. In accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of shipments of subject merchandise from the producers or exporters identified in this paragraph that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of this notice. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. Disclosure Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Verification As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination. Normally, Commerce verifies information using standard procedures, including an on- site examination of original accounting, financial, and sales documentation. However, due to current travel restrictions in response to the global COVID–19 pandemic, Commerce is unable to conduct on-site verification in this investigation. Accordingly, we intend to verify the information relied upon in making the final determination through alternative means in lieu of an on-site verification. Public Comment The deadlines for the submission of case and rebuttal briefs with respect to scope issues are specified in the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum. Interested parties will be notified of the deadline for the submission of case briefs with respect to non-scope issues at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in non- scope-related case briefs, may be submitted no later than seven days after the deadline date for case briefs.7 Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 8 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party’s name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing.9 Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until no later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Section 351.210(e)(2) of Commerce’s regulations requires that a request by exporters for postponement of the final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration. On January 14, 2022, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), Kumho requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.10 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) The preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, Commerce is postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, Commerce will make its final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:31 Feb 01, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM 02FEN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 5798 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices Notification to Interested Parties This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c). Dated: January 26, 2022. Lisa W. Wang, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation The product covered by this investigation is commonly referred to as acrylonitrile butadiene rubber or nitrile rubber (AB Rubber). AB Rubber is a synthetic rubber produced by the emulsion polymerization of butadiene and acrylonitrile with or without the incorporation of a third component selected from methacrylic acid or isoprene. This scope covers AB Rubber in solid or non- aqueous liquid form. The scope also includes carboxylated AB Rubber. Excluded from the scope of this investigation is AB Rubber in latex form (commonly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 4002.51.0000). Latex AB Rubber is commonly either (a) acrylonitrile/ butadiene polymer in latex form or (b) acrylonitrile/butadiene/methacrylic acid polymer in latex form. The broader definition of latex refers to a water emulsion of a synthetic rubber obtained by polymerization. Also excluded from the scope of this investigation is: (a) AB Rubber containing additives incorporated during the compounding, mixing, molding, or use of AB Rubber comprising greater than twenty percent of the total weight of the product. Additives would include, but are not limited to, fillers (e.g. carbon black, silica, clay); reinforcement agents (e.g. fibers, carbon black, silica); vulcanization agents (e.g. sulfur, sulfur complexes, peroxide); or AB Rubber containing extension oils making up greater than forty percent of the total weight of the product. Such products would be generally classified under HTSUS subheading 4005; (b) AB Rubber containing polyvinyl chloride (PVC) making up greater than twenty percent of total weight of the product; (c) hydrogenated AB Rubber (commonly referred to as AB Rubber) produced by subsequent dissolution and hydrogenation of AB Rubber; (d) reactive liquid polymers containing acrylonitrile and butadiene with amine, epoxy, carboxyl or methacrylate vinyl chemical functionality. Subject merchandise includes material matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise processed in a third country, including by modifying physical form or packaging with another product, or performing any other finishing, packaging, or processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the AB Rubber. The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the HTSUS at subheading 4002.59.0000. While the HTSUS subheading numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive. Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Application of Facts Available and Use of Adverse Inferences V. Discussion of the Methodology VI. Date of Sale VII. Product Comparisons VIII. Export Price IX. Normal Value X. Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances XI. Currency Conversion XII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2022–02113 Filed 2–1–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Open Meeting of the Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board AGENCY : National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce. ACTION : Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY : The Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB) will meet Wednesday, March 09, 2022 and Thursday, March 10, 2022 from 10:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time. All sessions will be open to the public. DATES : The meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 09, 2022 and Thursday, March 10, 2022 from 10:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time. ADDRESSES : The meeting will be a virtual meeting via webinar. Please note admittance instructions under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Jeff Brewer, Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Telephone: (301) 975–2489, Email address: jeffrey.brewer@nist.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the ISPAB will hold an open meeting Wednesday, March 09, 2022 and Thursday, March 10, 2022 from 10:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time. All sessions will be open to the public. The ISPAB is authorized by 15 U.S.C. 278g–4, as amended, and advises the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on information security and privacy issues pertaining to Federal government information systems, including through review of proposed standards and guidelines developed by NIST. Details regarding the ISPAB’s activities are available at https:// csrc.nist.gov/projects/ispab. The agenda is expected to include the following items: —Briefing from NIST on recent activities from the Information Technology Laboratory, —Presentation from NIST on the Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework, —Discussion on Cryptographic Brittleness and issues in implementations, —Presentation from NIST on Open Source Cybersecurity Assessment Language (OSCAL), —Discussion on the United States Government participation in National and International Standards Development Organizations, —Briefing on NIST Cybersecurity Updates, —Public Comments. Note that agenda items may change without notice. The final agenda will be posted on the ISPAB event page at: https://csrc.nist.gov/Events/2022/ispab- march-2022-meeting. Public Participation: Written questions or comments from the public are invited and may be submitted electronically by email to Jeff Brewer at the contact information indicated in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, March 08, 2022. The ISPAB agenda will include a period, not to exceed thirty minutes, for submitted questions or comments from the public between 3:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 09, 2022. Submitted questions or comments from the public will be selected on a first- come, first-served basis and limited to five minutes per person. Members of the public who wish to expand upon their submitted statements, those who had wished to submit a question or comment but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend the meeting via webinar are invited to submit written statements. In addition, written statements are invited and may be submitted to the ISPAB at any time. All written statements should be directed to the ISPAB Secretariat, Information Technology Laboratory by email to: Jeffrey.Brewer@nist.gov. Admittance Instructions: All participants will be attending via webinar and must register via the VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:31 Feb 01, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM 02FEN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Determination - Final === 47792 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 149 / Thursday, August 4, 2022 / 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 87 FR 37825, 87 FR 37829, and 87 FR 37833, June 24, 2022. unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Kirk Malstrom, Chief, Regulations and Standards Branch. [FR Doc. 2022–16702 Filed 8–3–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–VH–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1567–1569 (Final)] Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber (NBR) From France, Mexico, 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 an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber from France, Mexico, and South Korea, provided for in subheading 4002.59.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the U.S. Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’). 2 Background The Commission instituted these investigations effective June 30, 2021, following receipt of petitions filed with the Commission and Commerce by Zeon Chemicals L.P. and Zeon GP, LLC (collectively, ‘‘Zeon’’), Louisville, Kentucky. The Commission scheduled the final phase of the investigations following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber from France, Mexico, and South Korea were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission’s investigations and of a public hearing 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 March 1, 2022, (87 FR 11481). The Commission conducted its hearing on June 1, 2022. All persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to participate. The Commission made these determinations pursuant to § 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on August 1, 2022. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5336 (August 2022), entitled Acrylonitrile- Butadiene Rubber (NBR) from France, Mexico, and South Korea: Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1567–1569 (Final). By order of the Commission. Issued: August 1, 2022. Katherine Hiner, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2022–16752 Filed 8–3–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest AGENCY : U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled Certain Solar Power Optimizers, Inverters, and Components Thereof, DN 3630; the Commission is soliciting comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or complainant’s filing pursuant to the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Katherine M. Hiner, Acting Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System (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 United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Ampt, LLC on July 28, 2022. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain solar power optimizers, inverters, and components thereof. The complainant names as respondents: SolarEdge Technologies, Inc. of Milpitas, CA and SolarEdge Technologies, Ltd. of Israel. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders and impose a bond upon respondents alleged infringing articles during the 60- day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j). Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers. In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that: (i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States; (ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders; (iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded; (iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant’s licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and (v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers. Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:25 Aug 03, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC PUB 5227 === CONTENTS Page i Determinations ............................................................................................................................... 1 Views of the Commission ............................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .............................................................................................................. I-1 Background................................................................................................................................ I-1 Statutory criteria ....................................................................................................................... I-1 Organization of report............................................................................................................... I-3 Market summary ....................................................................................................................... I-3 Summary data and data sources ............................................................................................... I-4 Previous and related investigations .......................................................................................... I-4 Nature and extent of alleged sales at LTFV............................................................................... I-5 The subject merchandise .......................................................................................................... I-5 Commerce’s scope ................................................................................................................ I-5 Tariff treatment ..................................................................................................................... I-6 Section 301 tariff treatment .................................................................................................. I-6 The product ............................................................................................................................... I-7 Description and applications ................................................................................................. I-7 Manufacturing processes ...................................................................................................... I-9 Domestic like product issues................................................................................................... I-14 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-3 Supply and demand considerations ......................................................................................... II-3 U.S. supply ............................................................................................................................ II-3 U.S. demand ......................................................................................................................... II-6 Substitutability issues............................................................................................................. II-11 Factors affecting purchasing decisions............................................................................... II-12 Lead times .......................................................................................................................... II-12 CONTENTS Page ii Comparison of U.S.-produced and imported NBR ............................................................. II-13 Part III: U.S. producer’s production, shipments, and employment ...................................... III-1 U.S. producers ......................................................................................................................... III-1 U.S. production, capacity, and capacity utilization ................................................................. III-3 Alternative products ............................................................................................................ III-5 U.S. producer’s U.S. shipments and exports ........................................................................... III-6 U.S. producer’s inventories ..................................................................................................... III-9 U.S. producer’s imports......................................................................................................... III-10 U.S. employment, wages, and productivity .......................................................................... III-11 Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares ............................... IV-1 U.S. importers.......................................................................................................................... IV-1 U.S. imports ............................................................................................................................. IV-3 U.S. imports of XNBR and all other NBR.............................................................................. IV-7 Negligibility .............................................................................................................................. IV-8 Cumulation considerations ..................................................................................................... IV-9 Fungibility ............................................................................................................................ IV-9 Geographical markets ....................................................................................................... IV-13 Presence in the market ..................................................................................................... IV-15 Apparent U.S. consumption .................................................................................................. IV-18 U.S. market shares ................................................................................................................ IV-20 Part V: Pricing data ............................................................................................................. V-1 Factors affecting prices ............................................................................................................ V-1 Raw material costs ............................................................................................................... V-1 Transportation costs to the U.S. market .............................................................................. V-4 U.S. inland transportation costs ........................................................................................... V-4 Pricing practices ....................................................................................................................... V-4 Pricing methods .................................................................................................................... V-4 Sales terms and discounts .................................................................................................... V-5 CONTENTS Page iii Price data.................................................................................................................................. V-6 Price trends......................................................................................................................... V-15 Price comparisons .............................................................................................................. V-15 Lost sales and lost revenue .................................................................................................... V-17 Part VI: Financial experience of U.S. producers .................................................................. VI-1 Background.............................................................................................................................. VI-1 Operations on NBR .................................................................................................................. VI-1 Net sales .............................................................................................................................. VI-4 Cost of goods sold and gross profit or loss.......................................................................... VI-5 SG&A expenses and operating income or loss.................................................................... VI-7 All other expenses and net income or loss ......................................................................... VI-7 Capital expenditures and research and development expenses ............................................ VI-8 Assets and return on assets .................................................................................................... VI-9 Capital and investment ......................................................................................................... VI-10 Part VII: Threat considerations and information on nonsubject countries .......................... VII-1 The industry in France ............................................................................................................ VII-3 Changes in operations ........................................................................................................ VII-3 Operations on NBR ............................................................................................................. VII-4 Alternative products ........................................................................................................... VII-7 Exports ................................................................................................................................ VII-8 The industry in Korea ............................................................................................................. VII-9 Changes in operations ........................................................................................................ VII-9 Operations on NBR ........................................................................................................... VII-10 Alternative products ......................................................................................................... VII-12 Exports .............................................................................................................................. VII-13 The industry in Mexico ......................................................................................................... VII-15 Changes in operations ...................................................................................................... VII-15 Operations on NBR ........................................................................................................... VII-16 CONTENTS Page iv Alternative products ......................................................................................................... VII-19 Exports .............................................................................................................................. VII-20 Subject countries combined................................................................................................. VII-22 U.S. inventories of imported merchandise .......................................................................... VII-24 U.S. importers’ outstanding orders...................................................................................... VII-26 Third-country trade actions ................................................................................................. VII-26 Information on nonsubject countries .................................................................................. VII-28 Appendixes A. Federal Register notices ................................................................................................. A-1 B. List of staff conference witnesses .................................................................................. B-1 C. Summary data ................................................................................................................ C-1 D. NBR comparisons to HNBR and XNBR ............................................................................ D-1 E. U.S. shipments by form and acrylonitrile content (ACN) ............................................... E-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. 731-TA-1567-1569 (Preliminary) Acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber from France, Korea, and Mexico 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 acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber from France, Korea, and Mexico, provided for in subheading 4002.51.00 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”).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 section 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 § 733(b) of the Act, or, if the preliminary determinations are negative, upon notice of affirmative final determinations in those investigations under § 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 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 40192 (July 27, 2021). BACKGROUND On June 30, 2021, Zeon Chemicals L.P. and Zeon GP, LLC (collectively “Zeon”), Louisville, Kentucky, filed petitions with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened by further material injury by reason of LTFV imports of acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber from France, Korea, and Mexico. Accordingly, effective June 30, 2021, the Commission instituted antidumping duty investigations Nos. 731-TA-1567-1569 (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 July 7, 2021 (86 FR 35825). 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. 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 acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber from France, Korea, and Mexico that are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value. 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 Zeon Chemicals L.P. and Zeon GP, LLC (collectively “Zeon” or “Petitioner”), a domestic producer of acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (“NBR”), filed the petitions in these investigations on June 30, 2021. Petitioner appeared at the staff conference and submitted a postconference brief.3 Several respondent entities participated in these investigations: Arlanxeo Emulsion Rubber France S.A.S. and Arlanxeo USA LLC (collectively “Arlanxeo”), a producer and exporter of NBR in France and its affiliated U.S. importer; Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. (“Kumho”), a 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). 3 In light of the restrictions on access to the Commission building due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Commission conducted its conference by video conference held on July 21, 2021, as set forth in procedures provided to the parties on July 12, 2021. Conference Transcript (“Conf. Tr.”) at 4-5 (Haines). 4 producer and exporter of NBR in Korea; and Negromex, S.A. de C.V. and Dynasol, LLC (collectively “Negromex”), a producer and exporter of NBR in Mexico and its affiliated U.S. importer. Kumho and Negromex appeared at the conference and submitted postconference briefs. Arlanxeo did not appear at the conference but submitted a postconference brief. Data Coverage. U.S. industry data are based on the questionnaire response of one firm that accounted for 100 percent of U.S. production of NBR in 2020.4 U.S. import data are based on official Commerce import statistics and questionnaire responses from 16 U.S. importers, which are estimated to account for *** percent of subject imports from France, *** of subject imports from Korea, and *** percent of subject imports from Mexico in 2020.5 The Commission received responses to its questionnaires from three foreign producers of subject merchandise; one producer/exporter in France, accounting for approximately *** percent of U.S. imports of subject merchandise from France in 2020;6 one producer/exporter in Korea, accounting for approximately *** percent of U.S. imports of subject merchandise from Korea in 2020;7 and one producer/exporter in Mexico, accounting for approximately *** percent of U.S. imports of subject merchandise from Mexico in 2020.8 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.”9 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.”10 In turn, the Tariff Act defines 4 Confidential Report, Memorandum INV-TT-094 (Aug. 9, 2021) (“CR”) at I-4; Acrylonitrile- Butadiene Rubber (NBR) from France, Korea, and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1567-1569 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 5227 (Aug. 2021) (“PR”) at I-4. 5 CR/PR at IV-1. Data for U.S. imports presented in this report are based on adjusted official import statistics due to inconsistencies between import volumes reported in questionnaires and official import statistics. Id. 6 CR/PR at VII-3. 7 CR/PR at VII-9. 8 CR/PR at VII-15. 9 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 10 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 5 “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.”11 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.12 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.”13 The Commission then defines the domestic like product in light of the imported articles Commerce has identified.14 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.15 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.16 The Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor 11 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). 12 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). 13 Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Hitachi Metals, Ltd. v. United States, Case No. 19-1289, slip op. at 8-9 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 7, 2020) (the statute requires the Commission to start with Commerce’s subject merchandise in reaching its own like product determination). 14 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). 15 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). 16 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979). 6 variations.17 The Commission may, where appropriate, include domestic articles in the domestic like product in addition to those described in the scope.18 In its notice of initiation, Commerce defined the imported merchandise within the scope of these investigations as follows: The product covered by these investigations is commonly referred to as acrylonitrile butadiene rubber or nitrile rubber (AB Rubber). AB Rubber is a synthetic rubber produced by the emulsion polymerization of butadiene and acrylonitrile with or without the incorporation of a third component selected from methacrylic acid or isoprene. This scope covers AB Rubber in solid or non-aqueous liquid form. The scope also includes carboxylated AB Rubber. Excluded from the scope of these investigations is AB Rubber in latex form (commonly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 4002.51.0000). Latex AB Rubber is commonly either (a) acrylonitrile/butadiene polymer in latex form or (b) acrylonitrile/butadiene/methacrylic acid polymer in latex form. The broader definition of latex refers to a water emulsion of a synthetic rubber obtained by polymerization. Also excluded from the scope of these investigations is: (a) AB Rubber containing additives (e.g., nitrile rubber further compounded with fillers, reinforcement agents, vulcanization agents, etc.; by example, products classified under HTSUS subheading 4005); (b) AB Rubber containing rubber processing chemicals, AB Rubber containing other materials used for further processing beyond the polymerization process; (c) hydrogenated AB Rubber (commonly referred to as HNBR) produced by subsequent dissolution and hydrogenation of AB Rubber; (d) reactive liquid polymers containing acrylonitrile and butadiene with amine, epoxy, carboxyl, or methacrylate vinyl chemical functionality. 17 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.”). 18 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 Subject merchandise includes material matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise processed in a third country, including by modifying physical form or packaging with another product, or performing 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 AB Rubber.19 NBR is a type of synthetic rubber that is a bipolymer of acrylonitrile (“ACN”) and 1,3- butadiene (“butadiene”), or a terpolymer with an additional third component selected from methacrylic acid or isoprene. The product can be in a solid or non-aqueous liquid form. The terpolymer with the third component selected from methacrylic acid can be carboxylated in its form and is termed carboxylated NBR (“XNBR”).20 NBR can generally function in minus 40-degree to 226-degree Fahrenheit temperatures. NBR is more puncture resistant than natural rubber, as well as resistant to cuts, abrasion, tears, caustics, and aliphatic hydrocarbons. However, NBR is less flexible than natural rubber. NBR products vary in their ACN content, Mooney viscosity,21 and physical form. In general, as ACN content increases, oil and fuel resistance increase, tensile strength and hardness increase, and heat and abrasion resistance improve; as ACN content decreases, low temperature performance, dynamic performance, compression set, and resilience all improve. NBR is mostly used in applications in which a moderate level of heat and oil or fuel resistance are required. Industrial hose, automotive, and the oil and gas industries are the most common uses.22 A. Arguments of the Parties Petitioner’s Argument. Petitioner argues that the Commission should define a single domestic like product, consisting of NBR, that is coextensive with the scope.23 19 Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France, the Republic of Korea, and Mexico: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 86 Fed. Reg. 40192 (July 27, 2021). 20 CR/PR at I-7. 21 With respect to Mooney viscosity, higher Mooney viscosity results in improved physical properties of strength, but processability is decreased; lower Mooney viscosity materials are easier to process. Mooney viscosity is measured in terms of Mooney units. CR/PR at I-7 – I-8. 22 CR/PR at I-8. 23 Zeon Postconference Br. at 4. Zeon included a proposed revised scope, indicating that it intends to propose these revisions to Commerce. Id. at 18-19. As this revised scope has not yet been adopted by Commerce, the Commission must continue to rely on the scope as set forth in Commerce’s initiation notice, described above. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(i). 8 Respondents’ Argument. Arlanxeo. Arlanxeo did not address the definition of the domestic like product. Kumho. Kumho does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition of the domestic like product but reserves the right to do so in any final phase of these investigations.24 Negromex. Negromex argues that the petition is “fatally flawed” due to problems with the scope and asserts that the Commission should rescind its initiation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(c)(1)(A).25 Negromex’s arguments and reliance on this provision are misplaced. First, the definition of the scope is within the purview of Commerce, and the Commission does not have the authority to resolve issues pertaining to alleged flaws in the scope. Similarly, the Commission does not initiate the investigation.26 The statutory provision relied on by Negromex provides no authority for the Commission to rescind the initiation of these investigations. Rather, it provides that “the administrating authority shall . . . determine whether the petition alleges the elements necessary. . . .” within 20 days after the date on which the petition is filed.27 B. Analysis Based on the record, and in the absence of contrary party argument, we define a single domestic like product consisting of NBR coextensive with the scope in these investigations. As discussed below, the limited record in the preliminary phase of these investigations does not indicate that there are clear dividing lines among NBR products corresponding to the scope that would warrant defining separate domestic like products. The record in the preliminary phase, however, indicates that there are clear dividing lines between NBR corresponding to the scope and products that correspond to out-of-scope articles, namely Latex NBR and hydrogenated NBR (“HNBR”). Physical Characteristics and Uses. All NBR is a copolymer of the monomers acrylonitrile and butadiene. Further, all NBR is an intermediate product that is further compounded into articles for use in applications in which varying levels of oil and heat resistance are desired.28 NBR is produced in various grades and is generally distinguished on the basis of ACN content, which impacts the product’s oil, fuel, heat and abrasion resistances, and tensile strength, and 24 Kumho Postconference Br. at 1 n.2. 