U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4118 November 2009

Washington, DC 20436

Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1046 (Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman

Deanna Tanner Okun

Charlotte R. Lane

Irving A. Williamson

Dean A. Pinkert

Staff assigned

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Angela M. W. Newell, Investigator

Philip Stone, Industry Analyst

David Fishberg, Attorney

George Deyman, Supervisory Investigator

Special assistance from

John Ascienzo, Supervisory Financial Analyst

Andrew Rylyk, Supervisory Statistician
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4118 November 2009

Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1046 (Review)
 
i

CONTENTS

Page

Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Views of the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Dissenting views of Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson, Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun, and 

 Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Information obtained in the review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

The original investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Commerce’s original determination and administrative review determinations . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Commerce’s original determination and its expedited five-year review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds to affected domestic 

producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Previous and related Commission investigations and reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

U.S. tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Domestic like product and domestic industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Raw materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Substitute products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

The industry in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

U.S. producer’s trade, employment, and financial data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

U.S. imports and apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Ratios of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

Antidumping actions outside the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

The industry in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

THFA operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

Appendix

A. Federal Register notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Commission’s statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

Note.–Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be published

and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by astericks.

 1

 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR § 207.2(f)).

 2

 Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioners Deanna Tanner Okun and Charlotte R. Lane dissenting.

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-1046 (Review)

TETRAHYDROFURFURYL ALCOHOL FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject five-year review, the United States

International Trade Commission (Commission) determines,2

 pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act

of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on tetrahydrofurfuryl

alcohol from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry

in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this review on July 1, 2009 (74 F.R. 31752) and determined on

October 5, 2009 that it would conduct an expedited review (74 F.R. 54067, October 21, 2009). 

 1

 Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson, Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane

dissenting. See Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson, Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun, and

Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane. They join in sections I and II of these Views.

 2 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (Final), July 2004, at I-1 (“Original

Determination”). All cites are to the confidential views.

 3

 Original Determination at 1. Three Commissioners found that an industry in the United States was neither

materially injured nor threatened with material injury by reason of THFA from China. See Dissenting Views of

Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun, Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane, and Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson.

 4

 Antidumping Duty Order: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from the People’s Republic of China, 69 Fed. Reg. 47911

(August 6, 2004). 

 5

 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from the People’s Republic of China, 74 Fed. Reg. 31752 (July 1, 2009).

 6

 Confidential Staff Report (CR) at I-3 n.4; Public Staff Report (PR) at I-3 n.4 and Penn’s Response to the

Commission’s Notice of Institution, dated July 31, 2009 (“Penn’s Response”). In this response, Penn indicated that

Minafin SARL (Luxembourg) acquired Penn Specialty in July 2008 and the name of the U.S. producer was changed

to Penn A Kem LLC.

 7

 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 8

 See Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy at Appendix B. 

 9

 Id.; 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3) (2000).

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in this five-year review, we determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on tetrahydrofurfuryl

alcohol (“THFA”) from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to

an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.1

I. BACKGROUND

The original investigation of THFA from China was instituted on June 23, 2003, based on a

petition filed by Penn Specialty Chemicals Inc. (“Penn Specialty”).2

 In July 2004, the Commission

determined that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports of THFA

sold at less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) from China.3

 The U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”)

imposed an antidumping duty order on imports of THFA from China on August 6, 2004.4

The Commission instituted this review on July 1, 2009.5 The Commission received only one

substantive response to the notice of institution, a domestic interested party response from U.S. producer

Penn A Kem LLC (“Penn”).6

 Penn is believed to account for *** percent of total U.S. production of

THFA in 2008.7

 The Commission did not receive any responses from producers or exporters of THFA in

China or from any U.S. importers of the subject merchandise. 

On October 5, 2009, the Commission found the domestic interested party response to the notice

of institution adequate and the respondent interested party response inadequate.8

 The Commission did not

find any circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review. Consequently, the Commission

determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended.9

 Penn filed comments on the record on November 5, 2009. No respondent interested

party has provided any information or argument to the Commission in this review. Accordingly, for our

determination in this review, we rely as appropriate on facts available on the record, which consist
 10 See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a).

 11 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 12 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. United

States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct.

Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91

(1979).

 13 See e.g., Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and the

United Kingdom, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-380 to 382 and 731-TA-797 to 804 (Review), USITC Pub. 3788 at 6 (Jul.

2005); Crawfish Tail Meat from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Review), USITC Pub. 3614 at 4 (July 2003); Steel

Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Review), USITC Pub. 3577 at 4 (Feb. 2003).