25 Negromex Postconference Br. at 2-6. 26 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673a(b) and (c). 27 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(c)(1)(A). 28 CR/PR at I-7 – I-9. 9 Mooney viscosity, which impacts the product’s processability. It is typically sold in the U.S. market in a range of product forms containing between 26 and 41 percent acrylonitrile, and between 30 and 80 Mooney units.29 NBR is also produced in a variety of forms, including slab, particulate (crumb), pellet, powder, and liquid.30 According to Zeon, in-scope XNBR is a subtype of NBR that uses the same polymerization as other forms of NBR but includes a low concentration methacrylic acid.31 XNBR meets the same ASTM D2000 classifications as NBR and is produced and compounded the same way as NBR materials.32 Responses to the Commission questionnaires were mixed in terms of the comparability of the physical characteristics of NBR and XNBR, with some ***.33 NBR is used in applications in which a moderate level of heat and oil or fuel resistance is required.34 End use applications of NBR include hoses, air ducts, oil and gas components, construction insulation, adhesives, mats, wires and cables, rollers, seals O-rings, PVC modifications, belting, and food handling.35 According to Zeon, XNBR is typically used in the same applications as NBR, although it may be preferred if greater abrasion resistance and improved tensile strength are desired in the finished article.36 Thus, the limited record in the preliminary phase of these investigations indicates that all NBR corresponding to the scope shares the same physical characteristics and that there are not clear dividing lines in terms of end uses. There appears to be a clear dividing line between NBR corresponding to the scope and out-of-scope HNBR. HNBR is chemically distinct from NBR as a result of the hydrogenation reaction, which results in the formation of an ethylene unit in the backbone polymer structure that other forms of NBR does not possess.37 The ethylene portion of HNBR imparts properties that make it superior to other forms of NBR, including improved elasticity, heat resistance, mechanical strength, chemical resistance, and ozone resistance.38 All firms responding to the 29 CR/PR at I-7 – I-8. 30 CR/PR at I-9; Zeon Postconference Br. at 8-9. 31 Zeon Postconference Br. at 5-6. 32 Zeon Postconference Br. at 6; Conf. Tr. at 19 (Saunders). 33 CR/PR at Tables D-4 – D-6. Responses were provided by one U.S. producer and five U.S. importers. The U.S. producer reported that NBR and XNBR were *** comparable on all six like product factors. 34 CR/PR at I-8. 35 CR/PR at I-8; Zeon Postconference Br. at 6-7. 36 CR/PR at I-8; Zeon Postconference Br. at 6; see also CR/PR at Tables D-5, D-6. 37 Zeon Postconference Br. at 9-10; CR/PR at Tables D-2, D-3. 38 Zeon Postconference Br. at 9-10; CR/PR at Tables D-2, D-3. 10 Commission questionnaires reported that HNBR and NBR only sometimes or never have comparable physical characteristics.39 Although HNBR and NBR may have overlapping end uses, namely automotive belt applications, automotive seals, and oil and gas applications, market participants and industry standards ***.40 Additionally, ***.41 Similarly, there appears to be a clear dividing line between NBR and Latex NBR.42 Latex NBR in an unfinished form is used to produce NBR, which involves further processing and treatment involving coagulation, washing, and drying. Latex NBR can also undergo additional processing distinct from the process to produce NBR, including combining it with other chemicals such as ***. This results in two distinct physical forms: Latex NBR – a stable emulsion of polymer microparticles in an aqueous medium – and NBR – a solid form of rubber. Latex NBR in its finished form has distinct end uses from NBR, such as nitrile examination gloves, cosmetic puffs, and coatings.43 Manufacturing Facilities, Production Processes and Employees. All domestically produced NBR, regardless of ACN content and Mooney viscosity, is produced on common manufacturing equipment using common production employees and a batch process.44 According to Zeon, production of XNBR is performed at the same facilities and on the same equipment as NBR. Zeon maintains that the manufacturing process for XNBR is the same as NBR, except for the addition of methacrylic acid in XNBR.45 Three out of four importers reported that the manufacturing processes for NBR and XNBR were always or frequently comparable, and one ***.46 NBR, HNBR, and Latex NBR have common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and employees (at the early stages of production in the production of Latex NBR). As discussed above, NBR undergoes additional processing involving coagulation, washing, and drying.47 The production process for HNBR requires additional hydrogenation, which according 39 CR/PR at Table D-1. 40 Zeon Postconference Br. at 9-10; CR/PR at Tables D-2, D-3. 41 CR/PR at Tables D-2, D-3. 42 Petitioner appears to use the term “Latex NBR” to refer to products at different stages of processing, i.e., what appears to be an unfinished form and input for NBR as well as in a finished form that has undergone additional processing distinct from the process used to produce NBR. Zeon Postconference Br. at 10-12; Conf. Tr. at 50-51 (Cail). 43 Zeon Postconference Br. 10-12. 44 CR/PR at I-9 – I-14. 45 Zeon Postconference Br. at 15. 46 CR/PR at D-4 – D-6. 47 Zeon Postconference Br. at 10-12, 15-17. 11 to Zeon is a complex, separate, and unique process that takes place in a separate facility.48 Questionnaire responses were mixed in terms of the comparability of the manufacturing processes of HNBR and NBR.49 As described above, Latex NBR can also undergo additional processing distinct from the process to produce NBR, including combining it with other chemicals such as ***.50 Channels of Distribution. During the period of investigation (“POI”), *** domestically produced NBR was sold directly to end users, with *** sold to custom mixers.51 According to Zeon, HNBR and Latex NBR are sold through comparable channels of distribution.52 Questionnaire responses were mixed in terms of the comparability of the channels of distribution for HNBR and NBR.53 Three out of four importers reported that channels of distribution were always or frequently comparable for NBR and XNBR.54 Interchangeability. According to Zeon, all NBR products of equivalent ACN content, Mooney viscosity, and form are interchangeable.55 Responses to Commission questionnaires regarding the interchangeability between NBR and XNBR were mixed, with some ***.56 As described above, the additional processing that HNBR undergoes imparts greater heat resistance, better oil resistance, and higher toughness compared to NBR. Accordingly, NBR cannot be used interchangeably in end use applications requiring these properties; ***.57 All firms responding to the Commission questionnaires reported that HNBR and NBR are *** interchangeable.58 Latex NBR in both its unfinished form, which is used to produce NBR, and in its finished form, cannot be used interchangeably with NBR. Producer and Customer Perceptions. According to Zeon, customers purchase NBR with varying degrees of ACN content depending on the specific chemical resistance and flexibility 48 Zeon Postconference Br. at 10-12, 15-17; CR/PR at Tables D-2, D-3; Conf. Tr. at 17 (Saunders). 49 CR/PR at Table D-1. 50 Zeon Postconference Br. at 10-12, 15-17. 51 CR/PR at Table II-1. 52 Zeon Postconference Br. at 15; see also CR/PR at Tables D-2, D-3. 53 CR/PR at Table D-1. 54 CR/PR at D-4 – D-6. 55 Zeon Postconference Br. at 13 56 CR/PR at I-14 – I-15, App. D. 57 CR/PR at Tables D-2, D-3. 58 CR/PR at Table D-1. 12 needed.59 Responses to Commission questionnaires regarding the perceptions between NBR and XNBR were mixed, with ***.60 The record indicates that producers and customers perceive NBR, Latex NBR, and HNBR to be distinct products.61 Price. According to Zeon, prices for NBR vary based on market demand for certain NBR grades, public monomer price indices, and the producer’s conversion costs; it reports that ***.62 Responses to Commission questionnaires regarding the price of NBR and XNBR were mixed, with ***.63 The record indicates that HNBR is priced *** than NBR.64 All responding firms reported that HNBR and NBR are *** comparable in terms of price.65 The record also indicates that Latex NBR is priced *** than NBR.66 Conclusion. All NBR corresponding to the scope shares the same basic chemistry, is produced using common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and employees, and is sold through the same channels of distribution. Although differences in various forms and variances in the ACN content and Mooney viscosity may affect the physical properties of NBR and by extension the desirability of a particular type or grade of NBR for certain end uses as well as the price, the record suggests that customers and producers generally perceive all NBR products corresponding to the scope as comprising a single product category with varying chemical resistances and processability. Although questionnaire responses among U.S. importers were mixed regarding the comparability of NBR and XNBR, the record at this stage does not indicate a clear dividing line between the two that would warrant defining separate domestic like products. The record in the preliminary phase of these investigations, however, indicates clear dividing lines between NBR and either Latex NBR and HNBR, in terms of physical characteristics and end uses, interchangeability producer and customer perceptions, and price. 59 Zeon Postconference Br. at 17 (citing Nitrile Rubber from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-384 (Final), USITC Pub. 2090 (June 1988) at 5-6). 60 CR/PR at I-14 – I-15, App. D. 61 CR/PR at Tables D-1 – D-3. 62 Zeon Postconference Br. at 17-18. 63 CR/PR at I-14 – I-15, App. D. 64 CR/PR at Tables D-2, D-3; Zeon Postconference Br. at 18. 65 CR/PR at Table D-1. 66 Zeon Postconference Br. at 18. 13 Thus, in view of the foregoing, and in the absence of any party argument to the contrary, we define a single domestic like product coextensive with the scope of these investigations for purposes of our preliminary determinations.67 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.”68 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. Petitioner argues that Zeon is the sole domestic producer of NBR. It also claims that there are no related party issues in these investigations.69 Respondents take no position with respect to the definition of the domestic industry for purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations.70 These investigations raise no domestic industry issues at the preliminary phase.71 In light of our domestic like product definition, we define a single domestic industry consisting of all U.S. producers of NBR, namely Zeon. V. Negligible Imports 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 67 To the extent that any party wishes to propose different definitions of the domestic like product in any final phase of these investigations, we invite them to comment with specificity as to proposed definition and data collection on the draft questionnaires, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 207.20(b). 68 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 69 Zeon Postconference Br. at 19-20. 70 Kumho, the only respondent to address domestic industry issues in its postconference brief, submits that it “understands that Zeon is the only producer of NBR in the United States” and, as it does not import NBR from any of the subject countries, is not a related party. Kumho Postconference Br., Exh. 1, Responses to Commission Staff Questions, at 3-4. 71 Zeon ***. CR/PR at III-3 n.4. No party argues that *** should be included in the domestic industry, and the limited record in this preliminary phase of these investigations does not contain sufficient information to assess whether ***. 14 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.72 During the most recent 12-month period preceding the filing of the petitions in these investigations (June 2020 through May 2021), imports from France accounted for 31.9 percent of total imports, imports from Korea accounted for 28.3 percent of total imports, and imports from Mexico accounted for 16.0 percent of total imports.73 Because imports from each subject country are above the statutory threshold, we find that subject imports from each country are not negligible.74 VI. Cumulation For purposes of evaluating the volume and effects for a determination of reasonable indication 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 72 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673b(a), 1677(24)(A)(i). 73 CR/PR at Table IV-4. 74 No party disputes that imports from each subject source are above the negligibility threshold. See, e.g., Kumho Postconference Br., Responses to Staff Questions at 4. 15 (4) whether the subject imports are simultaneously present in the market.75 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 determining whether the subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.76 Only a “reasonable overlap” of competition is required.77 A. Arguments of the Parties Zeon argues that imports from each subject source should be cumulated.78 No respondent parties contest cumulation. B. Analysis We consider subject imports from France, Korea, and Mexico on a cumulated basis, because the statutory criteria for cumulation are satisfied. As an initial matter, Petitioner filed the antidumping duty petitions with respect to all three countries on the same day, June 30, 2021.79 There also is a reasonable overlap of competition between subject imports from France, Korea, and Mexico, and between subject imports from each source and the domestic like product, as discussed below. Fungibility. In 2020, NBR from the domestic producer and all subject sources were sold in overlapping ACN content, with the largest volume of NBR sold from all sources being in the range of 26 to 41 percent ACN.80 During that time, NBR from the domestic producer and all subject sources were also sold with ACN content below 26 percent, and NBR from all sources except *** was sold with ACN content above 41 percent.81 Domestic NBR and subject imports 75 See Certain Cast-Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-278-80 (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). 76 See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989). 77 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, 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.”). 78 Petition at 25-26. 79 None of the statutory exceptions to cumulation applies. 80 CR/PR at Table IV-5. 81 CR/PR at Table IV-5. 16 were also sold in overlapping forms. The largest volume of U.S. shipments of NBR in 2020 from the domestic producer and subject sources was in the bale/slab form.82 Smaller quantities of NBR in ground/powder form from the *** and from *** and *** were shipped during that time; there were no reported shipments of NBR from *** in ground/powder form.83 Only *** reported U.S. shipments of NBR in liquid form in 2020.84 The *** reported that NBR from each subject source are always or frequently interchangeable with each other as well as the domestic like product.85 Channels of Distribution. The domestic like product and imports from each subject source are sold in overlapping channels of distribution, namely to custom mixers and end users, although *** are reportedly sold through distributors.86 Geographic Overlap. *** responding importers of subject merchandise from each subject source reported selling NBR to all contiguous regions in the United States.87 Simultaneous Presence in Market. NBR from *** from each subject source were present in the U.S. market throughout the entire POI.88 Conclusion. Because the relevant antidumping duty petitions were filed on the same day, and the record indicates that there is a reasonable overlap of competition between and among imports from each subject country and the domestic like product, we consequently analyze subject imports from France, Korea, and Mexico on a cumulated basis for analyzing material injury by reason of subject imports. VII. 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 imports under 82 CR/PR at Table IV-6. 83 CR/PR at Table IV-6. 84 CR/PR at Table IV-6. 85 CR/PR at Tables II-8, II-9. 86 CR/PR at Table II-1; Petition at 22. 87 CR/PR at Table II-2. 88 CR/PR at Tables IV-8, V-3 – V-5. 17 investigation.89 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.90 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”91 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.92 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.”93 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,94 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.95 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 89 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a). 90 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). 91 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A). 92 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). 93 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). 94 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a). 95 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). 18 subject imports and material injury.96 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 inflating an otherwise tangential cause of injury into one that satisfies the statutory material injury threshold.97 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not isolate 96 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). 97 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. 19 the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.98 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.99 It is clear that the existence of injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.100 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 imports.”101 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 98 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.”). 99 S. Rep. 96-249 at 74-75; H.R. Rep. 96-317 at 47. 100 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.”). 101 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 876, 878; 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. 20 sources to the subject imports.” 102 The Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various Commission methodologies and has disavowed “rigid adherence to a specific formula.”103 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.104 Congress has delegated this factual finding to the Commission because of the agency’s institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.105 B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle106 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 U.S. demand for NBR depends on U.S. demand for downstream products that incorporate NBR, such as hoses, walk-off mats, compounds, polyvinyl chloride, belts, wire, and cables. NBR accounts for between 10 and 50 percent of the cost of these products.107 The parties generally agree that demand for NBR declined prior to the COVID-19 pandemic,108 although Zeon characterizes this decline as “modest.”109 The parties also agree that the COVID- 102 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. 103 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.”). 104 We provide in our discussion below a full analysis of other factors alleged to have caused any material injury experienced by the domestic industry. 105 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.”). 106 The record indicates that Zeon internally consumed NBR to produce ***. CR/PR at III-7. We thus considered the applicability of the statutory captive production provision. We found that the threshold criterion for the application of the provision was not met because internal transfers, which accounted for between *** percent and *** percent of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments of NBR during the POI, did not constitute a significant portion of production. 107 CR/PR at II-6. 108 Zeon Postconference Br. at 22; Kumho Postconference Br. at 6-8; Negromex Postconference Br. 6-7. 109 Zeon Postconference Br. at 22. 21 19 pandemic exacerbated declining demand in certain sectors, particularly the automotive and oil and gas sectors owing to the ensuing slowdown to travel and transportation activities.110 *** three importers (including ***) reported that U.S. demand declined during the POI, whereas a plurality of importers reported that demand fluctuated during the POI.111 The available information indicates that apparent U.S. consumption of NBR declined from *** pounds in 2018 to *** pounds in 2019 and *** pounds in 2020, an overall decline of *** percent.112 2. Supply Conditions Zeon is the sole U.S. producer of NBR. It accounted for a smaller share of the U.S. NBR market than either subject or nonsubject imports during the POI. Zeon’s share of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity fluctuated but increased overall from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2019 and *** percent in 2020.113 Zeon’s production capacity, which increased from *** pounds in 2018 to *** pounds in 2019 and 2020 following ***,114 was less than apparent U.S. consumption during the POI.115 Zeon reports that it experienced no disruptions to its ability to domestically produce NBR despite the pandemic, although it reported a supply disruption caused by scheduled maintenance to its parent company’s production facilities in Japan in 2018, which constrained it from supplying certain NBR materials to the U.S. market.116 Subject imports accounted for the largest share of the U.S. NBR market during the POI. Cumulated subject import volumes declined during each full year of the POI.117 Their share of 110 Conf. Tr. at 45 (Cail), 144 (Quintero); Arlanxeo Postconference Br. at 10-11; Kumho Postconference Br. at 6-8. Respondents also identified walk-off mats, which are used in manufacturing plants, restaurants, and casinos, as another sector impacted by the pandemic. Conf. Tr. at 143 (Kendler), 144 (Quintero). 111 CR/PR at II-7 and Table II-4. 112 CR/PR at Tables IV-9, C-1. Apparent U.S. consumption of NBR was *** pounds in interim 2020 and lower, at *** pounds, in interim 2021. Id. Between 2018 and 2019, apparent U.S. consumption declined by *** percent, whereas between 2019 and 2020, it declined by *** percent. Id. This steeper decline in apparent U.S. consumption in the latter period coincides with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. 113 CR/PR at Tables IV-10, C-1. Thus, the domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption increased *** percentage points from 2018 to 2020. Id. Zeon’s share of apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent in interim 2020 and higher, at *** percent, in interim 2021. Id. 114 CR/PR at Table III-3. 115 Compare CR/PR at Table III-4 with Table IV-9. 116 CR/PR at II-5; Conf. Tr. at 72-74 (Cail). 117 CR/PR at Tables IV-2, C-1. The quantity of subject imports was higher in interim 2021, at *** pounds, compared to interim 2020, at *** pounds. Id. 22 apparent U.S. consumption by quantity increased from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2019 and *** percent in 2020.118 Nonsubject imports accounted for the second largest share of the U.S. NBR market during the POI. Nonsubject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption declined from *** percent in 2018 and 2019 to *** percent in 2020.119 Zeon’s NBR imports from nonsubject sources accounted for *** percent of 2020 imports from nonsubject sources,120 and Japan was the largest source of nonsubject imports during the POI.121 3. Substitutability and Other Conditions We find that the record in the preliminary phase of these investigations indicates that there is a moderately high degree of substitutability between cumulated subject imports and domestic products, particularly within product types of overlapping ACN content, Mooney units, and form.122 As discussed above, *** reported that the domestic product is always or frequently interchangeable with product from each of the subject countries.123 We also find price to be an important factor in purchasing decisions. Price was the factor purchasers responding to the lost sales/lost revenue survey identified most frequently as among their top three purchasing factors. However, purchasers reported technical 118 CR/PR at Table IV-10. Thus, subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption increased by *** percentage points from 2018 to 2020. Cumulated subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent in interim 2020 and higher, at *** percent, in interim 2021. Id. 119 CR/PR at Table IV-10. Accordingly, nonsubject import’s share of apparent U.S. consumption decreased by *** percentage points from 2018 to 2020. Nonsubject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent in interim 2020 and lower, at *** percent, in interim 2021. Id. 120 Derived from Zeon Importer questionnaire, at question II-8a and table IV-2. 121 CR/PR at II-5. Zeon imports from ***, Zeon Importer questionnaire, at questions I-3 and II- 8a. See also Zeon’s Postconference Br. at 28 (asserting that “Zeon’s overriding and primary objective for its sales of NBR to the domestic market is to maximize profit at its Louisville, KY factory.”); Id. at 29 (“The only times where Zeon may import NBR from Japan for sales in the US is where: (a) the price that the US customer is willing to pay makes the grade(s) unprofitable to produce in Zeon’s Louisville, KY plant in the long-run (and there are no countervailing customer retention considerations), (b) the volume of the grade(s) is beyond the capability of the Louisville facility over a prolonged time period; (c) prohibitive regulatory restrictions exist; or (d) due to business continuity planning in event of unplanned disruptions to production.”). 122 CR/PR at II-11 – II-12. 123 CR/PR at Table II-8. 23 specifications, quality, reliability, and availability more frequently as their first or second top purchasing factors.124 Zeon produces NBR using a batch process, whereas the respondent firms primarily or exclusively operate a continuous process.125 In a prior investigation of the U.S. NBR market, the Commission found that the batch process is better suited to shorter runs and the production of more specialized and custom grades of NBR materials, whereas the continuous process is better suited to long production runs and, therefore, production of the higher sales volume, commodity grades of NBR materials.126 NBR is primarily sold from inventory, with lead times averaging *** days for Zeon and *** days for importers of the subject product.127 Domestically produced NBR is sold on a ***.128 Most commercial shipments of domestically produced NBR are sold ***, with the remainder sold through ***.129 A majority (12 of 14) of responding importers reported selling subject imports on a transaction-by-transaction basis, followed by contracts (six), other methods (four), and price lists (two).130 A large share of subject imports were sold in the spot market, with the remainder sold through annual and long-term contracts.131 The main raw materials used to produce NBR are acrylonitrile and butadiene. Raw materials, as a share of cost of goods sold (“COGS”), declined from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2020.132 Acrylonitrile and butadiene prices increased during 2018, declined in 2019 and through mid-2020, and increased to period highs in March 2021.133 124 CR/PR at Table II-7. *** purchasers identified price/cost as their most important purchasing factor, and only *** purchaser identified price/cost as its second-most important purchasing factor. Id. 125 CR/PR at I-13 – I-14, II-1. Zeon Corporation operates a continuous process to produce nonsubject NBR from Japan. Conf. Tr. at 39 (Recchio). 126 Nitrile Rubber from Korea, Inv. No. 731-TA-827 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3210 (July 1999) at 6 n.28. 127 CR/PR at II-12. 128 CR/PR at Table V-2. 129 CR/PR at Table V-3. 130 CR/PR at Table V-2. 131 CR/PR at Table V-3. 132 CR/PR at V-1. 133 CR/PR at Figure V-1 and Table V-1. 24 As of September 24, 2018, 10 percent ad valorem duties were imposed on imports of NBR produced in China under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Section 301 tariffs”).134 Such Section 301 tariffs were increased to 25 percent ad valorem as of May 10, 2019.135 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.”136 Cumulated subject imports had a sizable, albeit declining, presence in the U.S. market from 2018 to 2020. Cumulated subject imports declined from 82.6 million pounds in 2018, to 78.0 million pounds in 2019, and 58.8 million pounds in 2020, an overall decline of 28.8 percent.137 As discussed above, cumulated subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity increased in each year of the POI, from *** percent in 2018, to *** percent in 2019, and *** percent in 2020, an overall increase of *** percentage points.138 Based on the foregoing, we find that the cumulated subject import volume absolutely and relative to apparent U.S. consumption is significant. 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 134 19 U.S.C. § 2411. See 83 Fed. Reg. 47,974 (Sept. 21, 2018). 135 CR/PR at I-6 – I-7; Notice of Modification of Section 301 Action, 84 Fed. Reg. 20,459 (May 9, 2019). 136 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i). 137 CR/PR at Tables IV-2, C-1. Cumulated subject import volume was 17.6 million pounds in interim 2020 and 20.7 million pounds in interim 2021. Id. Between 2018 and 2019, cumulated subject import volume declined by 5.7 percent, whereas between 2019 and 2020, it declined by 24.6 percent. Id. We note that the 24.6 percent decline in subject import volume in the latter period, which coincided with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, is *** the *** percent rate at which apparent U.S. consumption declined. Compare CR/PR at Table IV-2 with Table IV-9; accord Table C-1. 138 CR/PR at Table C-1. Cumulated subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent in interim 2020 and *** percent in interim 2021. Id. 25 (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.139 As discussed above, we find there to be a moderately high degree of substitutability between the domestic like product and cumulated subject imports and that price is an important consideration in purchasing decisions, among other factors. The Commission requested the U.S. producer and importers to provide quarterly data for the total quantity and f.o.b. value of four pricing products that were sold to unrelated U.S. customers during the first quarter of 2018 through the first quarter of 2021.140 Zeon and seven importers provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested products, although not all firms reported pricing data for all products for all quarters.141 There were no reported data for subject imports for pricing product 4.142 Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for *** of the U.S. producer’s commercial shipments of NBR during the period of investigation, *** percent of U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports from France, *** percent of U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports from Korea, and *** of U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports from Mexico.143 139 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii). 140 CR/PR at V-6. The four pricing products were as follows: Product 1.—Commodity NBR with Acrylonitrile content ranging from 26 percent to 41 percent and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25-45 kgs; Product 2.—Specialty NBR with Acrylonitrile content less than 26 percent or greater than 41 percent; Hot Polymerized, and/or containing methacrylic acid, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25-45 kgs; Product 3.— Commodity NBR with Acrylonitrile content ranging from 26 percent to 41 percent and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, ground/particulate/pellet form, sold in 20-30 kg bags; and Product 4.— Specialty NBR with Acrylonitrile content less than 26 percent or greater than 41 percent; Hot Polymerized, and/or containing methacrylic acid, ground/particulate/pellet form, sold in 20-30 kg bags. Id. Respondents have raised concerns regarding these pricing products. See, e.g., Kumho Postconference Br. at 30-34, Response to Staff Questions at 6. We invite the parties in comments on draft questionnaires in any final phase of these investigations to propose specific alternate pricing products that would enable apples-to-apples comparisons of the domestic like product and subject imports.141 CR/PR at V-6. 142 CR/PR at Table V-7. 143 CR/PR at V-6. 26 According to these pricing data, cumulated subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 72 out of 98 possible quarterly comparisons involving *** pounds of NBR, at margins ranging from *** to *** percent and averaging *** percent.144 For pricing product 1, which accounted for the greatest volume of sales of the domestic like product and subject imports, subject imports undersold the domestic like product in every possible comparison.145 Subject imports oversold the domestic like product in the remaining 26 comparisons involving *** pounds of NBR, at margins ranging from *** to *** percent and averaging *** percent.146 We have also considered purchasers’ responses to the lost sales allegations. Six out of 11 responding purchasers reported that, since 2018, they purchased subject imports instead of U.S.-produced product. Four of these purchasers reported that subject import prices were lower than U.S.-produced product. One of these purchasers reported that price was a primary reason for the decision to purchase imported product rather than U.S.-produced product, although it ***. This purchaser estimated that it purchased *** pounds of NBR imported from subject sources instead of domestic NBR.147 Based on the evidence available in the preliminary phase of these investigations, we find that cumulated subject imports significantly undersold the domestic like product for purposes of our preliminary determinations. We have also examined available data on price trends. While U.S. prices fluctuated, in general they decreased during January 2018 through March 2021 for each of the four pricing products, as did cumulated subject import prices on pricing products 1 and 3.148 For pricing products 1, 2, and 3, domestic prices decreased irregularly from the first quarter of 2018 through the fourth quarter of 2019, generally fluctuated in 2020, and increased in the first quarter of 2021, but remained below 2018 levels.149 With respect to cumulated subject imports, for pricing products 1 and 3, prices decreased irregularly from the first quarter of 2018 through mid-2020, and then generally fluctuated at levels below those seen in 2018.150 For 144 CR/PR at Tables V-9, V-10. 145 CR/PR at Table V-4. 146 CR/PR at Tables V-11, V-12. 147 CR/PR at V-18 – V-20 & Table V-14. 148 CR/PR at Table V-8. 149 CR/PR at Tables V-4 – V-6. For pricing product 4, domestic prices increased irregularly from the first quarter of 2018 through the second quarter of 2019, fluctuated and then generally declined after the second quarter of 2020. CR/PR at Table V-7. As noted above, there were no reported data for subject imports for pricing product 4. 150 CR/PR at Tables V-4 – V-6. 27 pricing product 2, cumulated subject import prices fluctuated, generally decreasing through late 2019 and increasing to levels higher than 2018 in 2021.151 Domestic price decreases ranged from *** percent to *** percent during the period examined, while subject import price decreases ranged from *** percent to *** percent.152 We have also considered purchasers’ responses to the lost revenue allegations. Two out of ten responding purchasers reported that the domestic producer reduced prices to compete with lower priced subject imports, with *** reporting a price reduction of *** percent.153 While there appear to be multiple factors contributing to the downward pressure on U.S. prices during the POI, including the substantial decline in apparent U.S. consumption and declines in raw material prices,154 for purposes of our preliminary determinations, we cannot rule out that cumulated subject imports, which significantly undersold the domestic like product, depressed prices for the domestic like product to a significant degree. We have also considered whether cumulated subject imports prevented price increases that would have otherwise occurred to a significant degree. From 2018 to 2020, the domestic industry’s unit raw material costs declined by *** percent, while unit net sales value declined by *** percent.155 While raw material costs declined, unit COGS increased from $*** in 2018 to $*** in 2019 and then to $*** in 2020, partially as a result of a steady to declining total COGS spread over a smaller volume of sales as apparent U.S consumption declined over the POI.156 This resulted in an increase of Zeon’s ratio of COGS to net sales from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2019 and to *** percent in 2020.157 Based on the record in the preliminary phase of these investigations, we find that cumulated subject imports significantly undersold the domestic like product, and we cannot 151 CR/PR at Tables V-4 – V-6. 152 CR/PR at V-15 & Table V-8. 153 CR/PR at Table V-16. 154 See CR/PR at Tables IV-9, C-1 (consumption data); CR/PR at Fig. V-1 and Table V-1 (raw material prices). 155 CR/PR at Tables VI-1, C-1. 156 The increasing ratio of COGS to net sales was not the result of rising total COGS. During the POI, total COGS remained at $*** million in 2018 and 2019 while the net sales volume fell from *** million pounds to *** million pounds. From 2019 to 2020, falling raw material costs drove total COGS down from $*** million to $*** million despite some increases in direct labor costs and other factory costs. Between these two years, net sales volume fell again from *** million pounds to *** million pounds. CR/PR at Tables C-1 and VI-1. 157 CR/PR at Table C-1. Thus, the domestic industry’s ratio of COGS to net sales increased by *** percentage points from 2018 to 2019. Id. Zeon’s ratio of COGS to net sales was *** percent in interim 2020 and *** percent in interim 2021. Id. 28 conclude that cumulated subject imports did not depress prices for the domestic like product to a significant degree. Therefore, for purposes of our preliminary determinations, we find that subject imports had significant price effects. In any final phase investigations, we will further examine the price effects of subject imports, as well as other factors that may have affected prices. E. Impact of the Subject Imports158 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 (“R&D”), 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.”159 Many of Zeon’s performance indicators declined from 2018 to 2020.160 As discussed above, Zeon increased its capacity during the period of investigation from *** pounds in 2018 to *** pounds in 2019 and 2020.161 Zeon’s production declined from *** pounds in 2018 to *** pounds in 2019 and to *** pounds in 2020.162 As a result, Zeon’s capacity utilization 158 In its notice initiating the antidumping duty investigations on NBR from France, Korea, and Mexico, Commerce reported estimated dumping margins of 41.73 percent for imports of subject merchandise from France, 105.38 percent for imports from Korea, and 92.70 percent for imports from Mexico. 86 Fed. Reg. 40192. 159 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). This provision was amended by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-27. 160 We recognize that, as discussed below, many of the domestic industry’s indicators were higher in interim 2021 compared to interim 2020. However, given that the interim period is only three months and considering that it follows the particularly volatile period affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, we accord greater weight to the POI’s full year data for purposes of these preliminary determinations. See also CR/PR at VI-5 (discussing ***, which we will examine further in any final phase of these investigations). 161 CR/PR at Table C-1. Accordingly, domestic capacity increased by *** percent during the full three-year period (from 2018 to 2020). Id. Zeon’s capacity was *** pounds in interim 2020 and interim 2021. Id. 162 CR/PR at Table C-1. Thus, domestic production declined by *** percent from 2018 to 2020. Id. Zeon’s production was *** pounds in interim 2020 and *** pounds in interim 2021. Id. 29 declined from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2019 and *** percent in 2020.163 Zeon’s U.S. shipments decreased from *** pounds in 2018 to *** pounds in 2019 and to *** pounds in 2020.164 Notwithstanding this decline, however, Zeon gained market share from 2018 to 2020, as apparent U.S. consumption declined. Its market share was *** percent in 2018, *** percent in 2019, and *** percent in 2020.165 Zeon’s ending period inventories initially increased from *** pounds in 2018 to *** pounds in 2019, before decreasing to *** pounds in 2020.166 Zeon’s employment indicators were mixed during the 2018 to 2020 period. Zeon’s production related workers (“PRWs”) increased from *** PRWs in 2018 to *** PRWs in 2019 and to *** PRWs in 2020.167 Hours worked increased from *** in 2018 to *** in 2019 before decreasing to *** in 2020.168 Total wages paid increased from $*** in 2018 to $*** in 2019 before decreasing to $*** in 2020.169 Hourly wages were $*** per hour in 2018, $*** per hour in 2019, and $*** per hour in 2020.170 Productivity was *** pounds per hour in 2018, *** pounds per hour in 2019, and *** pounds per hour in 2020.171 Zeon’s net sales value fell from $*** in 2018 to $*** in 2019 and to $*** in 2020.172 Its 163 CR/PR at Table C-1. Accordingly, domestic capacity utilization declined by *** percentage points from 2018 to 2020. Id. Zeon’s capacity utilization was *** percent in interim 2020 and *** percent in interim 2021. Id. 164 CR/PR at Table C-1. Thus, domestic shipments declined by *** percent from 2018 to 2020. Id. Zeon’s U.S. shipments were *** pounds in interim 2020 and interim 2021. Id. 165 CR/PR at Table C-1. Accordingly, domestic producer’s market share increased by *** percent from 2018 to 2020. Id. Zeon’s market share was *** percent in interim 2020 and *** percent in interim 2021. Id. 166 CR/PR at Table C-1. Thus, domestic ending period inventories increased by *** percent from 2018 to 2020. Id. Zeon’s ending inventories were *** pounds in interim 2020 and *** pounds in interim 2021. Id. 167 CR/PR at Table C-1. Accordingly, domestic PRWs increased by *** percent from 2018 to 2020. Id. Zeon’s PRWs were *** in interim 2020 and *** in interim 2021. Id. 168 CR/PR at Table C-1. Thus, domestic hours declined by *** percent from 2018 to 2020. Id. Zeon’s hours worked were *** in interim 2020 and *** in interim 2021. Id. 169 CR/PR at Table C-1. Accordingly, total wages increased by *** percent from 2018 to 2020. Id. Zeon’s total wages paid were $*** in interim 2020 and $*** in interim 2021. Id. 170 CR/PR at Table C-1. Thus, hourly wages increased by *** percent from 2018 to 2020. Id. Hourly wages were $*** per hour in interim 2020 and $*** per hour in interim 2021. Id. 171 CR/PR at Table C-1. Accordingly, domestic productivity declined by *** percent from 2018 to 2020. Id. Productivity was *** pounds per hour in interim 2020 and *** pounds per hour in interim 2021. Id. 172 CR/PR at Table C-1. Thus, the domestic net sales value declined by *** percent from 2018 to 2020. Id. It was $*** in interim 2020 and $*** in interim 2021. Id. 30 total COGS also declined overall from $*** in 2018 and 2019 to $*** in 2020.173 Zeon’s profitability declined by all measures from 2018 to 2020. Gross profits fell from $*** in 2018 to $*** in 2019 and to $*** in 2020.174 Operating income fell from $*** in 2018 to $*** in 2019 and to $*** in 2020.175 Net income fell from $*** in 2018 to $*** in 2019 and to $*** in 2020.176 Zeon’s ratio of operating income to net sales decreased from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2019 and to *** percent in 2020.177 Zeon’s ratio of net income to net sales decreased from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2019 and to *** percent in 2020.178 Zeon’s capital expenditures were $*** in 2018, $*** in 2019, and $*** in 2020.179 Its R&D expenses were $*** in 2018, $*** in 2019, and $*** in 2020.180 As discussed above, the volume of cumulated subject imports was significant in absolute terms as well as relative to apparent U.S. consumption. The record in the preliminary phase of these investigations indicates that this significant volume of cumulated subject imports significantly undersold the domestic like product, and we cannot find during the preliminary phase that cumulated subject imports did not depress prices for the domestic like product to a significant degree. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that cumulated subject imports did not materially contribute to financial declines in the domestic industry’s performance. Thus, based on the available information, we cannot find that cumulated subject imports did not have a significant impact on the domestic industry for purposes of these preliminary determinations. We have also considered the role of any factors other than subject imports to ensure that we are not attributing injury from such other factors to subject imports. Nonsubject imports accounted for a declining share of the U.S. market during the POI, losing market share to both the domestic industry and subject imports. As discussed above, nonsubject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption declined from *** percent in 2018 and 2019 to *** 173 CR/PR at Table C-1. Accordingly, domestic total COGS declined by *** percent from 2018 to 2020. Id. Its COGS was $*** in interim 2020 and $*** in interim 2021. Id. 174 CR/PR at Table C-1. Gross profits were $*** in interim 2020 and $*** in interim 2021. Id. 175 CR/PR at Table C-1. Operating income was $*** in interim 2020 and $*** in interim 2021. Id. 176 CR/PR at Table C-1. Net income was $*** in interim 2020 and $*** in interim 2021. Id. 177 CR/PR at Table C-1. The ratio of operating income to net sales was *** percent in interim 2020 and *** percent in interim 2021. Id. 178 CR/PR at Table C-1. The ratio of net income to net sales was *** percent in interim 2020 and *** percent in interim 2021. Id. 179 CR/PR at Table C-1. Thus, domestic capital expenditures increased *** percent from 2018 to 2020. Id. Its capital expenditures were $*** in interim 2020 and $*** in interim 2021. Id. 180 CR/PR at Table C-1. According, domestic R&D expenses declined *** percent from 2018 to 2020. Id. Zeon’s R&D expenses were $*** in interim 2020 and $*** in interim 2021. Id. 31 percent in 2020.181 In addition, the available record evidence indicates that nonsubject imports tend to be priced higher than subject imports.182 Thus, for purposes of our preliminary determinations, we do not find that the presence of nonsubject imports explains the declines in the domestic industry’s condition. However, given that Zeon largely is responsible for the considerable presence of nonsubject imports in the U.S. market and the evidence that Zeon coordinates its supply of NBR to the U.S. market with supply from its parent company in Japan,183 we intend to further explore that relationship and the role of nonsubject imports in any final phase of these investigations. Additionally, as discussed above, the record indicates that demand for NBR in the U.S. market declined during the POI, both prior to and due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The parties disagree as to whether, and to what degree, declining demand contributed to the domestic industry’s declining financial performance.184 Although we are unable to find in the preliminary phase of these investigations that declining demand fully explains the declines in the domestic industry’s performance, we intend to explore this issue further in any final phase of these investigations. The parties also disagree as to whether and to what extent subject imports compete with domestically produced NBR. Kumho argues that competition between the domestic like product is attenuated because subject imports are comprised predominantly of commodity grade NBR, while Zeon focuses its U.S. production on specialty grades used in automotive, oil 181 CR/PR at Table IV-10. Thus, nonsubject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption declined by *** percentage points from 2018 to 2020. Id. Nonsubject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent in interim 2020 and lower, at *** percent, in interim 2021. Id. 182 CR/PR at Table C-1. The average unit values (“AUVs”) of nonsubject imports were $1.38 in 2018, $1.46 in 2019, and $1.14 in 2020; they were $1.26 in interim 2020 and $1.52 in interim 2021. The AUVs of subject imports were $1.23 in 2018, $1.12 in 2019, and $0.96 in 2020; they were $1.06 in interim 2020 and $1.09 in interim 2021. Id. Thus, the AUVs of nonsubject imports declined 17.4 percent from 2018 to 2020, while the AUVs of subject imports declined 22.0 percent over the same period. Id. 183 See, e.g., Zeon Postconference Br. at 28-29. 184 Kumho asserts that the market segments primarily served by Zeon, such as the automotive and oil and gas segments, “sharply” declined during the POI. Kumho Postconference Br. at 34. Zeon acknowledges that the market segment in which NBR is sold “may implicate some variance in the per- unit average profit.” It asserts, however, that it has not meaningfully shifted the proportions of its sales to the various market segments. According to Zeon, there was “at most a negligible impact” to its profitability based on this shift. Zeon Postconference Br. at 24. 32 and gas, and industrial machinery.185 Respondents also contend that the batch production process used by Zeon in its U.S. facility limits the interchangeability between the domestic like product and subject imports and that NBR produced in Zeon’s U.S. facility has been of poor or inconsistent quality.186 Zeon, on the other hand, claims that, to the best of its knowledge, foreign producers have the technical capabilities to produce NBR that is highly substitutable with the domestic like product and vice versa.187 The parties also dispute whether and to what extent the process of certification and qualification affects how NBR is supplied to the U.S. market.188 Although, as discussed above, the record in the preliminary phase of these investigations indicates that the domestic like product and subject imports have a moderately high degree of interchangeability and compete in the U.S. market, we intend to further explore these issues in any final phase of these investigations. We, therefore, cannot find that cumulated subject imports did not have a significant impact on the domestic industry for purposes of these preliminary determinations. 185 According to Kumho, purchasers in the automotive, oil and gas, and industrial machinery segments of the market frequently have particular specifications and require higher ACN content, specialty grade NBR, which typically costs more. In contrast, other segments such as the walk-off mat and commercial printing segments use less expensive commodity grade NBR with a moderate ACN content. Kumho Postconference Br. at 4-6, 17-18, Exhs. 4, 17-18. We note that the record in the preliminary phase of these investigations does not suggest a clear definition of what constitutes “commodity” and “specialty” grades of NBR. Kumho disputes Zeon’s assertion that NBR grades with ACN content between 26 and 41 percent are commodity grades. Citing the Commission’s negative preliminary determinations in Nitrile Rubber from Korea, Inv. No. 731-TA-827 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3210 (July 1999) at 6, Kumho appears to suggest that commodity grades of NBR “contain{} 31 to 35 percent acrylonitrile.” Kumho Postconference Br. at 3-5. However, it also produced an affidavit in which the affiant describes the NBR that it purchases as a ***. Id. at Exh. 18, para. 5. In any final phase of these investigations, we will further examine the distinction between different grades of NBR and we invite the parties to suggest in comments on the draft questionnaires how the Commission can collect data to aid in that examination. 186 Arlanxeo Postconference Br. at 4, 7-9; Kumho Postconference Br. at 18-21, Exhs. 3, 17-18, Exhs. 3, 4, 17, Response to Staff Questions at 1, 17-18; Negromex Postconference Br. at 10-12. 187 Zeon Postconference Br. at 24-25, Exhibit 4; Petition, Exhs. I-14, I-15. 188 According to Kumho, customer specifications and certification requirements limit interchangeability between domestic and imported NBR. Kumho Postconference Br. at 18-21, Exhs. 3, 4, 17, Response to Staff Questions at 1, 17-18. Zeon claims that, in its experience, the process to qualify its products with a customer has “involved an easy and relatively rapid process.” According to Zeon, many customers co-qualify multiple suppliers, which enables rapid switching between vendors, and both it and subject producers are often pre-qualified to supply the same customers. Zeon Postconference Br. at 24-26. Zeon also contends that *** of its U.S. sales were on the spot market, reflecting the ease with which purchasers are able to switch suppliers. Id. at 28. 33 VIII. 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 NBR from France, Korea, and Mexico that are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value. 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 Zeon Chemicals L.P. and Zeon GP, LLC (collectively “Zeon”), Louisville, Kentucky, on June 30, 2021, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (“NBR”)1 from France, Korea, and Mexico. The following tabulation provides information relating to the background of these investigations.2 3 Effective date Action June 30, 2021 Petitions filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission investigations (86 FR 35825, July 7, 2021) July 20, 2021 Commerce’s notice of initiation (86 FR 40192, July 27, 2021) July 21, 2021 Commission’s conference August 13, 2021 Commission’s vote August 16, 2021 Commission’s determinations August 23, 2021 Commission’s views 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 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 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. 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 4 Amended by PL 114-27 (as signed, June 29, 2015), Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. 5 Amended by PL 114-27 (as signed, June 29, 2015), Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. I-3 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 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. producer. 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 NBR is a component in products used in the oil and gas, construction, industrial equipment, and automotive industries that is known for its oil resistance. The only known U.S. producer of NBR is Zeon. Leading producers of NBR outside the United States include *** of France, *** of Korea, and *** of Mexico. The leading U.S. importer of NBR from France is ***, and the leading U.S. importer of NBR from Mexico is ***. The leading importer of NBR from nonsubject countries (primarily ***) is ***. U.S. purchasers of NBR are firms that are distributors, mixers, and end users in a variety of industries, including the automotive and oil and gas industries; leading purchasers responding to lost sales and lost revenue allegations include ***. Apparent U.S. consumption of NBR totaled approximately *** pounds ($***) in 2020. The U.S. producer’s U.S. shipments of NBR totaled *** pounds ($***) in 2020 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. U.S. imports from subject sources totaled 58.8 million pounds ($56.4 million) in 2020 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. U.S. imports from nonsubject sources totaled *** I-4 *** pounds ($***) in 2020 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and value. Summary data and data sources A summary of data collected in these investigations is presented in appendix C, table C- 1. U.S. industry data are based on the questionnaire response of one firm that accounted for 100 percent of U.S. production of NBR during 2020. U.S. imports are based on official U.S. import statistics and the questionnaire responses received from 16 companies, representing an estimated *** percent of U.S. imports from France, *** U.S. imports from Korea, *** percent of U.S. imports from Mexico, and *** percent of U.S. imports from nonsubject sources.6 Previous and related investigations NBR has been the subject of two prior antidumping duty investigations in the United States. In June 1988, the Commission determined that the NBR industry in the United States was being materially injured by reason of imports of NBR from Japan.7 On June 16, 1988, Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on NBR from Japan.8 In April 1999, the Commission instituted a five-year review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on NBR from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury and determined in July 1999 that it would conduct an expedited review.9 In September 1999, the Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on NBR from Japan would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.10 In October 1999, Commerce revoked the antidumping duty order on NBR from Japan.11 In May 1999, the Commission instituted an antidumping duty investigation to determine whether an industry in the United States was materially injured or threatened with material 6 Official import statistics have been adjusted to remove out-of-scope product, as explained in greater detail in part IV. 7 Nitrile Rubber from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-384 (Final), USITC Publication 2090, June 1988, p. 1. 8 53 FR 22553, June 16, 1988. 9 64 FR 15788, April 1, 1999 and 64 FR 38475, July 16, 1999. 10 64 FR 51557, September 23, 1999. 11 64 FR 53999, October 5, 1999. I-5 injury by reason of LTFV imports of NBR from Korea.12 In July 1999, the Commission determined that there was no reasonable indication that an industry in the United States was materially injured or threatened with material injury, or that the establishment of an industry in the United States was materially retarded, by reason of imports of NBR from Korea.13 Nature and extent of alleged sales at LTFV On July 27, 2021, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the initiation of its antidumping duty investigations on NBR from France, Korea, and Mexico.14 Commerce has initiated antidumping duty investigations based on estimated dumping margins of 41.73 percent for NBR from France, 105.38 percent for NBR from Korea, and 92.70 percent for NBR from Mexico. The subject merchandise Commerce’s scope In the current proceeding, Commerce has defined the scope as follows:15 The product covered by these investigations is commonly referred to as acrylonitrile butadiene rubber or nitrile rubber (AB Rubber). AB Rubber is a synthetic rubber produced by the emulsion polymerization of butadiene and acrylonitrile with or without the incorporation of a third component selected from methacrylic acid or isoprene. This scope covers AB Rubber in solid or non-aqueous liquid form. The scope also includes carboxylated AB Rubber. Excluded from the scope of these investigations is AB Rubber in latex form (commonly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 4002.51.0000). Latex AB Rubber is commonly either (a) acrylonitrile/butadiene polymer in latex form or (b) acrylonitrile/butadiene/methacrylic acid polymer in latex form. The broader definition of latex refers to a water emulsion of a synthetic rubber obtained by polymerization. 12 Nitrile Rubber from Korea, Inv. No. 731-TA-827 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 3210, July 1999, p. 1. 13 Nitrile Rubber from Korea, Inv. No. 731-TA-827 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 3210, July 1999, p. 1. 14 86 FR 40192, July 27, 2021. 15 86 FR 40192, July 27, 2021. I-6 Also excluded from the scope of these investigations is: (a) AB Rubber containing additives (e.g., nitrile rubber further compounded with fillers, reinforcement agents, vulcanization agents, etc.; by example, products classified under HTSUS subheading 4005); (b) AB Rubber containing rubber processing chemicals, AB Rubber containing other materials used for further processing beyond the polymerization process; (c) hydrogenated AB Rubber (commonly referred to as HNBR) produced by subsequent dissolution and hydrogenation of AB Rubber; (d) reactive liquid polymers containing acrylonitrile and butadiene with amine, epoxy, carboxyl, or methacrylate vinyl chemical functionality. Subject merchandise includes material matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise processed in a third country, including by modifying physical form or packaging with another product, or performing 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 AB Rubber. Tariff treatment Based upon the scope set forth by Commerce, information available to the Commission indicates that the merchandise subject to these investigations is provided for in subheading 4002.59.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”). NBR produced in France, Korea, and Mexico enters the U.S. market at the general rate of duty of free. Decisions on the tariff classification and treatment of imported goods are within the authority of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Section 301 tariff treatment NBR provided for in HTS subheading 4002.59.00 was included in the Office of the United States Trade Representative’s (“USTR’s”) second enumeration (“Tranche 3, List 3”) of products of China that became subject to additional duties of 10 percent ad valorem effective September 24, 2018, and the duty rate increased to 25 percent ad valorem. See U.S. note 20(f) to subchapter III of HTS chapter 99.16 16 HTSUS (2021), Basic Edition, Revision 6, USITC Publication 5214, July 2021, Ch 99, 20(f), pp. 20, 34. USTR’s 301 actions are only applicable to products of China. For the time period only from after May 10, (continued...) I-7 The product Description and applications NBR is a type of synthetic rubber that is a bipolymer of acrylonitrile and butadiene or a terpolymer with an additional third component selected from methacrylic acid or isoprene.17 The product can be in a solid or non-aqueous liquid form. The terpolymer with the third component selected from methacrylic acid can be carboxylated in its form and is termed carboxylated NBR (“XNBR”).18 A downstream product of NBR is hydrogenated NBR (“HNBR”).19 HNBR has an additional chemical step to be produced, and the final product has higher heat and chemical resistance, elasticity, ozone resistance, and mechanical strength compared to NBR.20 In the United States, HNBR is not produced on the same equipment as NBR.21 NBR, in general, can function in minus 40-degree to 226-degree Fahrenheit temperatures. NBR is more puncture resistant than natural rubber and is resistant to cuts, abrasion, tears, caustics, and aliphatic hydrocarbons. However, NBR is less flexible than natural rubber.22 NBR products vary in their acrylonitrile content, Mooney viscosity, and physical form.23 In general, acrylonitrile content can vary from 19-51 percent, and Mooney viscosity can vary from 25-95 Mooney units, depending on the product. In general, as acrylonitrile content increases, oil and fuel resistance increase, tensile strength and hardness increase, and heat and (…continued) 2019 and before June 15, 2019, goods subject to 9903.88.09 from Ch 99, 20(f) had an additional 10 percent ad valorem duty added, as stated in Ch 99, 20(l). 17 A bipolymer is synthesized from two monomers. A terpolymer is a polymer synthesized from three different monomers. A general term used is a copolymer, which is synthesized from two or more monomers (thus bipolymers and terpolymers are both types of copolymers). A monomer is a molecule that can react together with other monomer molecules to form a larger chain of monomers called a polymer. 18 Carboxylated is defined as of a compound containing an added carboxyl group (carbon double bonded to oxygen with an oxygen single bonded to hydrogen on the same carbon). Definitions from Oxford Languages, accessed July 27, 2021. XNBR has a CAS number of 9010-81-5. 19 HNBR has a CAS number of 88254-10-8. 20 Petition, p. 10. HNBR is out of scope of these investigations. 21 Conference transcript, pp. 20-21 (Saunders). 22 Petition, p. 7. 23 The Mooney viscosity measures the stiffness of compounds. The unit of measure is arbitrary and known as a Mooney unit. The higher the number, the higher the viscosity. Sisanth, K.S., M.G. Thomas, J. Abraham, S. Thomas, “General Introduction to Rubber Compounding,” Progress in Rubber Nanocomposites, 2017, pp. 1-39, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100409-8.00001-2. I-8 abrasion resistance improve.24 As acrylonitrile content decreases, low temperature performance, dynamic performance, compression set, and resilience all improve.25 With respect to Mooney viscosity, higher Mooney viscosity results in improved physical properties of strength, but processability is decreased. Lower Mooney viscosity materials are easier to process.26 The most common NBR materials sold are in the range of acrylonitrile content (26-41 percent) and Mooney viscosity (30-80 Mooney units) as these materials give the best balance of properties and processability.27 NBR is most used in applications where a moderate level of heat and oil or fuel resistance are required such as applications in industrial hose, automotive, and the oil and gas industries.28 The automotive industry is the primary market segment, and it accounts for about 25 percent of consumption of NBR.29 Applications include, but are not limited to the following: 1) hoses (fuel, hydraulic fluid, oils and lubricant, chemical transport); 2) air ducts (for movement of air between air filter and internal combustion engine); 3) oil and gas components (stators, motor pump seals, blow-out preventors, hoses, and various seal components); 4) construction insulation (foamed insulation for pipe protection and insulation); 5) adhesives (road marking tape, construction adhesives, phenolic adhesives, epoxy adhesives – used for construction, aerospace, and general goods); 6) mats (rubber backing on ‘walk-off’ mats used in office lobbies, factories, etc.); 7) wires and cables (flexibilizer, modifier for wire covers); 8) rollers (printing blankets, graphic arts printing rolls, rice hull remover rollers); 9) seals O-rings (various automotive and industrial use); 10) PVC modifications (flexibilizer; various construction and residential applications ranging from garden hose to PVC window blinds to appliances); 11) belting (V-belts for mechanical power transmission; mining belts for conveying materials); and 12) food handling (hoses; milking inflators; sanitary applications).30 XNBR materials are typically used in the same applications as NBR but where improved abrasion resistance and improved tensile strength may be desired in the finished article.31 24 Conference transcript, p. 18 (Saunders); Petition, p. 5. 25 Polymer Properties Database, “NBR- Butadiene Nitrile Rubber,” accessed July 29, 2021. 26 The International Institute of Synthetic Rubber Producers, “Acrylonitrile-butadiene Rubber (NBR),” p. 3, accessed July 28, 2021. 27 Conference transcript, p. 18 (Saunders); Petition, pp. 5-6. 28 Conference transcript, p. 19 (Saunders), p. 44 (Cail). 29 Conference transcript, p. 44, 63 (Cail); p. 116, 134-135 (Quintero); p. 143 (Kendler). 30 Petition, p. 8. 31 XNBR materials meet the same ASTM D2000 classifications of BF, BG, BK, and CH as NBR and are produced and compounded the same way as NBR materials. Petitioner notes the customers for NBR and XNBR are the same. Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 6; Conference transcript, p. 19 (Saunders). I-9 NBR is sold in bale (slab), powder, pellet, particulate (crumb), and liquid forms.32 The majority of shipments are in the form of compressed bales.33 The bale end users are typically those making rubber parts.34 The petitioner produces approximately 60 products,35 Industrias Negromex of Mexico produces *** products of various grades, of which *** are for the U.S. market,36 and Kumho of Korea produces *** products of which *** were sold to the U.S. during the POI.37 Manufacturing processes The general chemical reaction for production of NBR involves the reaction of 1,3 butadiene (butadiene) and acrylonitrile, as shown in figure I-1.38 The reaction for production of XNBR has an additional component of the reactant raw material methacrylic acid. As NBR products vary in acrylonitrile content, there are different reaction stoichiometries based on the 32 Petition, p. 6; Petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 8-9. Petitioner separates commodity and specialty grades of bale based on factors such as acrylonitrile content and Mooney viscosity. Particulate is also known as crumb, which is NBR in irregular shape, typically of size where any single X, Y, Z dimension is less than 6 inches. X, Y, and Z dimensions would be non-uniform within any specific crumb sample. Pellet is NBR in regular shape typically in size where the X, Y, Z dimensions are, in aggregate, generally uniform from pellet to pellet (with exact dimensions subject to the manufacturer’s preference). Pellets are typically of round or cylindrical shape. Pellets are utilized by NBR customers who require a uniform product shape due to the sophisticated handling and material conveying systems utilized in the customer’s production process. Powder is NBR in fine particle form, where the particle size is commonly well below 0.2 inches in diameter. Powder NBR is preferred by customers using NBR for plastic modification, friction products, and other applications where NBR is used as a modifier. Liquid grade NBR is a low molecular weight NBR that, upon heating, is pourable and pumpable. Applications of liquid NBR include use as a non-extractable plasticizer and as an additive for processing improvement in rubber compounds. Id. 33 Conference transcript, p. 69 (Cail). 34 Conference transcript, p. 70 (Recchio). 35 Conference transcript, p. 90 (Saunders). 36 Respondent Negromex’s postconference brief, Exhibit 1, question 14. Negromex stated it produces *** percent commodity grade and *** percent specialty grade. Exhibit 1, question 14. 37 Respondent Kumho’s postconference brief, Exhibit 1, p. 18. Kumho only produces commodity grade and states commodity grade, moderate ACN content NBR is not directly competitive with specialty grade NBR because customers are unable to substitute these products in different end-use applications due to stringent technical requirements. Respondent Kumho’s postconference brief, p. 5 and Exhibit 1, p. 3. 38 1,3 butadiene and acrylonitrile are two different monomers that react to form a polymer product. Petitioner purchases both monomers and does not produce them. Respondents Negromex and Kumho purchase both monomers and do not produce them. Conference transcript, p. 175 (Quintero); p. 176 (Kendler). I-10 desired percentage of acrylonitrile in the final product.39 If there is a reaction input of about 40 percent acrylonitrile and 60 percent butadiene, the reaction will occur at about the same rate (a product will result with about half one monomer and half the other resulting in a final product of 50 percent acrylonitrile content).40 However, if one wants to change the ratio so the final product has 51 percent acrylonitrile, the reaction has to be starved of butadiene, and more acrylonitrile has to be added.41 Due to the fact that in products with higher acrylonitrile content the reaction will not run to 100 percent, there will be left over acrylonitrile at the end of the reaction that can be recovered and used again.42 This is known as the monomer recovery process.43 Since there are different amounts of acrylonitrile and butadiene raw materials added depending on the desired acrylonitrile percentage in the final product, the cost of the different reactions will vary.44 39 Stoichiometry is the relationship between the relative quantities of substances taking part in a reaction or forming a compound, typically a ratio of whole integers. Definition from Oxford languages, accessed August 4, 2021. 40 Conference transcript, p. 92 (Recchio). 41 Conference transcript, p. 93 (Recchio). 42 Conference transcript, p. 93 (Recchio); pp. 174-175 (Plaza). 43 Petitioner notes that Zeon does not sell recovered monomers commercially. They are consumed internally only. Conference transcript, p. 89 (Saunders). 44 Petitioner notes that acrylonitrile is typically more expensive than butadiene, and therefore products with higher acrylonitrile content are more costly to produce. XNBR is a product that has a third monomer of methacrylic acid as a reactant, and it is therefore more expensive to produce than a reaction with only acrylonitrile and butadiene. Conference transcript, pp. 34-25 (Saunders). Petitioner states that XNBR is 1.4 to 2 times more expensive than NBR, all other factors being the same. Conference transcript, p. 26 (Arkan). I-11 Figure I-1. Chemical reaction for production of NBR Source: Liu, Minghui, “Hydrogenation of Nitrile and Olefinic Groups in Butadiene Rubbers,” 2014. The raw materials in varying amounts are added into a reactor along with water, emulsifier (soap), radical generating activator, and other chemicals (e.g., pigment) in order to begin the emulsion polymerization process, as depicted in figure I-2.45 The reaction is exothermic, so heat is removed using a cooling system to maintain a constant temperature until the desired degree of polymerization is achieved.46 Next, the reaction is stopped using a short- stop solution. Unreacted or residual monomers are recovered using recovery process before stabilizers are added to the NBR latex emulsion. This NBR latex emulsion with stabilizers is a finished product that is sold in the market and in this context is termed latex NBR. This material typically contains 60 percent water. This material is sold in this form for use in applications such as nitrile gloves and fabric treatment and is commonly processed using a dipping process.47 It is at this step that NBR latex and solid NBR become distinct and differentiated within the manufacturing process, with NBR latex foregoing further processing and solid NBR requiring 45 Petition, p. 9. The petitioner uses a batch process in the United States, while the respondents use both batch and continuous processes. Continuous and batch processing are described further in this section. 46 Conference transcript, p. 16 (Saunders). 47 Conference transcript, p. 20 (Saunders). Latex NBR is out of scope while solid NBR is in scope of these investigations. I-12 additional steps to produce.48 Solid NBR is produced by taking latex NBR and doing three further steps – (a) coagulation to cause the emulsion to be broken for the polymer to coagulate and form crumb; (b) washing to reduce the portion of polymerization soap impurities; and (c) drying to eliminate >95 percent of the water content in the finished product. After the material is dried, it is then compacted into a bale using a hydraulic press and the bale material is then packaged for sale or further processing.49 Solid NBR and latex NBR are produced on common equipment and involve an overlapping production process corresponding to the “wet end” of the production process for NBR, which includes emulsion polymerization and monomer recovery. However, unlike latex NBR, NBR then undergoes further processing and treatment involving coagulation, washing, and drying.50 On a commercial and industrial scale, latex NBR is transformed into solid NBR via a controlled process whereby coagulation conditions are tightly controlled and whereby coagulation chemicals are precisely incorporated. Solid NBR has to have residual water dried off from the coagulated crumb. Industrial scale drying equipment (tunnel dryers, extruder dryers, etc.), typically costing in excess of $1 million, is required for economic drying of synthetic rubber, including NBR.51 48 Conference transcript, p. 16 (Saunders). 49 Conference transcript, p. 17 (Saunders). 50 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 11. 51 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 12. I-13 Figure I-2. Manufacturing process for NBR Source: Petition, p. 10. At the end of the process of manufacturing NBR, both petitioners and respondents measure acrylonitrile content, Mooney viscosity, and ash content in their specification criteria.52 The manufacturing process can be competed in either continuous or batch mode. Continuous operations require a series of reactors where the material is placed in the front of a series of reactors and the material goes from one reactor to another. There may be eight to twelve reactors in series that the product is run through, and only one grade of product can be made at a time. Batch processing has separate reactors that are not linked in a series in which multiple grades can be run at the same time.53 The petitioner operates in both batch and continuous processes globally, but in the United States, it only uses the batch process. The respondents use either batch or continuous processes or both, depending on the respondent.54 Respondent Industrias Negromex uses both batch and continuous processes, and uses the batch process for its specialty and commodity products that are produced in small volumes.55 Petitioner gives a rough estimation that the continuous process is 10 to 15 percent less costly 52 Petitioner also measures heat loss. Industrias Negromex measures humidity. Conference transcript, p. 95-96 (Recchio); p. 175 (Plaza). 53 Conference transcript, pp. 39-40 (Recchio). 54 Conference transcript, p. 177 (Plaza). 55 Conference transcript, p. 180 (Sjoberg); p. 180 (Plaza). Latex NBR I-14 than the batch process.56 Respondents Industrias Negromex and Dynasol (“Negromex”) agree with the 10 to 15 percent cost savings estimate and notes it is related to steam and power calculated per ton between batch operation records and continuous operation records.57 Industrias Negromex, which has both continuous and batch processes, calculates that in 2020, *** percent of operations were in the continuous mode and *** percent were in the batch mode.58 Respondent Kumho operates in *** percent continuous mode and *** percent batch mode.59 Respondent Arlanxeo Emulsion indicates that ***.60 Other than the batch and continuous parts of the system, there are no known differences in the manufacturing processes of petitioners and respondents.61 Domestic like product issues No issues with respect to domestic like product have been raised in these investigations. The petitioner proposes that the Commission should define a single domestic like product coextensive with the scope of these investigations.62 Citing the limited time in preliminary investigations, respondent Kumho does not contest the petitioner’s definition of the domestic like product, but reserves the right to do so, should these investigations proceed to a final phase.63 The U.S. producer and importers were asked to compare (1) in-scope NBR and out-of- scope HNBR, and (2) XNBR (in-scope) and all other in-scope NBR, based on the Commission’s six-factor analysis of the appropriate domestic product(s) that are “like” the subject imported product, including: (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production 56 Conference transcript, p. 102 (Markan). 57 Respondent Negromex’s postconference brief, Exhibit 1, question 1. Negromex gives a more detailed calculation of *** in Exhibit 1, question 12. Respondent Kumho states ***. Respondent Kumho’s post conference brief, Exhibit 1, p. 3. 58 Respondent Negromex’s postconference brief, Exhibit 1, question 15. 59 Respondent Kumho’s postconference brief, Exhibit 1, p. 3. 60 Respondent ARLANXEO’s postconference brief, p. 4. 61 Conference transcript, p. 43 (Recchio). 62 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p.4. 63 Respondent Kumho’s postconference brief, p. 1. I-15 employees; (5) customer and producer perceptions; and (6) price. The U.S. producer’s and U.S. importers’ responses can be found in Appendix D. Generally, the majority of respondents (U.S. producer Zeon and U.S. importers) reported that NBR and HNBR are *** comparable for all factors, except channels of distribution, which the majority reported as *** comparable. When comparing NBR and XNBR, U.S. producer Zeon reported *** factors were *** comparable, while the majority of U.S. importers reported that NBR and XNBR are *** comparable with regard to physical characteristics, interchangeability, perceptions, or price. The majority of U.S. importers reported that NBR and XNBR are *** comparable with regard to channels of distribution and manufacturing. II-1 Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market U.S. market characteristics NBR is a product known for its oil resistance, toughness, and temperature resistance for a wide range of uses in hoses, air ducts, construction insulation, oil and gas components, mats, wires and cables, rollers, seals, belts, and belting.1 The automotive sector is the largest sector for the domestic NBR accounting for approximately 25 percent of the market, with other large sectors including agriculture and construction.2 NBR is produced in several grades, which come in a variety of combinations of chemical composition and form.3 Customers typically pick the grade of NBR based on acrylonitrile content, the Mooney viscosity of the material, and the product form.4 NBR is produced in the form of bales and slabs; ground, particulate, and pellets; powder; and liquid.5 The acrylonitrile content of NBR determines its fluid resistance, and the Mooney viscosity determines the flowability of NBR for processing.6 All types of NBR can be produced through continuous or batch processing, the latter of which is approximately 10-15 percent more expensive but adds to production versatility.7 U.S. producer only uses batch processing, while NBR producers in subject countries have both processing capabilities.8 There are two main categories of customers for NBR: custom mixers, which provide rubber compounding and mixing services for rubber part manufacturers, and rubber part manufacturers themselves (if they have in-house mixing operations).9 Automotive, oil and gas, 1 Petition, pp. 7-8; Petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 6-7. NBR also goes into military rocket motors, shoe soles, aerospace aircraft construction, and energy recovery parts. Conference transcript, p. 14 (Recchio); Petitioner’s postconference brief, Exhibit 1, p. 2. 2 Conference transcript, pp. 63-64 (Cail); Respondent Kumho postconference brief, p. 3. 3 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 7. 4 Conference transcript, p. 54 (Cail). 5 Petition, pp. 8-9. Particulates and pellets are generally preferred for dissolving in a solution. Particulate NBR is generally used for composite-type products and adhesives, and pellets are generally used for wire and cable applications. Bale and slab NBR are generally used when compounding or mixing with other components and is preferred for ease of handling. Conference transcript, pp. 68-69, 166-167 (Cail, Quintero); Mexican respondent postconference brief, Exhibit 1, no. 10. 6 Generally, the greater the acrylonitrile content, the greater the oil and fuel resistance, tensile strength and hardness, and heat and abrasion resistance. Meanwhile, the greater the Mooney viscosity, the greater the strength, but the more difficult the processing. Conference transcript, pp. 18, 22 (Saunders, Cail); Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 5. 7 Conference transcript, pp. 39-40, 42 (Recchio, Arkan); Mexican respondent postconference brief, Exhibit 1, no. 1. 8 Conference transcript, p. 47 (Recchio). 9 Petition, p. 21. II-2 and industrial machinery applications typically require costlier, specialty grades of NBR, while walk-off mats and commercial printing applications typically require less expensive grades of NBR.10 Apparent U.S. consumption of NBR decreased by *** percent during January 2018- December 2020. Channels of distribution The U.S. producer sold *** to end users and *** to custom mixers, and subject imports were sold mainly to end users and custom mixers, as shown in table II-1. *** of the imports from France and the majority of imports from Korea were sold to end users, and the majority of imports from Mexico were sold to ***. Table II-1 NBR: Share of U.S. shipments by source, by channel of distribution, and by period Shares in percent Source Channel 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 United States Share to distributors *** *** *** *** *** United States Share to custom mixers *** *** *** *** *** United States Share to end users *** *** *** *** *** France Share to distributors *** *** *** *** *** France Share to custom mixers *** *** *** *** *** France Share to end users *** *** *** *** *** Korea Share to distributors *** *** *** *** *** Korea Share to custom mixers *** *** *** *** *** Korea Share to end users *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Share to distributors *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Share to custom mixers *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Share to end users *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share to distributors 26.2 18.2 6.6 9.0 3.9 Subject Share to custom mixers 26.3 30.9 31.6 31.9 40.4 Subject Share to end users 47.5 50.9 61.8 59.0 55.7 Nonsubject Share to distributors *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share to custom mixers *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share to end users *** *** *** *** *** All imports Share to distributors *** *** *** *** *** All imports Share to custom mixers *** *** *** *** *** All imports Share to end users *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 10 Respondent Kumho postconference brief, pp. 3-4. II-3 Geographic distribution The U.S. producer and importers reported selling NBR to all contiguous regions in the United States (table II-2). For the U.S. producer, *** percent of sales were within 100 miles of their production facility, *** percent were between 101 and 1,000 miles, and *** percent were over 1,000 miles. Importers sold *** percent within 100 miles of their U.S. point of shipment, *** percent between 101 and 1,000 miles, and *** percent over 1,000 miles. Table II-2 NBR: Count of U.S. producer’s and U.S. importers’ presence in geographic markets, by region and by source of supply Count in number of firms reporting Region U.S. producer France Korea Mexico Subject sources Northeast *** 2 2 1 5 Midwest *** 2 4 1 7 Southeast *** 2 3 1 6 Central Southwest *** 2 3 1 6 Mountains *** 1 1 1 3 Pacific Coast *** 1 3 1 5 Other *** 0 0 0 0 All regions (except Other) *** 1 1 1 3 Reporting firms 1 2 5 1 8 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Other U.S. markets include AK, HI, PR, and VI. Supply and demand considerations U.S. supply Table II-3 provides a summary of the supply factors regarding NBR from the U.S. producer and from subject countries. U.S. production capacity increased over the period, while capacity remained constant for NBR producers in subject countries. Capacity utilization in the United States, France, and Mexico decreased substantially over the period, and capacity utilization by Korean producers of NBR declined ***. Inventories as a ratio to production increased *** for the U.S. producer, while subject producers’ inventories decreased or only faced slight increases. II-4 Table II-3 NBR: Supply factors that affect the ability to increase shipments to the U.S. market, by factor and by country Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratios in percent; capacity utilization as ratio of production to capacity; ending inventories and home and non-U.S. export markets as ratio to total shipments; count in number of firms reporting “yes” responses Factor Measure United States France Korea Mexico Subject suppliers Capacity 2018 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Capacity 2020 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Capacity utilization 2018 Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Capacity utilization 2020 Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventories 2018 Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventories 2020 Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Home market 2020 Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Non-US export markets 2020 Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Ability to shift production Count *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: The responding U.S. producer accounted for virtually all of U.S. production of NBR in 2020. Responding foreign producers/exporters accounted for more than half of imports from France in 2020, less than half of imports from Korea, and more than 75 percent of imports in Mexico. 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.” Domestic production Based on available information, the U.S. producer of NBR has the ability to respond to changes in demand with *** changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced NBR to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to this degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of unused capacity, the ability to shift shipments from alternate markets and inventories, and some ability to shift production to or from alternate products. U.S. production capacity increased over the period, which contributed to the large decrease in capacity utilization from 2018 to 2020. More than *** of the U.S. producer’s shipments of NBR were exported, and Zeon reported that ***. Zeon stated that it did not experience any shortages in its U.S. production facilities, although it did face supply constraints in its imported NBR from nonsubject country Japan, due to a planned maintenance shutdown.11 11 Conference transcript, p. 73 (Cail). II-5 Subject imports from France Based on available information, producers of NBR from France have the ability to respond to changes in demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of NBR to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to this degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of unused capacity and the ability to shift shipments from alternate markets. Factors mitigating responsiveness of supply included limited inventories and an inability to shift production to or from alternate products. Subject imports from Korea Based on available information, producers of NBR from Korea have the ability to respond to changes in demand with moderately large changes in the quantity of shipments of NBR to the U.S. market. The main contributing factor to this degree of responsiveness of supply is the ability to shift shipments from alternate markets. Factors mitigating responsiveness of supply include limited availability of unused capacity and inventories, and an inability to shift production to or from alternate products. Subject imports from Mexico Based on available information, producers of NBR from Mexico have the ability to respond to changes in demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of NBR to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to this degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of unused capacity, and the ability to shift shipments from alternate markets and inventories. Factors mitigating responsiveness of supply include an inability to shift production from alternate products. Imports from nonsubject sources Nonsubject imports accounted for 31.2 percent of total U.S. imports in 2020. The largest source of nonsubject imports during 2018-2020 was Japan, which accounted for more than two-thirds of nonsubject imports in 2020. Supply constraints U.S. producer *** Zeon reported that it *** supply constraints since January 1, 2018, citing a ***. Eight of 14 importers reported that they had not experienced supply constraints since January 1, 2018. The remaining six importers that had experienced supply constraints cited the II-6 increased demand for latex NBR as an input for nitrile gloves due to the pandemic, which has taken priority over NBR manufacturing; supply chain and logistics disruptions, including ocean logistics issues, congested ports, and shortages of equipment; and force majeures declared by producers of acrylonitrile, which disrupted the supply of an input to NBR. During 2020, ocean freight and logistics contributed to supply constraints in the United States.12 Respondent Negromex stated that in addition to ocean freight complications, there is a shortage of truck drivers in the United States that has also contributed to extended lead times and supply constraints.13 U.S. demand Based on available information, the overall demand for NBR is likely to experience moderate changes in response to changes in price. The main contributing factors are the limited range of substitute products and the moderate share of NBR in most of its end-use products. End uses and cost share U.S. demand for NBR depends on the demand for U.S.-produced downstream products. NBR accounts for a moderate share of the cost of the end-use products in which it is used. Reported cost shares for some end uses were as follows: • Hydraulic, fuel, and other hoses (40-50 percent) • Flooring mats (40 percent) • Compounds (40 percent) • Flexible PVC (40 percent) • Conveyor and power transmission belts (30 percent) • Wire and cables (10 percent) Business cycles U.S. producer Zeon stated that demand for NBR is non-seasonal and that the NBR market is ***.14 Most importers reported that the NBR market was not subject to business cycles (10 of 14) or distinct conditions of competition (13 of 14). Importer *** reported that demand for NBR increases during the first quarter of the year as customers restock their inventories; that there 12 Conference transcript, p. 73 (Cail). 13 Conference transcript, p. 168 (Quintero). 14 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 22. II-7 is a slowdown during the summer season as auto production slows; and customers try to offload their inventories at the end of the year. Two importers (***) reported that the NBR market exhibits some seasonality connected with the oil and gas, mining, and construction industries. Importer *** reported distinct conditions of competition, citing different end uses for NBR requiring different grades. Demand trends U.S. producer Zeon reported *** in U.S. demand for NBR since January 1, 2018 (table II- 4). A plurality of importers reported that demand fluctuated since 2018, and three importers (including ***) reported that U.S. demand declined. Importer *** reported that one application for NBR, runway resurfacing, is dependent on weather and government contracts. Importer *** reported that the automotive sector was adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and importer *** reported that its customers purchased less in 2019 and that the COVID-19 pandemic also adversely affected demand for NBR. Table II-4 NBR: Count of U.S. producer’s and U.S. importers’ responses regarding overall U.S. demand and demand outside the United States, by firm type Count in number of firms reporting Market Firm type Increase No change Decrease Fluctuate Domestic demand U.S. producer *** *** *** *** Domestic demand Importers 1 2 3 5 Foreign demand U.S. producer *** *** *** *** Foreign demand Importers 1 3 1 4 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Domestic auto production declined during 2018-20 (see figure II-1 and table II-5). Oil and gas production increased slightly through 2019 before declining through 2020 (figure II-2 and table II-6). Petitioners and respondents indicated that demand for NBR was affected by declines in auto production and sales and in the oil and gas sector in 2020.15 Similarly, the demand for walk-off mats, which are used in manufacturing plants, restaurants, and casinos, also declined during the COVID-19 pandemic.16 15 Conference transcript, pp. 45, 116, 134-135 (Cail, Quintero); Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 22; Respondent Kumho postconference brief, p. 6. 16 Conference transcript, pp. 134-135, 143-144 (Kendler, Quintero). II-8 Figure II-1 Domestic auto production: Thousands of units, monthly, seasonally adjusted, January 2018-May 2021 Source: Federal Reserve Economic Data, Domestic auto production, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DAUPSA, accessed July 29, 2021. Figure II-2 Oil and gas production: Quadrillion btu, monthly, January 2018-April 2021 Source: EIA, Primary energy production by source, https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/#prices, accessed July 29, 2021. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Jan-18 Mar-18 May-18 Jul-18 Sep-18 Nov-18 Jan-19 Mar-19 May-19 Jul-19 Sep-19 Nov-19 Jan-20 Mar-20 May-20 Jul-20 Sep-20 Nov-20 Jan-21 Mar-21 May-21 Units (1,000s) 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Jan-18 Mar-18 May-18 Jul-18 Sep-18 Nov-18 Jan-19 Mar-19 May-19 Jul-19 Sep-19 Nov-19 Jan-20 Mar-20 May-20 Jul-20 Sep-20 Nov-20 Jan-21 Mar-21 Quadrillion Btu Natural Gas (Dry) Production Crude Oil Production II-9 Table II-5 Domestic auto production: Seasonally adjusted U.S. production, monthly, January 2018-May 2021 Quantity in thousands of units Year Month Quantity 2018 January 217 2018 February 243 2018 March 256 2018 April 250 2018 May 229 2018 June 221 2018 July 196 2018 August 213 2018 September 229 2018 October 236 2018 November 235 2018 December 257 2019 January 233 2019 February 215 2019 March 204 2019 April 205 2019 May 211 2019 June 207 2019 July 210 2019 August 214 2019 September 200 2019 October 184 2019 November 215 2019 December 210 2020 January 218 2020 February 218 2020 March 145 2020 April 2 2020 May 49 2020 June 141 2020 July 216 2020 August 196 2020 September 197 2020 October 189 2020 November 190 2020 December 179 2021 January 181 2021 February 140 2021 March 120 2021 April 139 2021 May 141 Source: Federal Reserve Economic Data, Domestic auto production, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DAUPSA, accessed July 29, 2021. II-10 Table II-6 Oil and gas: U.S. natural gas (dry) and crude oil production, monthly, January 2018-April 2021 Production in quadrillions of British thermal units (btu) Year Month Natural gas (dry) production Crude oil production 2018 January 2.5 1.8 2018 February 2.3 1.6 2018 March 2.6 1.9 2018 April 2.5 1.8 2018 May 2.6 1.8 2018 June 2.6 1.8 2018 July 2.7 1.9 2018 August 2.8 2.0 2018 September 2.7 2.0 2018 October 2.8 2.0 2018 November 2.8 2.0 2018 December 2.9 2.1 2019 January 2.9 2.1 2019 February 2.6 1.9 2019 March 2.9 2.1 2019 April 2.8 2.1 2019 May 3.0 2.1 2019 June 2.9 2.1 2019 July 3.0 2.1 2019 August 3.1 2.2 2019 September 2.9 2.1 2019 October 3.1 2.2 2019 November 3.0 2.2 2019 December 3.1 2.3 2020 January 3.1 2.3 2020 February 2.8 2.1 2020 March 3.0 2.2 2020 April 2.9 2.1 2020 May 2.8 1.8 2020 June 2.7 1.8 2020 July 2.9 1.9 2020 August 2.9 1.9 2020 September 2.8 1.9 2020 October 2.9 1.8 2020 November 2.9 1.9 2020 December 3.0 2.0 2021 January 3.0 2.0 2021 February 2.5 1.6 2021 March 3.0 2.0 2021 April 2.9 1.9 Source: EIA, Primary energy production by source, https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/#prices, accessed July 29, 2021. II-11 Supplier qualifications Petitioner Zeon stated that qualifying NBR products for a new customer is a simple and quick process, and that many of Zeon’s customers “co-qualify” multiple suppliers when developing a new part or rubber compound, which enables the customer to switch between suppliers quickly.17 Respondent Kumho stated that customer specifications and qualification processes limit the interchangeability of NBR from different sources and that there is resource- intensive testing before a customer will switch to a new supplier.18 Substitute products U.S. producer Zeon stated that there are few substitutes for NBR for certain applications, such as polychloroprene rubber for certain insulation applications and styrene butadiene rubber (“SBR”) for some conveyor belting applications; however, substitution is generally limited.19 Most importers reported that there are no substitutes for NBR, but two importers reported that there are substitutes for NBR. Substitutes for NBR include ethylene propylene diene rubber for sponge insulation, polychloroprene rubber (“CR”) for hoses, SBR for belting, and elvaloy (modified ethylene copolymer resin) for flexible PVC. Substitutability issues This section will assess the degree to which U.S.-produced NBR and imports of NBR from subject countries can be substituted for one another by examining the importance of certain purchasing factors and the comparability of NBR from domestic and imported sources based on those factors. Based on available data, staff believes that there is a moderately high degree of substitutability between domestically produced NBR and NBR imported from subject sources.20 Factors contributing to this level of substitutability include similar quality and lead times from 17 Petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 25-26. 18 Respondent Kumho’s postconference brief, pp. 20-21; conference transcript, pp. 191-192 (Kendler). 19 Petitioner stated that end users generally choose NBR for its specific properties that other potential substitutes do not have, such as toughness, mechanical properties, and heat and fluid resistance. Conference transcript, p. 56 (Cail); Petitioner postconference brief, Exhibit 1, p. 2. 20 The degree of substitution between domestic and imported NBR depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the domestic and imported products and reflects how easily purchasers can switch from domestically produced NBR to NBR 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-12 U.S. inventories. Firms generally reported that there is interchangeability between NBR from the United States and subject sources, but some reported limited significant factors other than price, including customer approval, end use application, batch-processing versus continuous processing, logistics and performance. Factors affecting purchasing decisions Purchasers responding to lost sales lost revenue allegations21 were asked to identify the main purchasing factors their firm considered in their purchasing decisions for NBR. The major purchasing factors identified by firms include price, technical specifications, quality, reliability, and/or availability. Table II-7 NBR: Count of ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions as reported by U.S. purchasers, by factor Number of firms reporting Factor First Second Third Total Price / Cost 0 1 8 9 Specifications 6 1 0 7 Quality 3 2 1 6 Reliability 2 3 0 5 Availability 0 3 1 4 All other factors 0 1 1 NA Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Other factors include lead times, technical support, product technology, willingness for supplier to maintain consignment inventory, supplier's historical performance factors, and payment terms. Note: NA = Not applicable. Lead times NBR is primarily sold from inventory. U.S. producer Zeon reported that *** percent of their commercial shipments were sold from inventories, with lead times averaging *** days. The remaining *** percent of their commercial shipments were produced-to-order, with lead times averaging *** days. Importers reported that *** percent of their commercial shipments were sold from U.S. inventories, *** percent from foreign inventories, and the remaining *** percent of commercial shipments were produced-to-order. Importers reported average lead times of *** days for NBR sold from U.S. inventories, *** days for imported NBR sold from foreign inventories, and *** days for produced-to-order NBR. 21 This information is compiled from responses by purchasers identified by Petitioner to the lost sales lost revenue allegations. See Part V for additional information. II-13 Comparison of U.S.-produced and imported NBR In order to determine whether U.S.-produced NBR can generally be used in the same applications as imports from France, Korea, and Mexico, the U.S. producer and importers were asked whether the products can always, frequently, sometimes, or never be used interchangeably. As shown in tables II-8 and II-9, most firms reported that products can always or frequently be used interchangeably. Importer *** reported that many customers prefer NBR from Kumho (Korea) because of technical differences in specialty elastomers, and that NBR from nonsubject source Japan (imported by Zeon) is similar. Importers *** reported that interchangeability depends on quality, customer approval, and end-use applications. Respondent Kumho stated that U.S. producer Zeon’s batch-produced NBR is not as consistent as NBR produced through a continuous process.22 Table II-8 NBR: Count of U.S. producers reporting the interchangeability between NBR 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. France *** *** *** *** United States vs. Korea *** *** *** *** United States vs. Mexico *** *** *** *** France vs. Korea *** *** *** *** France vs. Mexico *** *** *** *** Korea vs. Mexico *** *** *** *** United States vs. Other *** *** *** *** France vs. Other *** *** *** *** Korea vs. Other *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 22 Respondent Kumho postconference brief, p. 14. II-14 Table II-9 NBR: Count of importers reporting the interchangeability between NBR 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. France 1 3 1 0 United States vs. Korea 1 3 2 0 United States vs. Mexico 1 2 2 0 France vs. Korea 1 3 1 0 France vs. Mexico 1 3 1 0 Korea vs. Mexico 1 2 1 0 United States vs. Other 1 2 2 0 France vs. Other 1 3 2 0 Korea vs. Other 1 2 3 0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. In addition, the U.S. producer and importers were asked to assess how often differences other than price were significant in sales of NBR from the United States, subject countries, or nonsubject countries. As seen in tables II-10 and 11, most firms reported that factors other than price are sometimes or never significant when comparing NBR produced from the United States with NBR from subject countries. Importer *** reported that the approval process for NBR is lengthy and faces multiple technical hurdles, so minor differences in performance, process, and quality are significant differences. Importer *** reported that imports from France are at a disadvantage to U.S.-produced NBR because of long lead times and high logistic costs associated with shipping and logistics slowdowns resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Table II-10 NBR: Count of U.S. producers reporting on the significance of differences other than price between NBR 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. France *** *** *** *** United States vs. Korea *** *** *** *** United States vs. Mexico *** *** *** *** France vs. Korea *** *** *** *** France vs. Mexico *** *** *** *** Korea vs. Mexico *** *** *** *** United States vs. Other *** *** *** *** France vs. Other *** *** *** *** Korea vs. Other *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. II-15 Table II-11 NBR: Count of importers reporting on the significance of differences other than price between NBR 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. France 0 2 1 2 United States vs. Korea 0 2 3 1 United States vs. Mexico 0 1 1 2 France vs. Korea 0 1 3 1 France vs. Mexico 0 1 2 2 Korea vs. Mexico 0 1 2 1 United States vs. Other 0 2 2 1 France vs. Other 0 2 3 1 Korea vs. Other 0 2 2 1 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. III-1 Part III: U.S. producer’s 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 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 response of one firm, Zeon, that accounted for 100 percent of U.S. production of NBR during 2020. U.S. producers The Commission issued a U.S. producer questionnaire to two firms based on information contained in the petitions.1 One firm, Zeon, provided usable data on its operations. Staff believes that this response represents all U.S. production of NBR. Table III-1 lists U.S. producer Zeon, its production locations, position on the petitions, and share of total production. Table III-1 NBR: U.S. producer, its position on the petitions, production locations, and share of reported production in 2020 Firm Position on petitions Production location(s) Share of production Zeon Petitioner Louisville, KY *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 1 In addition to Zeon, a U.S. producer questionnaire was sent to ***, which confirmed it does not produce NBR domestically. Email from ***, July 6, 2021. III-2 Table III-2 presents information on the U.S. producer’s ownership, related and/or affiliated firms. Table III-2 NBR: U.S. producer’s ownership, related and/or affiliated firms Reporting firm Relationship type and related firm Details of relationship *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. As indicated in table III-2, Zeon *** related to foreign producers of the subject merchandise and *** related to U.S. importers of subject merchandise. In addition, as discussed in greater detail below, Zeon *** directly import the subject merchandise and *** purchase the subject merchandise from U.S. importers. Table III-3 presents U.S. producer Zeon’s reported changes in operations since January 1, 2018. Table III-3 NBR: U.S. producer’s reported changes in operations since January 1, 2018. Item Firm name and accompanying narrative response Other *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. III-3 U.S. production, capacity, and capacity utilization Table III-4 and figure III-1 present U.S. producer Zeon’s production, capacity, and capacity utilization. Capacity increased during 2018-19 by *** percent due to ***2 and *** in subsequent periods.3 Production decreased by *** percent during 2018-19 and by *** percent during 2019-20, for an overall *** percent decrease during 2018-20.4 Decreased production coupled with increased capacity resulted in a *** percentage point decrease in capacity utilization from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2020. Production was *** percent higher in interim 2021 than in interim 2020, while capacity ***, hence, capacity utilization was *** percentage points higher in interim 2021 than interim 2020. Around *** of Zeon’s total NBR production consisted of XNBR production throughout the period for which data were collected. 2 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 20. 3 Constraints on Zeon’s capacity include ***. Zeon’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, question II-3d. 4 Zeon ***. Zeon’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, question II-5 and email from ***, July 20, 2021. ***. Zeon’s original U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, question II-7. III-4 Table III-4 NBR: U.S. producer’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by period Quantities in 1,000 pounds; ratios and shares in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 Capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Production: XNBR Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Production: All other NBR Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Production: All NBR Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Capacity utilization Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Production: XNBR Share *** *** *** *** *** Production: All other NBR Share *** *** *** *** *** Production: All NBR Share *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Figure III-1 NBR: U.S. producer’s production, capacity, and capacity utilization, by period * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. III-5 Alternative products As shown in table III‐5, *** percent of the product produced using the same machinery or workers used to produce NBR during 2020 was in-scope product. Zeon reported production of *** using the same machinery or workers used to produce NBR. Like NBR production, out-of- scope production also decreased during 2018-20, by *** percent, while out-of-scope production was *** percent higher in interim 2021 than in interim 2020. Zeon reported that ***. With respect to workers, ***.5 Table III-5 NBR: U.S. producer’s overall plant capacity and production on the same equipment as subject production, by period and by product Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratios and shares in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 Overall capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** NBR production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Latex NBR Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Other Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Total Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Overall capacity utilization Ratio *** *** *** *** *** NBR production Share *** *** *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Latex NBR Share *** *** *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Other Share *** *** *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Total Share *** *** *** *** *** Total production Share *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: “Out-of-scope production: Latex NBR” does not include latex NBR that was used to produce in- scope NBR. 5 Zeon’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, question II-4(b). III-6 U.S. producer’s U.S. shipments and exports Table III-6 presents U.S. producer Zeon’s U.S. shipments, export shipments, and total shipments. Both U.S. shipments and export shipments decreased during 2018-20, with greater decreases occurring during 2019-20 than 2018-19. During 2018-20, U.S. shipment quantities and values decreased by *** and *** percent, respectively. U.S. shipment quantities and values decreased by *** and *** percent, respectively, during 2018-19, and decreased by *** and *** percent during 2019-20. U.S. shipment quantities were *** percent higher in interim 2021 than in interim 2020, while U.S. shipment values were *** percent lower. The share of total shipments (by quantity) accounted for by export shipments ranged from *** to *** percent throughout the period for which data were collected. During 2018-20, export shipment quantities and values decreased by *** and *** percent, respectively. Export shipment quantities and values were higher in interim 2021 than in interim 2020, by *** and *** percent, respectively. Zeon exports domestically produced NBR to ***.6 6 ***. Zeon’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, question II-2b. III-7 Table III-6 NBR: U.S. producer’s U.S. shipments, export shipments, and total shipments, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit values in dollars per pound; shares in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 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 *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table III-7 presents U.S. producer Zeon’s U.S. shipments by product type.7 *** percent of Zeon’s U.S. shipments, by quantity, consisted of commercial shipments throughout the period for which data were collected. During 2018-20, U.S. commercial shipment quantities and values decreased by *** percent and *** percent, respectively. U.S. commercial shipment quantities were *** percent higher in interim 2021 than interim 2020, while values were *** percent lower. During 2018-20, U.S. commercial shipments as a share of U.S. shipments decreased by *** percentage points, while internal consumption increased by ***. Internal consumption increased in quantity (*** percent) and value (*** percent) during 2018-20. Zeon internally consumes NBR to produce ***. It also reported *** 8 ***.9 Internal consumption increased during 7 ***. Staff notes on July 20, 2021 phone call with Zeon and Zeon’s revised U.S. producers’ questionnaire, as revised on July 20, 2021. 8 Zeon explained ***. Email from ***, July 28, 2021. 9 *** U.S. shipments of NBR that were reported as internal consumption were sold as is (i.e., diverted back into the open market for NBR). Zeon’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire, question II-10. III-8 2018-20 because ***.10 Except during 2018, internal consumption unit values were higher than U.S. commercial shipment unit values. U.S. commercial shipment unit values decreased by *** percent during 2018-20 and were *** percent lower in interim 2021 than interim 2020, while internal consumption unit values increased by *** percent and were *** percent lower in interim 2021 than interim 2020. Table III-7 NBR: U.S. producer’s U.S. shipments, by shipment type, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars, unit value in dollars per pound; shares in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 Commercial U.S. shipments Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Commercial U.S. shipments Value *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption Value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Value *** *** *** *** *** Commercial U.S. shipments Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption Unit value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Commercial U.S. shipments Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Commercial U.S. shipments Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption Share of value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 10 Email from ***, July 28, 2021. III-9 U.S. producer’s inventories Table III-8 presents U.S. producer Zeon’s end-of-period inventories and the ratio of these inventories to its production, U.S. shipments, and total shipments. End-of-period inventories increased during 2018-19 by *** percent, then decreased during 2019-20 by *** percent, for an overall increase of *** percent during 2018-20. End-of-period inventories were *** percent lower in interim 2021 than interim 2020. Given the increase in end-of-period inventories, coupled with decreasing U.S. production and total shipments during 2018-20, the inventory ratio to U.S. production and inventory ratio to total shipments both increased, by *** and *** percentage points, respectively. Table III-8 NBR: U.S. producer’s inventories and their ratio to select items, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; inventory ratios in percent Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 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. III-10 U.S. producer’s imports U.S. producer Zeon’s imports of NBR are presented in table III-9. Zeon’s imports of NBR (***), decreased by *** percent during 2018-20. However, the decrease in Zeon’s U.S. production of NBR was greater during 2018-20, such that the ratio of Zeon’s imports to U.S. production increased by *** percentage points. Zeon’s imports were *** percent lower in interim 2021 than interim 2020, while Zeon’s U.S. NBR production was *** percent higher, resulting in the ratio of Zeon’s imports to U.S. production being *** percentage points lower in interim 2021 than interim 2020. Table III-9 NBR: *** U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratio of imports to production, by source and by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratios in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 U.S. production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from nonsubject sources (***) Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from nonsubject sources (***) to U.S. production Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table III-10 NBR: *** reasons for importing Item Firm's narrative response *** reason for importing *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. III-11 U.S. employment, wages, and productivity Table III-11 shows U.S. producer Zeon’s employment-related data. Production and related workers (PRWs) increased by *** percent during 2018-20 and returned to 2018 levels during Jan-March 2021.11 Total hours worked and hours worked per PRW increased from 2018 to 2019, then decreased from 2019 to 2020, resulting in overall decreases during 2018-20. Both were lower in interim 2021 than interim 2020. Wages and hourly wages increased from 2018 to 2020, while production decreased, resulting in decreased productivity by *** pounds per hour and increased unit labor costs by *** per pound. However, productivity in Jan-March 2021 was higher than 2018 levels by *** pounds per hour and unit labor costs were lower in interim 2021 than interim 2020 by *** per pound. Table III-11 NBR: U.S. producer’s employment related data, by item and by period Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 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 (pounds per hour) *** *** *** *** *** Unit labor costs (dollars per pound) *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 11 ***. Zeon’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, question II-2b. IV-1 Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares U.S. importers The Commission issued importer questionnaires to 21 firms believed to be importers of subject NBR, as well as to the U.S. producer of NBR.1 Usable questionnaire responses were received from 16 companies,2 representing an estimated *** percent of U.S. imports from France, *** U.S. imports from Korea, *** percent of U.S. imports from Mexico,3 and *** percent of U.S. imports from nonsubject sources in 2020 under HTS subheading 4002.59.00. Unless otherwise noted, data for U.S. imports presented in this report are based on adjusted official import statistics.4 Table IV-1 lists all responding U.S. importers of NBR from France, Korea, Mexico, and other sources, their locations, and their shares of U.S. imports, in 2020. 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 subheading 4002.59.00 in 2020. 2 Three firms, *** certified that they have not imported NBR since January 1, 2018. 3 Industrias Negromex reports that it is the only NBR producer in Mexico and ***. Respondents Industrias Negromex’s and Dynasol’s (“Negromex”) postconference brief, exh. 1, question 8; Industrias Negromex’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire, questions I-7, II-6a, and II-6b; Dynasol’s U.S. importers’ questionnaire, question II-7a; and email from ***, July 21, 2021. 4 Staff decided to use official import statistics due to inconsistencies between import volumes reported in questionnaires and import volumes according to official import statistics. U.S. importer questionnaire respondents were asked to report the quantity and value of out-of-scope product that they imported under HTS subheading 4002.59.00 and these were removed from the official import statistics presented in the report (***). Given these small amounts reported, staff believe that the HTS subheading 4002.59.00 contains relatively small amounts of out-of-scope product. Respondents were also asked if they imported in-scope NBR under another HTS subheading. *** reported importing the following minor quantities of NBR under HTS subheading 4002.99.00: ***. IV-2 Table IV-1 NBR: U.S. importers, their headquarters, and share of U.S. imports in 2020, within source, by firm Shares in percent Firm Headquarters France Korea Mexico Subject sources Non- subject sources All import sources Advance USA Schaumburg, IL *** *** *** *** *** *** Americas International Akron, OH *** *** *** *** *** *** Arlanxeo USA Pittsburgh, PA *** *** *** *** *** *** Armacell Chapel Hill, NC *** *** *** *** *** *** ARP Materials Amherst, NY *** *** *** *** *** *** Cascadia Redmond, WA *** *** *** *** *** *** Dynasol Houston, TX *** *** *** *** *** *** HB Chemical Twinsburg, OH *** *** *** *** *** *** Intertex Carrollton, GA *** *** *** *** *** *** LG Chem America Atlanta, GA *** *** *** *** *** *** Milin Simcoe, ON *** *** *** *** *** *** Mitsui White Plains, NY *** *** *** *** *** *** Omnova Beachwood, OH *** *** *** *** *** *** Posco Anaheim, CA *** *** *** *** *** *** T.L. Squire Akron, OH *** *** *** *** *** *** Zeon Louisville, KY *** *** *** *** *** *** 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 “---.” IV-3 U.S. imports Table IV-2 presents data for U.S. imports of NBR from France, Korea, Mexico, and all other sources. Imports from subject and nonsubject sources decreased during 2018-20 by quantity (28.8 and 34.1 percent, respectively) and by value (44.5 and 45.5 percent, respectively). Imports from nonsubject sources and each of the subject sources decreased in both 2018-19 and 2019-20 by quantity and value, with greater decreases occurring during 2019-20.5 Import quantities and values from subject sources were higher in interim 2021 than interim 2020 (by 17.4 and 20.2 percent, respectively), while import quantities and values from nonsubject sources were lower (by 52.4 and 42.5 percent, respectively). Average unit values (AUVs) of imports from subject sources were lower than AUVs of nonsubject sources throughout the period for which data were collected. On an individual source basis, the AUVs for France were higher than other individual subject sources in all periods, and higher than aggregated imports from nonsubject sources in 2020. AUVs of imports from subject and nonsubject sources decreased during 2018-20 (by 22.0 and 17.4 percent, respectively), but were both higher in interim 2021 than interim 2020 (by 2.4 and 20.6 percent, respectively). Like import quantities and values, AUVs of imports from subject sources and each of the individual subject sources decreased in both 2018-19 and 2019-20, with greater decreases occurring during 2019-20.6 AUVs of imports from nonsubject sources followed the same general trend, except for having increased initially in the 2018-19 period. Approximately two-thirds of imports were from subject sources during 2018-20. Imports from subject sources increased as a share of total imports over each comparison in the data 5 Importers *** reported that COVID-19 reduced demand in the automotive and oil & gas sectors. ***. Foreign producer *** also noted that COVID-19 reduced U.S. demand, resulting in less exports to the U.S. Several importers also reported supply chain bottlenecks caused by suppliers’ reduced production capacity and transportation delays. U.S. importers’ questionnaire, question II-2b, and foreign producer/exporter questionnaire, question II-2b. 6 Staff asked several importers to explain why AUVs were noticeably lower in 2020 compared to previous years. ***. Email from ***, July 20, 2021. ***. Phone call with ***, July 15, 2021 and email from ***, July 14, 2021. IV-4 collection period, with the highest share reported in the interim 2021 period, at 86.5 percent. In 2018, imports from Korea accounted for the greatest share of subject imports by quantity, followed by imports from France. Given that imports from Korea declined by a greater percentage than any other source during 2018-20 (41.8 percent by quantity and 61.1 percent by value), imports from France accounted for the greatest share of subject imports by 2020. During 2018-20, the ratio of subject imports to U.S. production increased from *** to *** percent. The ratio of nonsubject imports to U.S. production also increased, from *** to *** percent in this same period. However, the ratio of subject imports to U.S. production further increased in interim 2021 to *** percent, while the ratio of nonsubject imports to U.S. production decreased to *** percent. Table IV-2 NBR: U.S. imports, by source and by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per pound Source Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 France Quantity 30,883 30,202 25,182 7,735 9,036 Korea Quantity 33,224 30,120 19,323 5,335 8,061 Mexico Quantity 18,539 17,651 14,312 4,549 3,585 Subject sources Quantity 82,646 77,973 58,817 17,619 20,683 Nonsubject sources Quantity 40,520 38,034 26,716 6,786 3,232 All import sources Quantity 123,166 116,006 85,534 24,405 23,914 France Value 41,541 40,259 30,158 10,085 11,330 Korea Value 38,765 29,788 15,076 4,575 7,576 Mexico Value 21,289 17,029 11,180 4,085 3,634 Subject sources Value 101,594 87,076 56,413 18,745 22,539 Nonsubject sources Value 55,869 55,718 30,424 8,533 4,903 All import sources Value 157,464 142,794 86,837 27,278 27,442 France Unit value 1.35 1.33 1.20 1.30 1.25 Korea Unit value 1.17 0.99 0.78 0.86 0.94 Mexico Unit value 1.15 0.96 0.78 0.90 1.01 Subject sources Unit value 1.23 1.12 0.96 1.06 1.09 Nonsubject sources Unit value 1.38 1.46 1.14 1.26 1.52 All import sources Unit value 1.28 1.23 1.02 1.12 1.15 Table continued on next page. IV-5 Table IV-2 Continued NBR: Share of U.S. imports, by source and by period Shares in percent; ratios in percent representing U.S. imports relative to overall U.S. production in percent Source Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 France Share of quantity 25.1 26.0 29.4 31.7 37.8 Korea Share of quantity 27.0 26.0 22.6 21.9 33.7 Mexico Share of quantity 15.1 15.2 16.7 18.6 15.0 Subject sources Share of quantity 67.1 67.2 68.8 72.2 86.5 Nonsubject sources Share of quantity 32.9 32.8 31.2 27.8 13.5 All import sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 France Share of value 26.4 28.2 34.7 37.0 41.3 Korea Share of value 24.6 20.9 17.4 16.8 27.6 Mexico Share of value 13.5 11.9 12.9 15.0 13.2 Subject sources Share of value 64.5 61.0 65.0 68.7 82.1 Nonsubject sources Share of value 35.5 39.0 35.0 31.3 17.9 All import sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 France Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Korea Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from official U.S. imports statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 4002.59.0000, accessed July 18, 2021, adjusted to remove out-of-scope imports as reported in Commission questionnaires. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. Value data are based on landed duty paid values. IV-6 Figure IV-1 NBR: U.S. imports quantity and average unit value, by source and by period Source: Compiled from official U.S. imports statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 4002.59.0000, accessed July 18, 2021, adjusted to remove out-of-scope imports as reported in Commission questionnaires. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Calendar year Jan-Mar Average unit value (dollars per pound) Quantity (million pounds) Subject quantities (left-axis) Nonsubject quantities (left-axis) Subject AUVs (right-axis) Nonsubject AUVs (right-axis) IV-7 U.S. imports of XNBR and all other NBR Table IV-3 presents data for U.S. imports from all sources of XNBR and all other NBR. XNBR accounted for ***, by quantity, of total imports throughout the period for which data were collected. From January 2018 to March 2021, *** percent of XNBR imports came from subject sources (***) and *** percent of XNBR imports came from nonsubject sources (imported by ***). AUVs of XNBR imports were consistently higher than AUVs of all other NBR imports (between *** and *** percent higher during 2018-20). Table IV-3 NBR: U.S. imports from all sources, by type and by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per pound; shares in percent Product type Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 XNBR Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All other NBR Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All NBR Quantity 123,166 116,006 85,534 24,405 23,914 XNBR Value *** *** *** *** *** All other NBR Value *** *** *** *** *** All NBR Value 157,464 142,794 86,837 27,278 27,442 XNBR Unit Value *** *** *** *** *** All other NBR Unit Value *** *** *** *** *** All NBR Unit Value 1.28 1.23 1.02 1.12 1.15 XNBR Share of Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All other NBR Share of Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All NBR Share of Quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 XNBR Share of Value *** *** *** *** *** All other NBR Share of Value *** *** *** *** *** All NBR Share of Value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: XNBR import data were compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. All other NBR import data were calculated by subtracting XNBR import data from data compiled from official U.S. imports statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 4002.59.0000, accessed July 18, 2021, adjusted to remove out of scope imports as reported in Commission questionnaires. IV-8 Negligibility The statute requires that an investigation be terminated without an injury determination if imports of the subject merchandise are found to be negligible.7 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 imports from such countries are deemed not to be negligible.8 Imports from France accounted for 31.9 percent, imports from Korea accounted for 28.3 percent, and imports from Mexico accounted for 16.0 percent of total imports of NBR by quantity during 2020. Table IV-4 NBR: U.S. imports in the twelve-month period preceding the filing of the petition (i.e., June 2020 through May 2021), by source Quantity in 1,000 pounds; share in percent Source of imports Quantity Share of quantity France 25,878 31.9 Korea 22,978 28.3 Mexico 13,013 16.0 Subject sources 61,869 76.2 Nonsubject sources 19,350 23.8 All import sources 81,219 100.0 Source: Compiled from official U.S. imports statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 4002.59.0000, accessed July 18, 2021, adjusted to remove out of scope imports as reported in Commission questionnaires. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. 7 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)). 8 Section 771 (24) of the Act (19 U.S.C § 1677(24)). IV-9 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. Fungibility Table IV-5 and figure IV-2 present shares of the U.S. producer’s and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments by acrylonitrile (“ACN") content.9 As shown in table IV-5, U.S. shipments of NBR from *** were reported as having ACN content that were within all three ranges specified (less than 26 percent, between 26 and 41 percent, and greater than 41 percent), while U.S. shipments from *** were reported as having ACN content ranges of either less than 26 percent or between 26 to 41 percent. NBR with ACN content between 26 and 41 percent represented the majority of U.S. shipments for each source. U.S. importers’ shipments from France accounted for the most U.S. shipments of NBR with less than 26 percent ACN content (*** percent), as well as the most U.S. shipments of NBR with more than 41 percent ACN content (*** percent). 9 These data do not include ***. IV-10 Table IV-5 NBR: Quantity of U.S. producer’s and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments in 2020, by ACN content and by source Quantity in 1,000 pounds Source < 26% ACN 26% to 41% ACN > 41% ACN All ACN content U.S. producer *** *** *** *** France *** *** *** *** Korea *** *** *** *** Mexico *** *** *** *** Subject sources *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** All import sources *** *** *** *** All sources *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table IV-5 Continued NBR: Share of U.S. producer’s and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments in 2020 within source, by ACN content Share across in percent Source < 26% ACN 26% to 41% ACN > 41% ACN All ACN content U.S. producer *** *** *** *** France *** *** *** *** Korea *** *** *** *** Mexico *** *** *** *** Subject sources *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** All import sources *** *** *** *** All sources *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table IV-5 Continued NBR: Share of U.S. producer’s and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments in 2020 within ACN content, by source Share down in percent Source < 26% ACN 26% to 41% ACN > 41% ACN All ACN content U.S. producer *** *** *** *** France *** *** *** *** Korea *** *** *** *** Mexico *** *** *** *** Subject sources *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** All import sources *** *** *** *** All sources *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. IV-11 Figure IV-2 NBR: Share of U.S. producer’s and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments in 2020 within source, by ACN content * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table IV-6 and figure IV-3 present shares of the U.S. producer’s and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments by form: (1) bale/slab; (2) ground, particulate, pellet, or powder; and (3) liquid.10 As shown in table IV-6, NBR in bale/slab form represented the majority or all *** of U.S. shipments for each source. U.S. shipments in ground, particulate, pellet, or powder form were reported from all sources, except for ***. Only *** reported U.S. shipments in liquid form. 10 As noted in footnote 9, these data do not include ***. IV-12 Table IV-6 NBR: Quantity of U.S. producer’s and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments in 2020, by form and by source Quantity in 1,000 pounds Source Bale / slab Ground / powder Liquid All forms U.S. producer *** *** *** *** France *** *** *** *** Korea *** *** *** *** Mexico *** *** *** *** Subject sources *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** All import sources *** *** *** *** All sources *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table IV-6 Continued NBR: Share of quantity of U.S. producer’s and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments in 2020 within source, by form Share across in percent Source Bale / slab Ground / powder Liquid All forms U.S. producer *** *** *** *** France *** *** *** *** Korea *** *** *** *** Mexico *** *** *** *** Subject sources *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** All import sources *** *** *** *** All sources *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table IV-6 Continued NBR: Share of quantity of U.S. producer’s and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments in 2020 within form, by source Share down in percent Source Bale / slab Ground / powder Liquid All forms U.S. producer *** *** *** *** France *** *** *** *** Korea *** *** *** *** Mexico *** *** *** *** Subject sources *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** All import sources *** *** *** *** All sources *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. The ground/powder category also includes particulates and pellets. Liquid is reported in gross weight. IV-13 Figure IV-3 NBR: Share of quantity of U.S. producer’s and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments in 2020 within source, by form * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. The ground/powder category also includes particulates and pellets. Liquid is reported in gross weight. Geographical markets Table IV-7 presents the quantity and shares of U.S. imports of NBR in 2020 by border of entry based on official import statistics. NBR imports entered through all four borders of entry by both subject and nonsubject sources. NBR imports from Mexico entered almost exclusively through ports located in the South and the majority of NBR imports from France entered through ports located in the East. IV-14 Table IV-7 NBR: Quantity of U.S. imports in 2020, by border of entry and by source Quantity in 1,000 pounds Source East North South West All borders France 19,996 619 4,568 --- 25,182 Korea 7,727 5,040 333 6,236 19,336 Mexico 7 --- 14,304 1 14,312 Subject sources 27,729 5,659 19,205 6,237 58,830 Nonsubject sources 5,229 14,647 6,782 438 27,095 All import sources 32,958 20,306 25,987 6,675 85,926 Table continued. Table IV-7 Continued NBR: Share of quantity of U.S. imports in 2020 within source, by border of entry Share across in percent Source East North South West All borders France 79.4 2.5 18.1 --- 100.0 Korea 40.0 26.1 1.7 32.2 100.0 Mexico 0.0 --- 99.9 0.0 100.0 Subject sources 47.1 9.6 32.6 10.6 100.0 Nonsubject sources 19.3 54.1 25.0 1.6 100.0 All import sources 38.4 23.6 30.2 7.8 100.0 Table continued. Table IV-7 Continued NBR: Share of quantity of U.S. imports in 2020 within border of entry, by source Share down in percent Source East North South West All borders France 60.7 3.0 17.6 --- 29.3 Korea 23.4 24.8 1.3 93.4 22.5 Mexico 0.0 --- 55.0 0.0 16.7 Subject sources 84.1 27.9 73.9 93.4 68.5 Nonsubject sources 15.9 72.1 26.1 6.6 31.5 All import sources 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from official U.S. imports statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 4002.59.0000, accessed July 18, 2021. Imports 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. IV-15 Presence in the market Table IV-8 and figures IV-4 and IV-5 present monthly official U.S. import statistics for subject and nonsubject sources. U.S. imports of NBR from each source were present in every month from January 2018 to May 2021. Table IV-8 NBR: Quantity of U.S. imports, by year, by month, and by source Quantity in 1,000 pounds Year Month France Korea Mexico Subject sources Nonsubject sources All import sources 2018 January 1,447 2,293 1,606 5,346 2,442 7,788 2018 February 3,173 2,599 670 6,442 2,377 8,820 2018 March 2,540 3,130 1,788 7,458 4,699 12,157 2018 April 3,561 3,817 2,399 9,776 5,429 15,205 2018 May 2,814 2,799 794 6,407 2,643 9,050 2018 June 2,055 3,195 1,167 6,418 3,587 10,005 2018 July 4,455 2,626 1,388 8,469 3,497 11,966 2018 August 2,475 2,468 1,524 6,468 2,758 9,226 2018 September 1,292 1,299 1,786 4,376 3,594 7,971 2018 October 2,505 4,296 2,483 9,284 3,176 12,460 2018 November 3,000 2,386 1,718 7,104 4,119 11,223 2018 December 1,567 2,342 1,215 5,124 2,396 7,520 2019 January 4,131 3,123 1,738 8,992 3,308 12,300 2019 February 1,315 1,875 1,931 5,120 3,560 8,680 2019 March 3,365 3,969 1,439 8,773 4,507 13,280 2019 April 2,763 2,368 1,018 6,149 6,801 12,950 2019 May 3,868 2,740 1,840 8,448 3,296 11,744 2019 June 1,988 3,014 1,449 6,451 2,674 9,125 2019 July 958 3,623 979 5,559 2,703 8,262 2019 August 2,023 1,786 856 4,665 2,738 7,403 2019 September 3,364 1,700 1,325 6,389 2,589 8,978 2019 October 1,954 1,976 1,881 5,810 2,264 8,075 2019 November 1,905 2,201 1,842 5,947 1,754 7,701 2019 December 2,568 1,775 1,354 5,697 1,979 7,676 Table continued on next page. IV-16 Table IV-8 Continued NBR: Quantity of U.S. imports, by year, by month, and by source Quantity in 1,000 pounds Year Month France Korea Mexico Subject sources Nonsubject sources All import sources 2020 January 3,803 1,656 1,355 6,814 1,914 8,728 2020 February 1,222 2,158 1,090 4,470 2,795 7,265 2020 March 2,709 1,521 2,105 6,335 2,129 8,465 2020 April 3,461 2,696 1,353 7,510 3,999 11,509 2020 May 3,157 1,379 876 5,412 4,830 10,242 2020 June 1,048 1,596 942 3,586 2,388 5,974 2020 July 963 1,418 1,252 3,633 1,648 5,281 2020 August 1,050 1,552 1,061 3,663 1,989 5,652 2020 September 1,975 1,645 1,175 4,795 1,933 6,728 2020 October 1,380 1,723 765 3,868 783 4,652 2020 November 956 757 1,140 2,854 1,412 4,265 2020 December 3,457 1,235 1,199 5,890 1,274 7,165 2021 January 3,076 1,352 1,580 6,007 1,308 7,315 2021 February 3,043 2,576 1,223 6,842 556 7,398 2021 March 2,918 4,160 783 7,860 1,406 9,266 2021 April 3,676 2,217 740 6,633 2,093 8,726 2021 May 2,336 2,788 1,153 6,277 2,688 8,965 Source: Compiled from official U.S. imports statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 4002.59.0000, accessed July 18, 2021. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. IV-17 Figure IV-4 NBR: U.S. imports from individual subject sources, by year, by month, and by source Source: Compiled from official U.S. imports statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 4002.59.0000, accessed July 18, 2021. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. Figure IV-5 NBR: U.S. imports from aggregated subject and nonsubject sources, by year, by month, and by source Source: Compiled from official U.S. imports statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 4002.59.0000, accessed July 18, 2021. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 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 2018 2019 2020 2021 Quantity (thousands of pounds) France Korea Mexico 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 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 2018 2019 2020 2021 Quantity (thousands of pounds) Subject Nonsubject IV-18 Apparent U.S. consumption Table IV-9 and figure IV-6 present data on apparent U.S. consumption for NBR. Apparent U.S. consumption decreased during 2018-19 by *** percent in quantity and *** percent in value. Apparent U.S. consumption further decreased during 2019-20 by *** percent in quantity and *** percent in value, for a total decrease during 2018-20 of *** percent in quantity and *** percent in value. Apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent lower in quantity and *** percent lower in value in interim 2021 than interim 2020. Table IV-9 NBR: Apparent U.S. consumption, by source and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars Source Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 U.S. producer Quantity *** *** *** *** *** France Quantity 30,883 30,202 25,182 7,735 9,036 Korea Quantity 33,224 30,120 19,323 5,335 8,061 Mexico Quantity 18,539 17,651 14,312 4,549 3,585 Subject sources Quantity 82,646 77,973 58,817 17,619 20,683 Nonsubject sources Quantity 40,520 38,034 26,716 6,786 3,232 All import sources Quantity 123,166 116,006 85,534 24,405 23,914 All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producer Value *** *** *** *** *** France Value 41,541 40,259 30,158 10,085 11,330 Korea Value 38,765 29,788 15,076 4,575 7,576 Mexico Value 21,289 17,029 11,180 4,085 3,634 Subject sources Value 101,594 87,076 56,413 18,745 22,539 Nonsubject sources Value 55,869 55,718 30,424 8,533 4,903 All import sources Value 157,464 142,794 86,837 27,278 27,442 All sources Value *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official U.S. imports statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 4002.59.0000, accessed July 18, 2021, adjusted to remove out of scope imports as reported in Commission questionnaires. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. Value data are based on landed, duty-paid values. IV-19 Figure IV-6 NBR: Apparent U.S. consumption, by source and period * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official U.S. imports statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 4002.59.0000, accessed July 18, 2021, adjusted to remove out of scope imports as reported in Commission questionnaires. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. Value data are based on landed, duty-paid value. IV-20 U.S. market shares U.S. market share data are presented in table IV-10. Subject imports accounted for the majority of the U.S. market during 2018-20, at around *** percent, followed by imports from nonsubject sources, which accounted for around *** percent of the market. Lastly, the U.S. producer’s U.S. shipments account for around *** percent of the market. By quantity, U.S. imports from France and Mexico and U.S. producer Zeon’s U.S. shipments each increased in market share during 2018-20, by ***, ***, and *** percentage points, respectively. Conversely, market share of U.S. imports from Korea and nonsubject sources decreased by *** and *** percentage points, respectively. Market share by quantity was higher in interim 2021 than interim 2020 for all sources, except for imports from Mexico and nonsubject sources, which were *** and *** percentage points lower, respectively, in interim 2021. By value, U.S. imports from France and U.S. producer Zeon’s U.S. shipments increased in market share during 2018-20, by *** and *** percentage points, respectively. Conversely, market share of U.S. imports from Korea, Mexico, and nonsubject sources decreased by ***, ***, and ***, respectively. Market share by value was higher in interim 2021 than interim 2020 for imports from Korea (*** percentage points) and France (*** percentage points), and lower in interim 2021 for imports from Mexico (*** percentage points), nonsubject sources (*** percentage points) and U.S. producer Zeon’s U.S. shipments (*** percentage points). IV-21 Table IV-10 NBR: Market shares, by source and period Shares in percent Source Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 U.S. producer Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** France Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Korea Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producer Share of value *** *** *** *** *** France Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Korea Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official U.S. imports statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 4002.59.0000, accessed July 18, 2021, adjusted to remove out of scope imports as reported in Commission questionnaires. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. Value data are based on landed, duty-paid value. V-1 Part V: Pricing data Factors affecting prices Raw material costs Major raw materials for NBR include monomers acrylonitrile and 1,3-butadiene (“butadiene”).1 U.S. producer Zeon reported that its raw material costs as a share of COGS *** from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2020. Acrylonitrile and butadiene prices increased during 2018, decreased in 2019 and through mid-2020, and increased to above 2018 levels in 2021, with a large spike in acrylonitrile prices in March 2021 (figure V-1 and table V-1). Respondent Negromex stated that the price increases in 2018 were due to unplanned outages.2 Respondent Negromex estimated that 75 percent of the cost of raw materials is attributable to acrylonitrile and butadiene.3 Prices for NBR incorporate acrylonitrile and butadiene monomer index prices and conversion costs.4 Petitioner stated that conversion costs change on less than a quarterly basis and that the average monomer cost was stable from 2018 to 2020, increasing during 2018 and decreasing in 2019 and 2020.5 1 Petition, p. 9. 2 Conference transcript, pp. 114-115 (Quintero). 3 Conference transcript, p. 114 (Quintero). 4 Conference transcript, p. 28 (Dalton); Petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 17, 22-23. Petitioner Zeon stated that it relies on Chemical Data, LLC for the acrylonitrile and butadiene monomer indices in North America, S&P Platts data for the market in Korea, and the AEGIS market data for the market in Europe. Conference transcript, pp. 74-75 (Cail). 5 Conference transcript, pp. 28-29 (Dalton); Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 23. V-2 Figure V-1 Raw materials: Prices of acrylonitrile, ***, and butadiene, ***, cents per pound, monthly, January 2018-June 2021 Price in cents per pound * * * * * * * Source: *** data provided by Respondent Negromex, July 29, 2021. V-3 Table V-1 Raw materials: Prices of ***, cents per pound, monthly, by raw material, January 2018-June 2021 Price in cents per pound Year Month Acrylonitrile price Butadiene 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: *** data provided by Respondent Negromex, July 29, 2021. V-4 Transportation costs to the U.S. market Transportation costs for NBR shipped from subject countries to the United States averaged 6.8 percent of NBR customs value of imports from France, 14.3 from Korea, and 2.6 from Mexico during 2020. These estimates were derived from official import data and represent the transportation and other charges on imports.6 U.S. inland transportation costs U.S. producer Zeon reported that *** for transportation. The majority of importers (7 of 13) reported that their purchasers typically arrange for transportation of their NBR purchases. U.S. producer Zeon reported that their U.S. inland transportation costs were *** percent of total cost. Importers reported that U.S. transportation costs ranged from less than 1 to 5 percent of total cost. Pricing practices Pricing methods U.S. producer Zeon reported using ***. Importers *** reported setting prices using transaction-by-transaction negotiations, contracts, price lists, and other methods (table V-2). Table V-2 NBR: U.S. producer’s and importers’ reported price setting methods, count Method U.S. producer U.S. importers Transaction-by-transaction *** 12 Contract *** 6 Set price list *** 2 Other *** 4 Responding firms 1 14 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. 6 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 number 7303.00.0030. V-5 U.S. producer Zeon stated that the majority of its sales are spot sales.7 Importers also reported selling a large share of their NBR through spot sales (table V-3). The remaining shipments of U.S.-produced NBR are sold through ***. Three importers reported sales through annual contracts and two reported sales through long-term contracts. All three responding importers reported that prices were indexed to raw material prices. Petitioner Zeon stated that some of its customers are given pricing on a monthly or quarterly basis, but others have agreements where pricing moves fully at Zeon’s discretion.8 Importer *** reported that contracts with its customers adjust prices on a quarterly basis based on the Platt index and freight cost changes. Table V-3 NBR: U.S. producer’s and importers’ shares of U.S. commercial shipments by type of sale, 2020 Share in percent Item U.S. producer Subject U.S. importers Long-term contracts *** *** Annual contract *** *** 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. Sales terms and discounts U.S. producer Zeon typically quotes prices on *** and four of seven importers typically quote prices on a delivered basis. Zeon reported *** discounts. Most importers (11 of 14) reported no discount policies. Importers *** reported quantity and total volume discounts and importer *** reported that it has *** but does not offer discounts to other customers. 7 Conference transcript, p. 75 (Cail). 8 Conference transcript, p. 76 (Cail). V-6 Price data The Commission requested the U.S. producer and importers to provide quarterly data for the total quantity and f.o.b. value of the following NBR products shipped to unrelated U.S. customers during January 2018-March 2021. Product 1.-- Commodity NBR with Acrylonitrile content ranging from 26 percent to 41 percent and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25-45 kgs. Product 2.-- Specialty NBR with Acrylonitrile content less than 26 percent or greater than 41 percent; Hot Polymerized, and/or containing methacrylic acid, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25-45 kgs. Product 3.-- Commodity NBR with Acrylonitrile content ranging from 26 percent to 41 percent and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, ground/particulate/pellet form, sold in 20-30 kg bags. Product 4.-- Specialty NBR with Acrylonitrile content less than 26 percent or greater than 41 percent; Hot Polymerized, and/or containing methacrylic acid, ground/particulate/pellet form, sold in 20-30 kg bags. U.S. producer Zeon and seven importers provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters.9 No importers reported pricing data for product 3 from Korea or product 4 from any source. Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for *** of U.S. producer’s shipments of NBR, *** of U.S. shipments of subject imports from France, *** percent of subject imports from Korea, and *** subject imports from Mexico during January 2018-March 2021.10 Price data for products 1-4 are presented in tables V-4 to V-7 and figures V-2 to V-5. 9 Per-unit pricing data are calculated from total quantity and total value data provided by the U.S. producer and importers. The precision and variation of these figures may be affected by rounding, limited quantities, and producer or importer estimates. 10 Pricing coverage is based on U.S. shipments reported in questionnaires. V-7 Table V-4 NBR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Quantity in 1,000 pounds; prices in dollars per pound; margins in percent; periods in quarters Period U.S. price U.S. quantity France price France quantity France margin Korea price Korea quantity Korea 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 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table V-4 Continued NBR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Quantity in 1,000 pounds; prices in dollars per pound; margins in percent; periods in quarters Period U.S. price U.S. quantity Mexico price Mexico quantity Mexico margin Subject price Subject quantity Subject 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 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 1: Commodity NBR with Acrylonitrile content ranging from 26% to 41% and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25-45 kgs. V-8 Table V-5 NBR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Quantity in 1,000 pounds; prices in dollars per pound; margins in percent; periods in quarters Period U.S. price U.S. quantity France price France quantity France margin Korea price Korea quantity Korea 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 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table V-5 Continued NBR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Quantity in 1,000 pounds; prices in dollars per pound; margins in percent; periods in quarters Period U.S. price U.S. quantity Mexico price Mexico quantity Mexico margin Subject price Subject quantity Subject 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 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 2: Specialty NBR with Acrylonitrile content less than 26% or greater than 41%; Hot Polymerized, and/or containing methacrylic acid, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25-45 kgs. Note: The *** price for pricing product 2 from Mexico during Q4 2020 may be attributable to the *** during that period. V-9 Table V-6 NBR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Quantity in 1,000 pounds; prices in dollars per pound; margins in percent; periods in quarters Period U.S. price U.S. quantity France price France quantity France 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 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table V-6 Continued NBR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Quantity in 1,000 pounds; prices in dollars per pound; margins in percent; periods in quarters Period U.S. price U.S. quantity Subject price Subject quantity Subject 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 *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 3: Commodity NBR with Acrylonitrile content ranging from 26% to 41% and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, ground/particulate/pellet form, sold in 20-30 kg bags. Note: U.S. producer Zeon reported ***. See staff email with Zeon, August 6, 2021. V-10 Table V-7 NBR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarter Quantity in 1,000 pounds; prices in dollars per pound; margins in percent; periods in quarters Period U.S. price U.S. quantity 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 *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 4: Specialty NBR with Acrylonitrile content less than 26% or greater than 41%; Hot Polymerized, and/or containing methacrylic acid, ground/particulate/pellet form, sold in 20-30 kg bags. V-11 Figure V-2 NBR: 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: Commodity NBR with Acrylonitrile content ranging from 26% to 41% and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25-45 kgs. V-12 Figure V-3 NBR: 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: Specialty NBR with Acrylonitrile content less than 26% or greater than 41%; Hot Polymerized, and/or containing methacrylic acid, sold in bales or slabs ranging from 25-45 kgs. V-13 Figure V-4 NBR: 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: Commodity NBR with Acrylonitrile content ranging from 26% to 41% and Mooney Viscosity of 30 to 80, ground/particulate/pellet form, sold in 20-30 kg bags. V-14 Figure V-5 NBR: 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: Specialty NBR with Acrylonitrile content less than 26% or greater than 41%; Hot Polymerized, and/or containing methacrylic acid, ground/particulate/pellet form, sold in 20-30 kg bags. V-15 Price trends In general, prices decreased during January 2018-March 2021. Table V-8 summarizes the price trends, by country and by product. As shown in the table, domestic price decreases ranged from *** percent to *** percent during January 2018-March 2021 while import price decreases ranged from *** percent to *** percent. Table V-8 NBR: Summary of price data, by product and source Volume in 1,000 pounds, price in dollars per pound Product Source Number of quarters Quantity Low price High price First quarter price Last quarter price Percent change in price over period Product 1 United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 1 France *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 1 Korea *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 1 Mexico *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 France *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 Korea *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 Mexico *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 France *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 Korea *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 Mexico *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 France *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 Korea *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 Mexico *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Percent change column is percentage change from the first quarter 2018 to the first quarter of 2021. Price comparisons As shown in table V-9 to V-12, prices for product imported from subject sources were below those for U.S.-produced product in 72 of 98 instances (*** pounds); margins of underselling ranged from *** percent to *** percent. In the remaining 26 instances (*** pounds), prices for product from France, Korea, and Mexico were between *** percent and *** percent above prices for the domestic product. V-16 Table V-9 NBR: Instances of underselling and the range and average of margins, by product Quantity in 1,000 pounds; margin in percent Item Number of quarters Quantity Average margin Minimum margin Maximum margin Product 1 *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 *** *** *** *** *** Total, underselling 72 *** *** *** *** 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-10 NBR: Instances of underselling and the range and average of margins, by source Quantity in 1,000 pounds; margin in percent Item Number of quarters Quantity Average margin Minimum margin Maximum margin France *** *** *** *** *** Korea *** *** *** *** *** Mexico *** *** *** *** *** Total, underselling 72 *** *** *** *** 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-11 NBR: Instances of overselling and the range and average of margins, by product Quantity in 1,000 pounds; margins and differentials in percent Item Number of quarters Quantity Average margin Minimum margin Maximum margin Product 1 *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 *** *** *** *** *** Total, overselling 26 *** *** *** *** 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-17 Table V-12 NBR: Instances of overselling and the range and average of margins, by source Quantity in 1,000 pounds; margins and differentials in percent Item Number of quarters Quantity Average margin Minimum margin Maximum margin France *** *** *** *** *** Korea *** *** *** *** *** Mexico *** *** *** *** *** Total, overselling 26 *** *** *** *** 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. Lost sales and lost revenue U.S. producer Zeon reported that it had to ***. Zeon identified *** firms with which they lost sales or revenue (*** consisting lost sales allegations, *** consisting of lost revenue allegations, and *** consisting of both types of allegations). *** allegations included France, *** allegations included Korea, and *** included Mexico. Staff contacted *** purchasers and received responses from 11 purchasers. Responding purchasers reported purchasing *** pounds of NBR and importing *** pounds of NBR during 2018-20 (table V-13). V-18 Table V-13 NBR: Purchasers’ reported purchases and imports, by firm, 2018-20 Quantity in 1,000 pounds, change in share 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. During 2020, responding purchasers purchased *** percent from the U.S. producer, *** percent from France, *** percent from Korea, and *** percent from Mexico; *** percent of purchases were from nonsubject countries. Purchasers were asked about changes in their purchasing patterns from different sources since 2018. Of the responding purchasers, three reported decreasing purchases from the domestic producer, one reported increasing purchases, one reported no change, two reported fluctuating purchases, and four did not purchase any domestic product.11 Explanations for decreasing purchases of domestic product included changes in customer demand, COVID-19 related issues, and purchaser *** reported that it would spot buy Zeon’s U.S.-produced NBR when its NBR supply from Japan was short. Explanations for increasing purchases of domestic product included business growth. Of the 11 responding purchasers, 6 reported that, since 2018, they had purchased imported NBR from France, Korea, and/or Mexico instead of U.S.-produced product. Four of these purchasers reported that subject import prices were lower than U.S.-produced product, and one of these purchasers reported that price was a primary reason for the decision to purchase imported product from *** rather than U.S.-produced product. This purchaser 11 No purchasers reported that they did not know the source of the NBR that they purchased. V-19 estimated the quantity of NBR from *** purchased instead of domestic product was *** pounds (tables V-14 and V-15). Purchasers identified availability, customer specifications, technical criteria, and diversification of supply as non-price reasons for purchasing imported rather than U.S.-produced product. Of the 11 responding purchasers, two reported that the U.S. producer had reduced prices in order to compete with lower-priced imports from France, Korea, and/or Mexico; five reported that Zeon did not lower prices; and three reported that they did not know (tables V-15 and V-16). Purchaser *** reported a *** from Zeon. In responding to the lost sales lost revenue survey, some purchasers provided additional information on purchases and market dynamics, as well as reasons for sourcing from particular producers (table V-17). Two purchasers reported that they source NBR from Japan, one purchaser reported that it prefers Kumho (Korea) for their long-term business relationship, one reported shifting its purchases from Mexico to Korea, while another reported that Kumho has been an inconsistent supplier. One purchaser reported that the NBR grades that it required are unavailable in the United States. V-20 Table V-14 NBR: Purchasers’ responses to purchasing subject imports instead of domestic product, by firm Quantity in 1,000 pounds Firm Purchased subject imports instead of domestic Imports priced lower Choice based on price Quantity Explanation *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms Yes--6; No--5 Yes--4; No--1 Yes--1; No--4 *** NA Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. V-21 Table V-15 NBR: Purchasers’ responses to purchasing subject imports instead of domestic product, by country Quantity in 1,000 pounds Source Purchased subject imports instead of domestic Imports priced lower Choice based on price Quantity France 6 2 --- *** Korea 5 3 1 *** Mexico 5 1 --- *** Subject sources 6 4 1 *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table V-16 NBR: Purchasers’ responses to U.S. producer price reductions, by firm Firm Producer lowered prices Price reduction Explanation *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms Yes--2; No--5; Don't Know--3 *** NA Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. V-22 Table V-17 NBR: Purchasers’ responses to U.S. producer price reductions, by country Source Producer lowered prices Average price reduction Range of price reductions France *** *** *** Korea *** *** *** Mexico *** *** *** Subject sources *** *** *** 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 (table V-13). Table V-18 NBR: Purchasers’ additional explanations Firm Additional explanations *** *** *** *** Table continued on next page. V-23 Table V-18 NBR: Purchasers’ additional explanations Firm Additional explanations *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VI-1 Part VI: Financial experience of U.S. producers Background The sole U.S. producer, Zeon, provided usable financial results on its NBR operations. Zeon’s financial results were reported on a calendar-year basis. The company’s data were reported on the basis of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). Operations on NBR Table VI-1 presents data on the U.S. producer’s operations in relation to NBR, while table VI-2 presents corresponding changes in average unit values (“AUVs”). VI-2 Table VI-1 NBR: Results of operations of U.S. producer, by item and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; ratios in percent and represent ratios to net sales value Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 Commercial sales Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total net sales Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Commercial sales Value *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption Value *** *** *** *** *** Total net sales Value *** *** *** *** *** Raw material costs Value *** *** *** *** *** Direct labor costs Value *** *** *** *** *** Other factory costs Value *** *** *** *** *** Cost of goods sold Value *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) Value *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expenses Value *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) Value *** *** *** *** *** Interest expense/(income), net Value *** *** *** *** *** All other expenses/(income), net Value *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss) Value *** *** *** *** *** Depreciation/amortization Value *** *** *** *** *** Cash flow Value *** *** *** *** *** Raw material costs Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Direct labor costs Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Other factory costs Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Cost of goods sold Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit Ratio *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expense Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss) Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Table continued on next page. VI-3 Table VI-1 Continued NBR: Results of operations of U.S. producer, by item and period Shares in percent and represent share of cost of goods sold; unit values in dollars per pound; count in number of firms reporting Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 Raw material costs Share *** *** *** *** *** Direct labor costs Share *** *** *** *** *** Other factory costs Share *** *** *** *** *** Cost of goods sold Share *** *** *** *** *** Commercial sales Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption Unit value *** *** *** *** *** 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. Table VI-2 NBR: Changes in AUVs between comparison periods Changes in percent Item 2018-20 2018-19 2019-20 Jan-Mar 2020-21 Commercial sales *** *** *** *** Internal consumption *** *** *** *** Total net sales *** *** *** *** Raw material costs *** *** *** *** Direct labor costs *** *** *** *** Other factory costs *** *** *** *** Cost of goods sold *** *** *** *** Table continued. VI-4 Table VI-2 Continued NBR: Changes in AUVs between comparison periods Changes in dollars per pound Item 2018-20 2018-19 2019-20 Jan-Mar 2020- 21 Commercial sales *** *** *** *** Internal consumption *** *** *** *** Total net sales *** *** *** *** Raw material costs *** *** *** *** Direct labor costs *** *** *** *** Other factory costs *** *** *** *** Cost of goods sold *** *** *** *** 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. Net sales Zeon’s net sales were comprised ***.1 Its net sales, by both quantity and value, decreased in each successive year between 2018 and 2020, but were higher in the first quarter of 2021 than in the first quarter of 2020. The net sales AUVs for NBR decreased from $*** in 2018 to $*** in 2020, and were $*** and $*** in the first quarters of 2020 and 2021, respectively.2 1 The company reported that the majority of its ***. Email from ***. 2 The trends in Zeon’s total net sales generally reflect the trends in its ***. The company’s ***. With the exception of 2018, Zeon’s ***. In response to a question from staff regarding the ***. Email from ***. VI-5 Cost of goods sold and gross profit or loss Zeon’s raw material costs represented the largest share of the company’s cost of goods sold (“COGS”) in 2018 and 2019, and the second largest share in 2020, interim 2020, and interim 2021. As a ratio to net sales, and on a per-pound basis, raw materials increased from 2018 to 2019, but decreased in 2020 to levels below those of 2018. Raw material costs decreased *** between interim 2020 and interim 2021. In response to questions from staff, the company reported that it ***. During the first quarter of 2021, the company experienced ***.3 Table VI-3 presents Zeon’s raw materials, by type. As seen in the table, butadiene and acrylonitrile represent ***. The company reported that its ***.4 Table VI-3 NBR: Raw material costs in 2020 Value in 1,000 dollars; unit values in dollars per pound; share of value in percent Item Value Unit value Share of value Butadiene *** *** *** Acrylonitrile *** *** *** Other material inputs *** *** *** All raw materials *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Zeon’s direct labor costs, which represented the smallest component of COGS, increased each year from 2018 to 2020, and were higher in interim 2021 than in interim 2020. The company reported that the *** percent increase in its direct labor costs from 2018 to 2019 was attributable to *** 3 Email from ***; conference transcript, pp. 80-81 (Dalton). 4 Zeon’s U.S. producer questionnaire, section III-9c. VI-6 ***. The *** percent increase in direct labor from 2019 to 2020 was primarily the result of ***.5 The last component of COGS, other factory costs, was the second largest component in 2018 and 2019, and the largest component in 2020 and during the interim periods. The change from the second largest component to the largest was the result of an increase in other factory costs in 2020, coupled with a decrease in raw material costs that year. On an actual basis, other factory costs decreased from 2018 to 2019, increased from 2019 to 2020, and were higher in interim 2021 than in interim 2020. The company reported that the increase in other factory costs was the result of ***.6 The company’s ***.7 On a per-unit basis, the company’s other factory costs increased *** between 2018 and 2020, and were higher in interim 2021 than during the same period in 2020. While the increase in the total value of other factory costs from 2018 to 2020 contributed to the higher per-unit costs, the decrease in the company’s net sales volume was a larger factor.8 The company’s COGS to net sales ratio increased from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2020, while its net sales volume decreased. This resulted in the company’s gross profit decreasing from $*** in 2018 to *** in 2020. The company reported an improvement in its gross profit in interim 2021 compared with interim 2020, 5 Email from ***. 6 ***. Zeon’s U.S. producer questionnaire (original submission), July 14, 2021. 7 The company does not ***. Email from ***. In order to include the ***. In the U.S. producer questionnaire, companies are instructed to report internal consumption at fair market value (“FMV”). However, the ***. 8 As seen in table VI-2, the company’s other factory costs increased by $*** per pound from 2018 to 2020. Without the inclusion of the company’s ***. Zeon’s U.S. producer questionnaire (original submission), July 14, 2021. VI-7 however this is largely the result of the previously mentioned ***. SG&A expenses and operating income or loss As seen in table VI-1, Zeon’s SG&A expenses decreased irregularly from 2018 to 2020, and were lower in interim 2021 than in interim 2020. The company’s SG&A expenses as a ratio to net sales increased from 2018 to 2020, but were lower in interim 2021 than in interim 2020. The company’s operating income from NBR had similar trends as gross profit. It decreased from 2018 to 2020, and improved between the interim periods. The company experienced ***9 All other expenses and net income or loss Classified below operating income are interest expense and other expenses, net of other income. Zeon reported ***.10 In 2018, 2019, and interim 2020, the net amounts of post- operating income items were negative (i.e., all other income was higher than all other expenses), resulting in an improved net income relative to operating income for those periods. Overall, net income decreased from 2018 to 2020, but was higher in interim 2021 than in interim 2020.11 9 The U.S. producer questionnaire asked companies to describe any effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had on their overall financial performance. Zeon reported: “***.” Zeon’s U.S. producer questionnaire, section III-18. 10 Email from ***. 11 A variance analysis is not shown because of the ***. VI-8 Capital expenditures and research and development expenses Table VI-4 presents the Zeon’s capital expenditures and research and development (“R&D”) expenses. Table VI-5 presents Zeon’s narrative explanations of the nature, focus, and significance of its capital expenditures and R&D expenses. Table VI-4 NBR: U.S. producer’s capital expenditures and R&D expenses, by period Value in 1,000 dollars Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 Capital expenditures *** *** *** *** *** R&D expenses *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table VI-5 NBR: Narrative descriptions of capital expenditures and R&D expenses Item Narrative explanation Capital expenditures *** R&D expenses *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VI-9 Assets and return on assets Table VI-6 presents data on Zeon’s total assets and its operating return on assets (“ROA”) from its NBR operations.12 Table VI-7 presents Zeon’s narrative response explaining its major asset categories and any significant changes in asset levels over time. Table VI-6 NBR: U.S. producer’s total net assets and operating ROA, by period Value in 1,000 dollars; ratios in percent Item 2018 2019 2020 Net assets (1,000 dollars) *** *** *** Operating ROA (ratio) *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table VI-7 NBR: Narrative description of total net assets Firm Narrative explanation Zeon *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 12 The return on assets (“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 on a product-specific basis. VI-10 Capital and investment The Commission requested the U.S. producer of NBR to describe any actual or potential negative effects of imports of NBR from France, Korea, and Mexico on the firm’s growth, investment, ability to raise capital, development and production efforts, or the scale of capital investments. Table VI-8 presents the categories for which Zeon reported an impact and table VI-9 provides the corresponding narrative responses. Table VI-8 NBR: Count indicating U.S. producer’s actual and anticipated negative effects of imports from subject sources on investment, growth, and development since January 1, 2018, by effect Effects as reported by Zeon Effect Category Count Cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects Investment *** Denial or rejection of investment proposal Investment *** Reduction in the size of capital investments Investment *** Return on specific investments negatively impacted Investment *** Other investment effects Investment *** Any negative effects on investment Investment *** Rejection of bank loans Growth *** Lowering of credit rating Growth *** Problem related to the issue of stocks or bonds Growth *** Ability to service debt Growth *** Other growth and development effects Growth *** Any negative effects on growth and development Growth *** Anticipated negative effects of imports Future *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VI-11 Table VI-9 NBR: Narratives relating to actual and anticipated negative effects of imports on investment, growth, and development, since January 1, 2018 Item Firm name and accompanying narrative response *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 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 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 the U.S. producer’s 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 France The Commission issued a foreign producers’ or exporters’ questionnaire to one firm believed to produce and/or export NBR from France, Arlanxeo Emulsion, and it submitted a usable response.3 According to an estimate requested of Arlanxeo Emulsion, production of NBR in France reported in its questionnaire accounts for approximately *** percent of overall production of NBR in France.4 This firm’s exports to the United States accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. imports of NBR from France in 2020. Table VII-1 presents information on the NBR operations of Arlanxeo Emulsion. Table VII-1 NBR: Summary data for producer Arlanxeo Emulsion in France, 2020 Firm Production (1,000 pounds) Share of reported production (percent) Exports to the United States (1,000 pounds) Share of reported exports to the United States (percent) Total shipments (1,000 pounds) Share of firm's total shipments exported to the United States (percent) Arlanxeo Emulsion *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Changes in operations Arlanxeo Emulsion reported no operational or organizational changes since January 1, 2018. 3 This firm was identified through a review of information submitted in the petitions and presented in third-party sources. 4 While Alranxeo Emulsion estimated that it accounted for *** percent of NBR production in France and *** percent of NBR exports from France to the U.S., the export volumes reported in its questionnaire response accounted for *** percent of NBR imports from France, according to official import statistics for HTS subheading 4002.59.00. *** U.S. importers’ questionnaire response, questions I-3, I-4 and II-5a. VII-4 Operations on NBR Table VII-2 presents information on the NBR operations of the responding producer Arlanxeo Emulsion in France. Arlanxeo Emulsion’s NBR production decreased by *** percent during 2018-19 and by *** percent during 2019-20, for a total decrease of *** percent. Production was *** percent higher in interim 2021 than interim 2020 and is projected to increase by *** percent from 2020 to 2021. During 2018-20, a decrease in production and *** capacity resulted in a *** percentage point decrease in capacity utilization. During interim 2021, capacity utilization was *** percentage points higher than in 2020, at *** percent, and is expected to reach *** percent in 2022. Exports to all other markets than the United States accounted for over *** of total shipments,5 while exports to the U.S. accounted for between *** and *** percent of total shipments during 2018-20. Home market shipments accounted for less than *** percent throughout the period for which data were collected. During 2018-20, the decrease in exports to the United States was larger than the decrease in exports to all other markets (*** percent versus *** percent). Correspondingly, exports to the United States as a share of total shipments decreased by *** percentage points, while exports to all other markets as a share of total shipments increased by *** percentage points during 2018-20. All three shipment types: exports to the United States, exports to all other markets, and home market shipments were higher in interim 2021 than interim 2020, by ***, ***, and *** percent, respectively. All three shipment types are also projected to increase during 2020-21 and 2021-22. Exports to the United States are expected to increase by *** percent during 2020-2021 and by *** percent during 2021-2022, exports to all other markets are projected to increase by *** percent during 2020-21 and by *** percent during 2021-22, and home market shipments are expected to increase by *** percent during 2020-21 and by *** percent during 2021-22. End-of-period inventories decreased by *** percent during 2018-20 and are expected to increase by *** percent from 2020-2021. Given that inventories decreased by a greater percentage than total shipments during 2018-20, the ratio of inventories to total shipments decreased from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic *** 5 All other export markets include ***. Arlanxeo Emulsion’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, question II-8. VII-5 ***. Table VII-2 NBR: Data on industry in France, by item and by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 Projection 2021 Projection 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 on next page. VII-6 Table VII-2 Continued NBR: Data on industry in France, by item and by period Shares and ratios in percent Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 Projection 2021 Projection 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. As shown in table VII-3, Arlanxeo Emulsion produces XNBR, which accounted for less than *** percent of total NBR production in any given period. Table VII-3 NBR: Production in France, by product type and by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; shares in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 XNBR Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All other NBR Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All NBR Quantity *** *** *** *** *** XNBR Share *** *** *** *** *** All other NBR Share *** *** *** *** *** All NBR Share *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VII-7 Alternative products As shown in table VII-4, Arlanxeo Emulsion produced other products with the same equipment, machinery, or workers used to produce NBR, including ***. NBR accounted for the majority of total production using the same equipment/machinery or workers, ranging from *** to *** percent of total production. Production of out-of-scope products decreased by *** percent during 2018-20 and was *** percent lower in interim 2021 than interim 2020. Given *** overall capacity and a *** percent decrease in total production, capacity utilization fell by *** percentage points from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2020, then increased to *** percent during interim 2021. Table VII-4 NBR: Overall capacity and production on the same equipment as in-scope production by producer Arlanxeo Emulsion in France, by product and by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; shares and ratio in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 Overall capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** NBR production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Latex NBR Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Other Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Total Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Overall capacity utilization Ratio *** *** *** *** *** NBR production Share *** *** *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Latex NBR Share *** *** *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Other Share *** *** *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Total Share *** *** *** *** *** Total production Share *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VII-8 Exports According to GTA, the leading export markets for non-latex NBR from France are Germany, the United States, and China (table VII-5). During 2020, Germany was the top export market for non-latex NBR from France, accounting for 22.1 percent by value, followed by the United States, accounting for 18.2 percent. Table VII-5 Non-latex NBR: Constructed exports from France, by reporting country and by period Value in 1,000 dollars; share of value in percent Reporting country Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Value 39,726 38,190 28,229 Germany Value 50,555 43,116 34,208 China Value 23,721 18,950 17,616 Italy Value 12,200 7,714 8,621 Taiwan Value 8,902 11,387 8,129 Japan Value 11,789 11,154 6,429 Turkey Value 8,569 5,810 6,210 United Kingdom Value 7,793 5,376 5,498 Spain Value 7,139 5,279 4,690 All other reporting countries Value 53,570 43,170 35,421 All reporting countries Value 223,965 190,145 155,051 United States Share of Value 17.7 20.1 18.2 Germany Share of Value 22.6 22.7 22.1 China Share of Value 10.6 10.0 11.4 Italy Share of Value 5.4 4.1 5.6 Taiwan Share of Value 4.0 6.0 5.2 Japan Share of Value 5.3 5.9 4.1 Turkey Share of Value 3.8 3.1 4.0 United Kingdom Share of Value 3.5 2.8 3.5 Spain Share of Value 3.2 2.8 3.0 All other reporting countries Share of Value 23.9 22.7 22.8 All reporting countries Share of Value 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official imports statistics under HS subheading 4002.59 as reported by various statistical reporting authorities of those authorities’ imports from France (constructed export statistics for France) in the Global Trade Atlas database, accessed July 20, 2021. Note: United States is shown at the top. All remaining top export destinations are shown in descending order of 2020 data. Note: HS subheading 4002.59 covers in-scope NBR but also contains some out-of-scope product. VII-9 The industry in Korea The Commission issued foreign producers’ or exporters’ questionnaires to two firms believed to produce and/or export NBR from Korea.6 A usable response to the Commission’s questionnaire was received from one firm: Kumho.7 Kumho’s exports to the United States accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. imports of NBR from Korea in 2020. According to an estimate requested of Kumho, its production of NBR in Korea reported in its questionnaire response accounts for approximately *** percent of overall production of NBR in Korea. Table VII-6 presents information on the NBR operations of Kumho in Korea. Table VII-6 NBR: Summary data for producer Kumho in Korea, 2020 Firm Production (1,000 pounds) Share of reported production (percent) Exports to the United States (1,000 pounds) Share of reported exports to the United States (percent) Total shipments (1,000 pounds) Share of firm's total shipments exported to the United States (percent) Kumho *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Changes in operations Kumho reported *** operational or organizational changes since January 1, 2018. 6 These firms were identified through a review of information submitted in the petitions and presented in third-party sources. 7 The other firm, ***. Email from ***, July 19, 2021. As shown in table IV-1, *** U.S. importers’ questionnaire response, question II-6a. ***. Respondent Kumho’s postconference brief, exh. 24. VII-10 Operations on NBR Table VII-7 presents information on the NBR operations of the responding producer Kumho in Korea. Kumho’s NBR production decreased by *** percent during 2018-19, then increased by *** percent during 2019-20, for a total decrease of *** percent during 2018-20. Production was *** percent higher in interim 2021 than interim 2020 and is projected to increase by *** percent from 2021-2022. Kumho does not produce XNBR.8 Capacity *** during the data collection period and is ***. Capacity utilization ranged from *** to *** percent during 2018-20 and is projected to reach *** percent in 2022. Export shipments accounted for the majority of Kumho’s total NBR shipments, ranging from *** to *** percent of total shipments.9 Home market shipments and export shipments to the United States decreased by *** and *** percent, respectively, during 2018-20,10 while export shipments to all other markets increased by *** percent. Correspondingly, the share of home market shipments to total shipments and the share of U.S. export shipments to total shipments decreased by *** and *** percentage points, respectively, while the share of export shipments to all other markets increased by *** percentage points. Home market shipments, U.S. export shipments, and exports to all other markets, are each projected to increase from 2021 to 2022, by ***, ***, and *** percent, respectively. The ratio of inventories to total shipments ranged from *** to *** percent during the data collection period. End-of-period inventories increased by *** percent during 2018-20, and were *** percent higher in interim 2021 than interim 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic ***.11 8 Conference transcript, p. 123 (Kendler). 9 Kumho’s export markets include ***. Kumho’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, question II-8. 10 U.S. export shipments decreased by *** percent from 2019 to 2020. According to Kumho, *** Kumho’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, question II-2b. 11 Kumho’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, question II-2b. VII-11 Table VII-7 NBR: Data on industry in Korea, by item and by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 Projection 2021 Projection 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 on next page. VII-12 Table VII-7 Continued NBR: Data on industry in Korea, by item and by period Shares and ratios in percent Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 Projection 2021 Projection 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 Responding firm Kumho reported *** other products produced on the same equipment or machinery, or using the same workers, used to produce NBR. Kumho explained that ***.12 12 Kumho’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, question II-4(b). VII-13 Exports According to GTA, the leading export markets for non-latex NBR from Korea are China and India (table VII-8). During 2020, the top export markets for non-latex NBR from Korea in 2020 were China, accounting for 35.0 percent; India, accounting for 11.2 percent; Vietnam, accounting for 7.4 percent; and the United States, accounting for 6.7 percent, by quantity. Table VII-8 Non-latex NBR: Quantity and value of exports from Korea, by destination market and by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Quantity 34,570 29,128 19,246 China Quantity 73,750 74,199 101,278 India Quantity 42,267 38,405 32,319 Vietnam Quantity 17,624 20,545 21,365 Italy Quantity 13,185 13,693 14,955 Germany Quantity 14,325 12,642 11,790 Turkey Quantity 12,792 9,536 9,743 Indonesia Quantity 10,318 10,170 9,017 Thailand Quantity 9,467 8,588 8,207 All other destination markets Quantity 66,958 60,738 61,187 All destination markets Quantity 295,256 277,642 289,106 United States Value 38,136 25,914 13,106 China Value 80,318 61,110 65,674 India Value 46,025 31,521 22,522 Vietnam Value 20,107 18,613 15,807 Italy Value 13,397 10,764 9,522 Germany Value 15,296 10,708 7,896 Turkey Value 12,758 7,868 6,649 Indonesia Value 12,310 9,787 7,688 Thailand Value 10,702 7,340 5,817 All other destination markets Value 71,494 50,518 41,850 All destination markets Value 320,544 234,142 196,531 Table continued on next page. VII-14 Table VII-8 Continued NBR: Unit value and share of quantity of exports from Korea, by destination market and by period Unit value in dollars per pound; share of quantity is the share of total exports by quantity in percent Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Unit value 1.10 0.89 0.68 China Unit value 1.09 0.82 0.65 India Unit value 1.09 0.82 0.70 Vietnam Unit value 1.14 0.91 0.74 Italy Unit value 1.02 0.79 0.64 Germany Unit value 1.07 0.85 0.67 Turkey Unit value 1.00 0.83 0.68 Indonesia Unit value 1.19 0.96 0.85 Thailand Unit value 1.13 0.85 0.71 All other destination markets Unit value 1.07 0.83 0.68 All destination markets Unit value 1.09 0.84 0.68 United States Share of quantity 11.7 10.5 6.7 China Share of quantity 25.0 26.7 35.0 India Share of quantity 14.3 13.8 11.2 Vietnam Share of quantity 6.0 7.4 7.4 Italy Share of quantity 4.5 4.9 5.2 Germany Share of quantity 4.9 4.6 4.1 Turkey Share of quantity 4.3 3.4 3.4 Indonesia Share of quantity 3.5 3.7 3.1 Thailand Share of quantity 3.2 3.1 2.8 All other destination markets Share of quantity 22.7 21.9 21.2 All destination markets Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official exports statistics under HS subheading 4002.59 as reported by Korea Trade Statistics Promotion Institute (KTSPI) in the Global Trade Atlas database, accessed July 20, 2021. Note: United States is shown at the top. All remaining top export destinations are shown in descending order of 2020 data. Note: HS subheading 4002.59 covers in-scope NBR but also contains some out-of-scope product. VII-15 The industry in Mexico The Commission issued a foreign producers’ or exporters’ questionnaire to one firm believed to produce and/or export NBR from Mexico.13 A usable response to the Commission’s questionnaire was received from this firm, Industrias Negromex. This firm’s exports to the United States accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. imports of NBR from Mexico in 2020.14 According to an estimate requested of Industrias Negromex, the production of NBR in Mexico reported in its questionnaire accounts for *** percent of NBR production in Mexico. Table VII-9 presents information on the NBR operations of Industrias Negromex in Mexico. Table VII-9 NBR: Summary data for producer Industrias Negromex in Mexico, 2020 Firm Production (1,000 pounds) Share of reported production (percent) Exports to the United States (1,000 pounds) Share of reported exports to the United States (percent) Total shipments (1,000 pounds) Share of firm's total shipments exported to the United States (percent) Industrias Negromex *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Changes in operations Industrias Negromex reported *** operational or organizational changes since January 1, 2018. 13 This firm was identified through a review of information submitted in the petitions and presented in third-party sources. 14 While Industrias Negromex reports that it is the only NBR producer in Mexico and ***. Respondent Negromex’s postconference brief, exh. 1, question 8; Industrias Negromex’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, question II-6b. VII-16 Operations on NBR Table VII-10 presents information on the NBR operations of Industrias Negromex in Mexico. Industria Negromex’s NBR production decreased by *** percent during 2018-20 and was *** percent lower in interim 2021 than interim 2020. Production is projected to increase by *** percent during 2020-21. Industrias Negromex does not produce XNBR.15 During 2018-20, a decrease in production and *** capacity16 resulted in a *** percentage point decrease in capacity utilization from *** percent to *** percent. By 2022, capacity utilization is expected to increase to *** percent. Export shipments accounted for the majority of Industria Negromex’s total NBR shipments (between *** and *** percent during the data collection period). Roughly *** of export shipments went to the United States and *** went to all other markets.17 Exports to the United States, exports to all other markets, and home market shipments all decreased during 2018-20, by ***, ***, and *** percent respectively.18 All three shipment types are projected to increase from 2020 to 2021, by ***, ***, and *** percent, respectively.19 U.S. exports’ share of total shipments increased from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2019, then returned to *** percent in 2020. End-of-period inventories decreased during 2018-20, by *** percent. The ratio of inventories to total shipments ranged from *** to *** percent during the data collection period. 15 Conference transcript, p. 128 (Quintero). 16 Industrias Negromex reported a ***. Email from ***, July 21, 2021. ***. 17 All other export markets include ***. Industrias Negromex’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, question II-8. 18 ***. Industrias Negromex’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, question II-2b. 19 The estimated growth for 2021 is based on ***. Industrias Negromex’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire response, question II-8. VII-17 Table VII-10 NBR: Data on industry in Mexico, by item and by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 Projection 2021 Projection 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 on next page. VII-18 Table VII-10 Continued NBR: Data on industry in Mexico, by item and by period Shares and ratios in percent Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 Projection 2021 Projection 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-19 Alternative products As shown in table VII-11, Industrias Negromex produced other products on the same equipment/machinery, or using the same workers, used to produce NBR, including ***. In- scope NBR accounted for the majority of total production using the same machinery /equipment or workers, ranging from *** to *** percent. Like NBR production, out-of-scope production decreased during 2018-20, by *** percent, but was *** percent higher in interim 2021 than interim 2020. Given the decrease in total production and *** overall capacity, total capacity utilization fell by *** percentage points during 2018-20. Table VII-11 NBR: Overall capacity and production on the same equipment as in-scope production by producer Industrias Negromex in Mexico, by product and by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; shares and ratio in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 Overall capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** NBR production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Latex NBR Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Other Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Total Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Overall capacity utilization Ratio *** *** *** *** *** NBR production Share *** *** *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Latex NBR Share *** *** *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Other Share *** *** *** *** *** Out-of-scope production: Total Share *** *** *** *** *** Total production Share *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VII-20 Exports According to GTA, the leading export markets for non-latex NBR from Mexico are the United States, Spain, and Turkey (table IV-12). During 2020, the United States was the top export market for non-latex NBR from Mexico, accounting for 51.6 percent, followed by Spain, accounting for 16.1 percent. Table VII-12 Non-latex NBR: Quantity and value of constructed exports from Mexico, by destination market and by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars Reporting country Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Quantity 18,539 17,651 14,312 Spain Quantity 6,340 5,058 4,471 Turkey Quantity 3,414 3,003 4,170 Brazil Quantity 985 986 1,328 Germany Quantity 1,297 1,277 1,086 China Quantity 2,461 834 781 India Quantity 1,003 553 356 Korea Quantity 282 268 259 Netherlands Quantity 50 --- 198 All other destination markets Quantity 3,109 2,040 778 All destination markets Quantity 37,480 31,670 27,739 United States Value 20,915 16,675 10,893 Spain Value 5,931 4,538 2,965 Turkey Value 3,439 2,675 2,987 Brazil Value 1,177 1,009 983 Germany Value 1,455 1,206 845 China Value 2,422 743 581 India Value 1,026 481 199 Korea Value 373 321 299 Netherlands Value 50 --- 143 All other destination markets Value 3,964 2,366 969 All destination markets Value 40,752 30,014 20,862 Table continued on next page. VII-21 Table VII-12 Continued NBR: Unit value and share of quantity of constructed exports from Mexico, by destination market and by period Unit value in dollars per pound; share of quantity is the share of total exports by quantity in percent Reporting country Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Unit value 1.13 0.94 0.76 Spain Unit value 0.94 0.90 0.66 Turkey Unit value 1.01 0.89 0.72 Brazil Unit value 1.19 1.02 0.74 Germany Unit value 1.12 0.94 0.78 China Unit value 0.98 0.89 0.74 India Unit value 1.02 0.87 0.56 Korea Unit value 1.32 1.20 1.15 Netherlands Unit value 1.00 --- 0.72 All other destination markets Unit value 1.28 1.16 1.24 All destination markets Unit value 1.09 0.95 0.75 United States Share of quantity 49.5 55.7 51.6 Spain Share of quantity 16.9 16.0 16.1 Turkey Share of quantity 9.1 9.5 15.0 Brazil Share of quantity 2.6 3.1 4.8 Germany Share of quantity 3.5 4.0 3.9 China Share of quantity 6.6 2.6 2.8 India Share of quantity 2.7 1.7 1.3 Korea Share of quantity 0.8 0.8 0.9 Netherlands Share of quantity 0.1 --- 0.7 All other destination markets Share of quantity 8.3 6.4 2.8 All destination markets Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official imports statistics under HS subheading 4002.59 as reported by various statistical reporting authorities of those authorities’ imports from Mexico (constructed export statistics for Mexico) in the Global Trade Atlas database, accessed July 20, 2021. Note: United States is shown at the top. All remaining top export destinations are shown in descending order of 2020 data. Note: HS subheading 4002.59 covers in-scope NBR but also contains some out-of-scope product. VII-22 Subject countries combined Table VII-13 presents summary data on NBR operations of the reporting subject producers in the subject countries. Table VII-13 NBR: Data on the industry in subject countries, by item and by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 Projection 2021 Projection 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 on next page. VII-23 Table VII-13 Continued NBR: Data on the industry in subject countries, by item and by period Shares and ratios in percent Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 Projection 2021 Projection 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. Table VII-14 presents summary data on production of XNBR and all other NBR of the reporting subject producers in the subject countries. Table VII-14 NBR: Production in subject countries, by product type and by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds, Shares in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 XNBR Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All other NBR Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All NBR Quantity *** *** *** *** *** XNBR Share *** *** *** *** *** All other NBR Share *** *** *** *** *** All NBR Share *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VII-24 U.S. inventories of imported merchandise Table VII-15 presents data on U.S. importers’ reported inventories of NBR. Inventories of imports from subject sources increased by *** percent from 2018-19, then decreased by *** percent from 2019-20, for an overall *** percent increase during 2018-20. Inventories of imports from subject sources were *** percent higher in interim 2021 than interim 2020.20 Inventories of imports from nonsubject sources increased by *** percent during 2018-20 but were *** percent lower in interim 2021 than interim 2020.21 The ratio of inventories of imports from subject sources to U.S. shipments ranged from *** to *** percent during 2018-20, while the ratio of inventories from nonsubject sources to U.S. shipments ranged from *** (in 2018) to *** percent (in 2020). While end-of-period inventories of imports from nonsubject sources were *** percent lower in interim 2021 than in interim 2020, total import quantities were *** percent lower, thus, the ratio of nonsubject inventories to imports was *** percentage points higher in interim 2021 than in interim 2020. 20 Most of this increase during interim 2021 was from *** increase in end-of-period inventories of imports from ***. ***. Email from ***, August 5, 2021. 21 Most of this increase during 2018-20 was from *** increase in end-of-period inventories of imports from nonsubject sources. VII-25 Table VII-15 NBR: U.S. importers’ inventories, by source and by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratios in percent Measure Source 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Mar 2020 Jan-Mar 2021 Inventories quantity France *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to imports France *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports France *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports France *** *** *** *** *** Inventories quantity Korea *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to imports Korea *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports Korea *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports Korea *** *** *** *** *** Inventories quantity Mexico *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to imports Mexico *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports Mexico *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports Mexico *** *** *** *** *** 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. VII-26 U.S. importers’ outstanding orders The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the importation of NBR after March 31, 2021. Their reported data is presented in table VII-16. Table VII-16 NBR: Quantity of U.S. importers’ arranged imports, by source and by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds Source of arranged imports Apr-Jun 2021 Jul-Sep 2021 Oct-Dec 2021 Jan-Mar 2022 Total France *** *** *** *** *** Korea *** *** *** *** *** Mexico *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** *** All import sources *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Third-country trade actions NBR from France and Korea is subject to antidumping or countervailing duties in countries other than the United States. Brazil applies antidumping duties to imports of NBR from both Korea and France.22 China applies antidumping duties to imports of NBR from Korea and Japan.23 India applies antidumping duties to imports of NBR from Korea.24 On May 12, 22 On March 2, 2018, preliminary duties on France and Korea were imposed. The rate of duty on imports from France was USD 0.64 or 0.75 per kg depending on the company. The rate of duty on imports from the Republic of Korea was USD 0.23 or 0.45 per kg depending on the company. The duty was in effect for six months. On August 13, 2018, Brazilian authorities imposed a final definitive antidumping duty to imports of NBR from Korea and France. The rate of duty on imports from Korea was USD 0.15 or 0.34 per kg. The rate of duty on imports from France was USD 0.65 or 0.92 per kg depending on the company. The measure is in force for a period of 5 years. AD duties do not apply to nitrile rubbers in liquid form and nitrile rubbers in powder produced through the spray drying process with a particle size equal to or less than 0.16 mm. Brazilian Executive Secretary of the Foreign Trade Chamber, “Resolution No. 53 of August 10, 2018,” August 13, 2018, Google translation from Portuguese to English available, http://www.camex.gov.br/component/content/article/62-resolucoes-da-camex/em- vigor/2066-resolucao-n-53-de-10-de-agosto-de-2018; Global Trade Alert, “Brazil: Definitive Anti- dumping Duty on Imports of Nitrile Rubber (NBR) from France and the Republic of Korea,” March 2, 2018, https://www.globaltradealert.org/intervention/57568/anti-dumping/brazil-definitive- antidumping-duty-on-imports-of-nitrile-rubber-nbr-from-france-and-the-republic-of-korea. 23 Temporary anti-dumping duties began July 16, 2018. The final order began November 9, 2018 and is in effect for 5 years. The final ADD rates for Korea were as follows: Kumho Petrochemical, 12.0 percent; LG Chem, 15.0 percent; all others, 37.3 percent. The final ADD rates from Japan were as follows: Zeon Corporation, 28.1 percent; JSR Corporation, 16 percent; all others, 56.4 percent. Zhang, (continued...) VII-27 2021, the Government of India published its final findings to impose antidumping duties to imports from the EU, China, Russia, and Japan.25 Subsequently, on July 20, 2021, the Central (…continued) Fanny, “China Imposes Anti-dumping Duties on S. Korea, Japan NBR from Nov 9,” ICIS, August 11, 2018, https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2018/11/08/10278637/china-imposes-anti-dumping- duties-on-s-korea-japan-nbr-from-9-nov/; Reuters, “China Imposes Temporary Anti-dumping Measures on Japan, S. Korea Nitrile Rubber,” July 16, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/china-antidumping- rubber/china-imposes-temporary-anti-dumping-measures-on-japan-s-korea-nitrile-rubber- idUKB9N1U401P; Rubber and Plastics News, “China Places Tariffs on Nitrile Rubber from South Korea, Japan,” July 17, 2018, https://www.rubbernews.com/article/20180717/NEWS/180719947/china-places- tariffs-on-nitrile-rubber-from-south-korea-japan. 24 On March 15, 1996, the Government of India initiated an investigation of NBR from Germany and Korea. After a long historical imposition of duties on Korea, the government of India voted on November 24, 2020 in its sunset investigation to continue AD duties on Korea. These duties are to be imposed 5 years from the publication of the notice on November 24, 2020. The AD duty rates are as follows: Kumho Petrochemical Company Ltd., US $47.43 per metric ton; others, US $327.12 per metric ton. Certain products are excluded from the AD duties, which are latex NBR, powder NBR, and carboxylate NBR. Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, Notice of Initiation of Investigation, March 15, 1996, https://www.dgtr.gov.in/sites/default/files/Initiation_9.pdf. Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, Notification Final Findings, November 24, 2020, pp. 36-37 (AD duties) and p. 37 (certain product exclusions), https://www.dgtr.gov.in/sites/default/files/NCV%20NBR%20Final%20Finding- 1%20%281%29.pdf. 25 On May 26, 2020, the government of India initiated an anti-dumping investigation on NBR from China, the European Union, Japan, and Russia. On May 12, 2021, final findings were published, and all four countries were found to be dumping, and the AD duties were published. The imposition was expected within 3 months of the published final findings. The AD duties were determined for all countries and companies to be a rate of US $2086.78 per metric ton, with the exception of JSR Japan that had a rate of “not applicable.” Liquid NBR, latex NBR, powdered NBR, and carboxylated NBR are excluded from the scope (final determination, p. 6 of 61). Government of India, Directorate General of Trade Remedies, Department of Commerce, “Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of ‘Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber’ (NBR) originating in or exported from China PR, European Union, Japan and Russia,” Case No.: 6/18/2020-DGTR, accessed July 30, 2021, https://www.dgtr.gov.in/anti-dumping- cases/anti-dumping-investigation-concerning-imports-%E2%80%9Cacrylonitrile-butadiene- rubber%E2%80%9D; the antidumping duties are published in the final findings from the Indian government, May 12, 2021, pp. 59-61, https://www.dgtr.gov.in/sites/default/files/Final%20findings%20of%20NBR%20dated%2012th%20May %2C%202021%20in%20word%20revised.pdf; The Economic Times, “Commerce Ministry seeks anti- dumping duty on certain rubber imported from 4 countries,” May 13, 2021, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/foreign-trade/comm-min-seeks-anti-dumping- duty-on-certain-rubber-imported-from-4-countries/articleshow/82606187.cms; Jestin, Priya, “India to Impose Anti-dumping duty on NBR from China, Japan, EU, and Russia,” May 18, 2021, https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2021/05/18/10640517/india-to-impose-antidumping- duty-on-nbr-from-china-japan-eu-russia. VII-28 Government of India decided not to impose anti-dumping duties on NBR from China, the EU, Japan, and Russia.26 Respondent Negromex of Mexico is not aware of any orders imposed by third countries on its exports.27 Information on nonsubject countries Global capacity of solid NBR was estimated at *** metric tons in 2019, while production was at *** metric tons.28 Global production in 2018 was *** metric tons.29 The capacities of each of the global producers are listed in table VII-17. Global production by region is depicted in table VII-18. Global consumption by region is depicted in table VII-19. Global consumption by region and end use category is shown in table VII-20. In 2018, China had the largest production volume of *** metric tons followed by Korea with *** metric tons, Japan with *** metric tons, Western Europe with *** metric tons, and Central and Eastern Europe with *** metric tons.30 Global consumption by end use was the highest in the automotive category at *** metric tons in 2018, followed by technical rubber goods at *** metric tons, and all other uses at *** metric tons.31 Non-latex NBR global exports are shown in table VII-21. The largest global exporter by value in 2020 was Korea with a 22.1 percent share by value ($196.5 million), followed by France with a 17.4 percent share by value ($155.1 million), Japan with a 13.2 percent share by value ($117.6 million), and Belgium with a 9.3 percent share by value ($82.9 million). 26 The Central Government of India decided not to impose anti-dumping duties on all 4 countries of the investigation (China, EU, Japan, and Russia) published in its final findings. Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Tax Research Unit, “Office Memorandum,” July 20, 2021. https://www.dgtr.gov.in/sites/default/files/OM_NBR_ADD.pdf. A list of the proceedings, including the final findings, is published by the Government of India: Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber” (NBR) originating in or exported from China PR, European Union, Japan and Russia. | Directorate General of Trade Remedies | MOCI | GOI (dgtr.gov.in). 27 Respondent Negromex’s postconference brief, p. 23. 28 Production is predicted. IHS Markit, Chemical Economics Handbook, Nitrile Elastomers, November 15, 2019, pp. 7, 11. 29 IHS Markit, Chemical Economics Handbook, Nitrile Elastomers, November 15, 2019, p. 10. 30 IHS Markit, Chemical Economics Handbook, Nitrile Elastomers, November 15, 2019, p. 10. 31 IHS Markit, Chemical Economics Handbook, Nitrile Elastomers, November 15, 2019, p. 13. VII-29 Table VII-17 NBR: Annual capacities, estimated in September 2019, by producer and by country or region September 2019 Quantity in 1,000 metric tons, share in percent Company Company global rank Country / Region Quantity Share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All companies *** *** *** *** Source: IHS Markit, Chemical Economics Handbook, Nitrile Elastomers, November 15, 2019, p. 7. Note: Joint ventures have been split accordingly. World: other represents producers in India, Mexico, and Taiwan. VII-30 Table VII-18 NBR: Global production quantity, 2018 (dry basis), by country or region Quantity in 1,000 metric tons Country / region NBR solid United States *** Canada *** Mexico *** Central and South America *** Total Americas *** Western Europe *** Central and Eastern Europe *** Middle East *** Africa *** Total EMEA *** China *** India *** Japan *** Malaysia *** Korea *** Taiwan *** Thailand *** Other *** Total Asia *** Global total *** Source: IHS Markit, Chemical Economics Handbook, Nitrile Elastomers, November 15, 2019, p. 10. Note: These numbers may vary by up to +/- 10 percent due to the nature of wet basis to dry basis status. EMEA is Europe, the Middle East and Africa. VII-31 Table VII-19 NBR: Global consumption quantity, 2018 (dry basis), by country or region Quantity in 1,000 metric tons Country / region NBR solid United States *** Canada *** Mexico *** Central and South America *** Total Americas *** Western Europe *** Central and Eastern Europe *** Middle East *** Africa *** Total EMEA *** China *** India *** Japan *** Malaysia *** Korea *** Taiwan *** Thailand *** Other *** Total Asia *** Global total *** Source: IHS Markit, Chemical Economics Handbook, Nitrile Elastomers, November 15, 2019, p. 12. Note: These numbers may vary by up to +/- 10 percent due to the nature of wet basis to dry basis status. Europe, the Middle East and Africa. VII-32 Table VII-20 NBR: Global consumption quantity of NBR solid by major region and end use category, 2018 and 2024 (predicted) Quantity in 1,000 metric tons; annual average growth rate in percent Country / region End use category 2018 2024 (predicted) Annual average growth rate United States Automotive *** *** *** Western Europe Automotive *** *** *** China Automotive *** *** *** Japan Automotive *** *** *** Total Automotive *** *** *** United States Rubber goods *** *** *** Western Europe Rubber goods *** *** *** China Rubber goods *** *** *** Japan Rubber goods *** *** *** Total Rubber goods *** *** *** United States Other *** *** *** Western Europe Other *** *** *** China Other *** *** *** Japan Other *** *** *** Total Other *** *** *** United States All categories *** *** *** Western Europe All categories *** *** *** China All categories *** *** *** Japan All categories *** *** *** Total All categories *** *** *** Source: IHS Markit, Chemical Economics Handbook, Nitrile Elastomers, November 15, 2019, p. 13. VII-33 Table VII-21 Non-latex NBR: Global exports, by source and by period Value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent Exporting country Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Value 135,089 133,235 108,906 France Value 223,965 190,145 155,051 Korea Value 320,544 234,142 196,531 Mexico Value 40,752 30,014 20,862 Subject sources total Value 585,260 454,302 372,444 Japan Value 153,190 130,445 117,594 Belgium Value 86,879 81,135 82,917 Germany Value 61,599 55,679 46,634 Russia Value 69,703 57,829 43,355 Netherlands Value 44,292 32,107 36,926 China Value 37,186 33,615 28,161 Taiwan Value 22,168 17,878 16,168 Poland Value 23,656 17,659 13,154 All other exporters Value 39,020 34,574 24,597 All reporting exporters Value 1,258,042 1,048,456 890,856 United States Share of value 10.7 12.7 12.2 France Share of value 17.8 18.1 17.4 Korea Share of value 25.5 22.3 22.1 Mexico Share of value 3.2 2.9 2.3 Subject sources Share of value 46.5 43.3 41.8 Japan Share of value 12.2 12.4 13.2 Belgium Share of value 6.9 7.7 9.3 Germany Share of value 4.9 5.3 5.2 Russia Share of value 5.5 5.5 4.9 Netherlands Share of value 3.5 3.1 4.1 China Share of value 3.0 3.2 3.2 Taiwan Share of value 1.8 1.7 1.8 Poland Share of value 1.9 1.7 1.5 All other exporters Share of value 3.1 3.3 2.8 All reporting exporters Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official exports statistics under HS subheading 4002.59 reported by various national statistical authorities in the Global Trade Atlas database, accessed July 20, 2021 and official global imports statistics from France and Mexico under HS subheading 4002.59 as reported by UN Comtrade in the Global Trade Atlas database, accessed July 20, 2021. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. United States is shown at the top, followed by the countries under investigation, then all remaining top exporting countries in descending order of 2020 data. Note: HS subheading 4002.59 covers in-scope NBR but also contains some out-of-scope product. 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 35825, July 7, 2021 Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber From France, Korea, and Mexico; Institution of Anti- Dumping Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-07-07/pdf/2021-14403.pdf 86 FR 40192, July 27, 2021 Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber From France, the Republic of Korea, and Mexico: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair Value Investigations https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-07-27/pdf/2021-15895.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: Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber from France, Korea, and Mexico Inv. Nos.: 731-TA-1567-1569 (Preliminary) Date and Time: July 21, 2021 - 9:30 a.m. OPENING REMARKS: In Support of Imposition (Matthew McGrath, Barnes Richardson & Colburn LLP) In Opposition to Imposition (William C. Sjoberg, Clark Hill PLC) In Support of the Imposition of Antidumping Duty Orders: Barnes Richardson & Colburn LLP Washington, DC on behalf of Zeon Chemicals L.P. Zeon GP, LLC (collectively, “Zeon”) Michael Recchio, President and Chief Executive Officer, Zeon Eric Saunders, Vice President, Research and Development, Zeon Brian Cail, Vice President, Sales and Marketing, Zeon LaStacia Dalton, Chief Financial Officer, Zeon Matthew McGrath ) ) – OF COUNSEL Mert Arkan ) B-4 In Opposition to the Imposition of Antidumping Duty Orders: White & Case LLP Washington, DC on behalf of Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd. David E. Bond ) William J. Moran ) ) – OF COUNSEL Ron Kendler ) C. Alex Dilley ) Clark Hill PLC Washington, DC on behalf of Dynasol, LLC Daniela Quintero, Global Commercial Intelligence Manager, Dynasol, LLC Jose Plaza, Commercial Manager America, Dynasol, LLC Martin Antonio, Counsel, Industrias Negromex, S.A. de C.V. William C. Sjoberg ) ) – OF COUNSEL Maram T. Salaheldin ) REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS: In Support of Imposition (Matthew McGrath and Mert Arkan, Barnes Richardson & Colburn LLP) In Opposition to Imposition (Ron Kendler, White & Case LLP) -END- C-1 APPENDIX C SUMMARY DATA Table C-1 NBR: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2018-20, January to March 2020, and January to March 2021 Jan-Mar 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 2018-20 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 U.S. consumption quantity: Amount..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Producers' share (fn1)............................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Importers' share (fn1): France................................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Korea................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Mexico................................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Subject sources.............................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Nonsubject sources........................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** All import sources....................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** U.S. consumption value: Amount..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Producers' share (fn1)............................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** Importers' share (fn1): France................................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Korea................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Mexico................................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** Subject sources.............................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Nonsubject sources........................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** All import sources....................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** U.S. imports from: France: Quantity............................................... 30,883 30,202 25,182 7,735 9,036 ▼(18.5) ▼(2.2) ▼(16.6) ▲16.8 Value................................................... 41,541 40,259 30,158 10,085 11,330 ▼(27.4) ▼(3.1) ▼(25.1) ▲12.3 Unit value............................................. $1.35 $1.33 $1.20 $1.30 $1.25 ▼(11.0) ▼(0.9) ▼(10.2) ▼(3.8) Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Korea: Quantity............................................... 33,224 30,120 19,323 5,335 8,061 ▼(41.8) ▼(9.3) ▼(35.8) ▲51.1 Value................................................... 38,765 29,788 15,076 4,575 7,576 ▼(61.1) ▼(23.2) ▼(49.4) ▲65.6 Unit value............................................. $1.17 $0.99 $0.78 $0.86 $0.94 ▼(33.1) ▼(15.2) ▼(21.1) ▲9.6 Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Mexico: Quantity............................................... 18,539 17,651 14,312 4,549 3,585 ▼(22.8) ▼(4.8) ▼(18.9) ▼(21.2) Value................................................... 21,289 17,029 11,180 4,085 3,634 ▼(47.5) ▼(20.0) ▼(34.4) ▼(11.0) Unit value............................................. $1.15 $0.96 $0.78 $0.90 $1.01 ▼(32.0) ▼(16.0) ▼(19.0) ▲12.9 Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Subject sources: Quantity............................................... 82,646 77,973 58,817 17,619 20,683 ▼(28.8) ▼(5.7) ▼(24.6) ▲17.4 Value................................................... 101,594 87,076 56,413 18,745 22,539 ▼(44.5) ▼(14.3) ▼(35.2) ▲20.2 Unit value............................................. $1.23 $1.12 $0.96 $1.06 $1.09 ▼(22.0) ▼(9.2) ▼(14.1) ▲2.4 Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Nonsubject sources: Quantity............................................... 40,520 38,034 26,716 6,786 3,232 ▼(34.1) ▼(6.1) ▼(29.8) ▼(52.4) Value................................................... 55,869 55,718 30,424 8,533 4,903 ▼(45.5) ▼(0.3) ▼(45.4) ▼(42.5) Unit value............................................. $1.38 $1.46 $1.14 $1.26 $1.52 ▼(17.4) ▲6.2 ▼(22.3) ▲20.6 Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** All import sources: Quantity............................................... 123,166 116,006 85,534 24,405 23,914 ▼(30.6) ▼(5.8) ▼(26.3) ▼(2.0) Value................................................... 157,464 142,794 86,837 27,278 27,442 ▼(44.9) ▼(9.3) ▼(39.2) ▲0.6 Unit value............................................. $1.28 $1.23 $1.02 $1.12 $1.15 ▼(20.6) ▼(3.7) ▼(17.5) ▲2.7 Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Table continued on next page. C-3 Quantity=1,000 pounds; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per pound; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted Reported data Period changes Calendar year Jan-Mar Comparision years Table C-1 continued NBR: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2018-20, January to March 2020, and January to March 2021 Jan-Mar 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 2018-20 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 U.S. producers': Average capacity quantity....................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** *** *** Production quantity.................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Capacity utilization (fn1)........................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** U.S. shipments: Quantity............................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Value................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit value............................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Export shipments: Quantity............................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Value................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit value............................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Ending inventory quantity........................ *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Inventories/total shipments (fn1)............. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Production workers.................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Hours worked (1,000s)............................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Wages paid ($1,000)............................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Hourly wages (dollars per hour).............. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Productivity (pounds per hour)................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit labor costs........................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Net sales: Quantity............................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Value................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit value............................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Cost of goods sold (COGS)..................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Gross profit or (loss) (fn2)........................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** SG&A expenses...................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Operating income or (loss) (fn2).............. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Net income or (loss) (fn2)........................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit COGS............................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Unit SG&A expenses............................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit operating income or (loss) (fn2)....... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit net income or (loss) (fn2)................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** COGS/sales (fn1).................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1).... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Net 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. 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.--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 official U.S. imports statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 4002.59.0000, accessed July 18, 2021, adjusted to remove out of scope imports as reported in Commission questionnaires. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. Value data are based on landed duty paid value. C-4 Quantity=1,000 pounds; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per pound; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted Reported data Period changes Calendar year Jan-Mar Comparision years D-1 APPENDIX D NBR COMPARISONS TO HNBR AND XNBR D-3 Table D-1 NBR: Count of U.S. producer and importers reporting on the comparability of NBR and HNBR by the like product factors Number of firms reporting Comparison factor Firm type Always Frequently Sometimes Never Physical characteristics U.S. producer *** *** *** *** Interchangeability U.S. producer *** *** *** *** Channels U.S. producer *** *** *** *** Manufacturing U.S. producer *** *** *** *** Perceptions U.S. producer *** *** *** *** Price U.S. producer *** *** *** *** Physical characteristics Importers 0 0 2 5 Interchangeability Importers 0 0 2 5 Channels Importers 2 1 1 1 Manufacturing Importers 1 1 0 2 Perceptions Importers 0 0 2 4 Price Importers 0 0 0 6 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. D-4 Table D-2 NBR: U.S. producer’s narratives on the comparability of HNBR and NBR by the like product factors Firm Comparison factor Narrative explanation *** Physical characteristics *** *** Interchangeability *** D-5 Firm Comparison factor Narrative explanation *** Channels *** *** Manufacturing *** *** Perceptions *** *** Price *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. D-6 Table D-3 NBR: U.S. importers' narratives on the comparability of HNBR and NBR by the like product factors Firm Comparison factor Narrative explanation *** Physical characteristics *** *** Physical characteristics *** *** Physical characteristics *** *** Physical characteristics *** *** Physical characteristics *** *** Physical characteristics *** *** Physical characteristics *** *** Physical characteristics *** *** Physical characteristics *** D-7 Firm Comparison factor Narrative explanation *** Interchangeability *** *** Interchangeability *** *** Interchangeability *** *** Interchangeability *** *** Interchangeability *** *** Interchangeability *** *** Interchangeability *** *** Interchangeability *** *** Interchangeability *** *** Channels *** *** Channels *** *** Channels *** *** Channels *** *** Channels *** *** Channels *** *** Channels *** D-8 Firm Comparison factor Narrative explanation *** Manufacturing *** *** Manufacturing *** *** Manufacturing *** *** Manufacturing *** *** Manufacturing *** *** Manufacturing *** *** Perceptions *** *** Perceptions *** *** Perceptions *** *** Perceptions *** *** Perceptions *** *** Perceptions *** *** Perceptions *** *** Perceptions *** D-9 Firm Comparison factor Narrative explanation *** Price *** *** Price *** *** Price *** *** Price *** *** Price *** *** Price *** *** Price *** *** Price *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. D-10 Table D-4 NBR: Count of U.S. producer and importers reporting on the comparability of XNBR and other NBR by the like product factors Number of firms reporting Comparison factor Firm type Always Frequently Sometimes Never Physical characteristics U.S. producer *** *** *** *** Interchangeability U.S. producer *** *** *** *** Channels U.S. producer *** *** *** *** Manufacturing U.S. producer *** *** *** *** Perceptions U.S. producer *** *** *** *** Price U.S. producer *** *** *** *** Physical characteristics Importers 0 1 2 2 Interchangeability Importers 0 1 2 2 Channels Importers 2 1 1 0 Manufacturing Importers 2 1 1 0 Perceptions Importers 0 1 2 2 Price Importers 0 1 1 3 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. D-11 Table D-5 NBR: U.S. producer’s narratives on the comparability of XNBR and other NBR by the like product factors Firm Comparison factor Narrative explanation *** Physical characteristics *** *** Interchangeability *** *** Channels *** *** Manufacturing *** *** Perceptions *** *** Price *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. D-12 Table D-6 NBR: U.S. importers' narratives on the comparability of XNBR and other NBR by the like product factors Firm Comparison factor Narrative explanation *** Physical characteristics *** *** Physical characteristics *** *** Physical characteristics *** *** Physical characteristics *** *** Physical characteristics *** *** Physical characteristics *** *** Interchangeability *** *** Interchangeability *** *** Interchangeability *** *** Interchangeability *** *** Interchangeability *** *** Interchangeability *** D-13 Firm Comparison factor Narrative explanation *** Channels *** *** Channels *** *** Channels *** *** Channels *** *** Channels *** *** Channels *** *** Manufacturing *** *** Manufacturing *** *** Manufacturing *** *** Manufacturing *** *** Manufacturing *** *** Perceptions *** *** Perceptions *** *** Perceptions *** *** Perceptions *** *** Perceptions *** *** Perceptions *** D-14 Firm Comparison factor Narrative explanation *** Price *** *** Price *** *** Price *** *** Price *** *** Price *** *** Price *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. E-1 APPENDIX E U.S. SHIPMENTS BY FORM AND ACRYLONITRILE CONTENT (ACN) E-3 Table E-1 NBR: U.S. shipments by source, form, and ACN content, 2020 Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit values in dollars per pound; shares in percent Form Source Measure <26% ACN 26% to 41% ACN >41% ACN All ACN content Bale/slab United States Quantity *** *** *** *** Ground/powder United States Quantity *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) United States Quantity *** *** *** *** All forms United States Quantity *** *** *** *** Bale/slab United States Value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder United States Value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) United States Value *** *** *** *** All forms United States Value *** *** *** *** Bale/slab United States Unit value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder United States Unit value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) United States Unit value *** *** *** *** All forms United States Unit value *** *** *** *** Bale/slab United States Share down quantity *** *** *** *** Ground/powder United States Share down quantity *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) United States Share down quantity *** *** *** *** All forms United States Share down quantity *** *** *** *** Bale/slab United States Share across quantity *** *** *** *** Ground/powder United States Share across quantity *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) United States Share across quantity *** *** *** *** All forms United States Share across quantity *** *** *** *** Bale/slab United States Share down value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder United States Share down value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) United States Share down value *** *** *** *** All forms United States Share down value *** *** *** *** Bale/slab United States Share across value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder United States Share across value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) United States Share across value *** *** *** *** All forms United States Share across value *** *** *** *** Table continued on next page. E-4 Table E-1 Continued NBR: U.S. shipments by source, form, and ACN content, 2020 Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit values in dollars per pound; shares in percent Form Source Measure <26% ACN 26% to 41% ACN >41% ACN All ACN content Bale/slab France Quantity *** *** *** *** Ground/powder France Quantity *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) France Quantity *** *** *** *** All forms France Quantity *** *** *** *** Bale/slab France Value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder France Value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) France Value *** *** *** *** All forms France Value *** *** *** *** Bale/slab France Unit value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder France Unit value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) France Unit value *** *** *** *** All forms France Unit value *** *** *** *** Bale/slab France Share down quantity *** *** *** *** Ground/powder France Share down quantity *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) France Share down quantity *** *** *** *** All forms France Share down quantity *** *** *** *** Bale/slab France Share across quantity *** *** *** *** Ground/powder France Share across quantity *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) France Share across quantity *** *** *** *** All forms France Share across quantity *** *** *** *** Bale/slab France Share down value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder France Share down value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) France Share down value *** *** *** *** All forms France Share down value *** *** *** *** Bale/slab France Share across value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder France Share across value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) France Share across value *** *** *** *** All forms France Share across value *** *** *** *** Table continued on next page. E-5 Table E-1 Continued NBR: U.S. shipments by source, form, and ACN content, 2020 Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit values in dollars per pound; shares in percent Form Source Measure <26% ACN 26% to 41% ACN >41% ACN All ACN content Bale/slab Korea Quantity *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Korea Quantity *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Korea Quantity *** *** *** *** All forms Korea Quantity *** *** *** *** Bale/slab Korea Value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Korea Value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Korea Value *** *** *** *** All forms Korea Value *** *** *** *** Bale/slab Korea Unit value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Korea Unit value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Korea Unit value *** *** *** *** All forms Korea Unit value *** *** *** *** Bale/slab Korea Share down quantity *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Korea Share down quantity *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Korea Share down quantity *** *** *** *** All forms Korea Share down quantity *** *** *** *** Bale/slab Korea Share across quantity *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Korea Share across quantity *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Korea Share across quantity *** *** *** *** All forms Korea Share across quantity *** *** *** *** Bale/slab Korea Share down value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Korea Share down value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Korea Share down value *** *** *** *** All forms Korea Share down value *** *** *** *** Bale/slab Korea Share across value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Korea Share across value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Korea Share across value *** *** *** *** All forms Korea Share across value *** *** *** *** Table continued on next page. E-6 Table E-1 Continued NBR: U.S. shipments by source, form, and ACN content, 2020 Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit values in dollars per pound; shares in percent Form Source Measure <26% ACN 26% to 41% ACN >41% ACN All ACN content Bale/slab Mexico Quantity *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Mexico Quantity *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Mexico Quantity *** *** *** *** All forms Mexico Quantity *** *** *** *** Bale/slab Mexico Value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Mexico Value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Mexico Value *** *** *** *** All forms Mexico Value *** *** *** *** Bale/slab Mexico Unit value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Mexico Unit value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Mexico Unit value *** *** *** *** All forms Mexico Unit value *** *** *** *** Bale/slab Mexico Share down quantity *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Mexico Share down quantity *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Mexico Share down quantity *** *** *** *** All forms Mexico Share down quantity *** *** *** *** Bale/slab Mexico Share across quantity *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Mexico Share across quantity *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Mexico Share across quantity *** *** *** *** All forms Mexico Share across quantity *** *** *** *** Bale/slab Mexico Share down value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Mexico Share down value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Mexico Share down value *** *** *** *** All forms Mexico Share down value *** *** *** *** Bale/slab Mexico Share across value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Mexico Share across value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Mexico Share across value *** *** *** *** All forms Mexico Share across value *** *** *** *** Table continued on next page. E-7 Table E-1 Continued NBR: U.S. shipments by source, form, and ACN content, 2020 Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit values in dollars per pound; shares in percent Form Source Measure <26% ACN 26% to 41% ACN >41% ACN All ACN content Bale/slab Subject sources Quantity *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Subject sources Quantity *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Subject sources Quantity *** *** *** *** All forms Subject sources Quantity *** *** *** *** Bale/slab Subject sources Value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Subject sources Value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Subject sources Value *** *** *** *** All forms Subject sources Value *** *** *** *** Bale/slab Subject sources Unit value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Subject sources Unit value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Subject sources Unit value *** *** *** *** All forms Subject sources Unit value *** *** *** *** Bale/slab Subject sources Share down quantity *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Subject sources Share down quantity *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Subject sources Share down quantity *** *** *** *** All forms Subject sources Share down quantity *** *** *** *** Bale/slab Subject sources Share across quantity *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Subject sources Share across quantity *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Subject sources Share across quantity *** *** *** *** All forms Subject sources Share across quantity *** *** *** *** Bale/slab Subject sources Share down value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Subject sources Share down value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Subject sources Share down value *** *** *** *** All forms Subject sources Share down value *** *** *** *** Bale/slab Subject sources Share across value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Subject sources Share across value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Subject sources Share across value *** *** *** *** All forms Subject sources Share across value *** *** *** *** Table continued on next page. E-8 Table E-1 Continued NBR: U.S. shipments by source, form, and ACN content, 2020 Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit values in dollars per pound; shares in percent Form Source Measure <26% ACN 26% to 41% ACN >41% ACN All ACN content Bale/slab Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** All forms Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** Bale/slab Nonsubject Value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Nonsubject Value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Nonsubject Value *** *** *** *** All forms Nonsubject Value *** *** *** *** Bale/slab Nonsubject Unit value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Nonsubject Unit value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Nonsubject Unit value *** *** *** *** All forms Nonsubject Unit value *** *** *** *** Bale/slab Nonsubject Share down quantity *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Nonsubject Share down quantity *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Nonsubject Share down quantity *** *** *** *** All forms Nonsubject Share down quantity *** *** *** *** Bale/slab Nonsubject Share across quantity *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Nonsubject Share across quantity *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Nonsubject Share across quantity *** *** *** *** All forms Nonsubject Share across quantity *** *** *** *** Bale/slab Nonsubject Share down value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Nonsubject Share down value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Nonsubject Share down value *** *** *** *** All forms Nonsubject Share down value *** *** *** *** Bale/slab Nonsubject Share across value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder Nonsubject Share across value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) Nonsubject Share across value *** *** *** *** All forms Nonsubject Share across value *** *** *** *** Table continued on next page. E-9 Table E-1 Continued NBR: U.S. shipments by source, form, and ACN content, 2020 Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit values in dollars per pound; shares in percent Form Source Measure <26% ACN 26% to 41% ACN >41% ACN All ACN content Bale/slab All import sources Quantity *** *** *** *** Ground/powder All import sources Quantity *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) All import sources Quantity *** *** *** *** All forms All import sources Quantity *** *** *** *** Bale/slab All import sources Value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder All import sources Value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) All import sources Value *** *** *** *** All forms All import sources Value *** *** *** *** Bale/slab All import sources Unit value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder All import sources Unit value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) All import sources Unit value *** *** *** *** All forms All import sources Unit value *** *** *** *** Bale/slab All import sources Share down quantity *** *** *** *** Ground/powder All import sources Share down quantity *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) All import sources Share down quantity *** *** *** *** All forms All import sources Share down quantity *** *** *** *** Bale/slab All import sources Share across quantity *** *** *** *** Ground/powder All import sources Share across quantity *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) All import sources Share across quantity *** *** *** *** All forms All import sources Share across quantity *** *** *** *** Bale/slab All import sources Share down value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder All import sources Share down value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) All import sources Share down value *** *** *** *** All forms All import sources Share down value *** *** *** *** Bale/slab All import sources Share across value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder All import sources Share across value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) All import sources Share across value *** *** *** *** All forms All import sources Share across value *** *** *** *** Table continued on next page. E-10 Table E-1 Continued NBR: U.S. shipments by source, form, and ACN content, 2020 Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit values in dollars per pound; shares in percent Form Source Measure <26% ACN 26% to 41% ACN >41% ACN All ACN content Bale/slab All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** Ground/powder All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** All forms All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** Bale/slab All sources Value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder All sources Value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) All sources Value *** *** *** *** All forms All sources Value *** *** *** *** Bale/slab All sources Unit value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder All sources Unit value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) All sources Unit value *** *** *** *** All forms All sources Unit value *** *** *** *** Bale/slab All sources Share down quantity *** *** *** *** Ground/powder All sources Share down quantity *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) All sources Share down quantity *** *** *** *** All forms All sources Share down quantity *** *** *** *** Bale/slab All sources Share across quantity *** *** *** *** Ground/powder All sources Share across quantity *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) All sources Share across quantity *** *** *** *** All forms All sources Share across quantity *** *** *** *** Bale/slab All sources Share down value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder All sources Share down value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) All sources Share down value *** *** *** *** All forms All sources Share down value *** *** *** *** Bale/slab All sources Share across value *** *** *** *** Ground/powder All sources Share across value *** *** *** *** Liquid (gross weight) All sources Share across value *** *** *** *** All forms All sources Share across value *** *** *** *** Note: ***. E-11 ***. Note: The ground/powder category also includes particulates and pellets. Liquid is reported in gross weight. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.