 14 74 Fed. Reg. 57290 (November 5, 2009).

 15 Original Determination at 4.

 16 In its domestic like product determination, the Commission generally considers a number of factors, including

the following: (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) common

manufacturing facilities, production processes and production employees; (5) customer or producer perceptions; and,

when appropriate, (6) price. See Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996). No

(continued...)

4

primarily of information from the original investigation and information collected in this five-year

review, including that submitted by Penn and publicly available information.10

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

A. Domestic Like Product

In making its determination under section 751(c), the Commission defines the “domestic like

product” and the “industry.”11 The Act defines the “domestic like product” as “a product which is like, or

in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation

under this subtitle.”12 In five-year reviews, the Commission looks to the domestic like

product definition from the original determination and any previous reviews and considers whether the

record indicates any reason to revisit that definition.13

 In the final results of its expedited sunset review, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as

follows:

tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol (C5H10O2) (“THFA”). THFA, a primary alcohol, is a clear,

water white to pale yellow liquid. THFA is a member of the heterocyclic compounds

known as furans and is miscible with water and soluble in many common organic

solvents. THFA is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United

States (“HTSUS”) under subheading 2932.13.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings

are provided for convenience and for the purposes of the U.S. Customs and Border

Protection (Customs”), the Department's written description of the merchandise under

investigation is dispositive.14

THFA is produced by the hydrogenation of furfuryl alcohol (“FA”); the primary raw materials

are FA, hydrogen, and a catalyst. THFA may be produced by a vapor phase technology (used by Penn) or

by a liquid phase (used by Chinese producer Zhucheng, Huaxing Chemical Co. (“Zhucheng”)). However,

THFA produced by either method is comparable to THFA produced by the other method.15

The starting point of the Commission’s domestic like product analysis in a five-year review is the

Commission’s domestic like product determination in the original determination.16 In the Commission’s
 16 (...continued)

single factor is dispositive, and the Commission may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a

particular investigation. The Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products, and disregards

minor variations. See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91 (1979); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747

F. Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

 17 Original Determination at 5.

 18 Penn’s Response at 11.

 19 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to

include in the industry all domestic production of the like product, whether toll-produced, captively consumed, or

sold in the domestic merchant market, provided that adequate production-related activity is conducted in the United

States. See United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 673, 682-83 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994), aff’d, 96

F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

 20 Original Determination at 5.

 21 Original Determination at 5.

 22 Penn’s Response at 11. 

 23 Penn’s Response at 8. Although Penn notes in passing that there may be another small U.S. producer, Nova

Molecular Technologies, Inc., that began production of THFA in 2008, Nova did not respond as a producer to the

Commission’s notice of institution or provide any information on the record of this review. 

 24 The related parties provision, 19 U.S.C. § 1677 (4)(B), allows the Commission to exclude certain domestic

producers from the domestic industry that import subject merchandise or have a corporate affiliation with importers

or exporters of subject merchandise, if the Commission finds that appropriate circumstances exist. There are no

related party issues in this review.

5

original investigation, it defined a single domestic like product as THFA, corresponding to the scope of

the investigation.17 In this review, Penn indicates that it agrees with the Commission’s definition of the

domestic like product in the original investigation.18 No new information was obtained during this review

that would suggest revisiting the Commission’s domestic like product definition. Therefore, we continue

to define the domestic like product as THFA, coextensive with the scope definition.

B. Domestic Industry

Section 771(4)(A) of the 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.”19

In the original investigation, the Commission defined the domestic industry as consisting of all

domestic producers of THFA, which was Penn.20 There were no related party issues in the original

investigation.21

In this review, Penn states that it does not object to the Commission’s definition of the domestic

industry as stated in the original investigation22 and no new facts have been presented to warrant a

different conclusion. Penn indicates that the structure of the domestic industry has not changed

substantially since the original investigation and that it believes it is still the only domestic producer of

THFA.23 Accordingly, corresponding to our definition of the domestic industry in the original

investigation and our definition of the domestic like product here, we define the domestic industry to

include all domestic producers of THFA.24
 25 Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson, Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane 

do not join the remainder of these Views. See Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson,

Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun, and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane. 

 26 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 27 The SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at 883-84 (1994). The SAA states that “[t]he likelihood of injury

standard applies regardless of the nature of the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of

material injury, or material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations

that were never completed.” SAA at 883. 

 28 Although the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not necessary,” it

indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely continued depressed

shipment levels and current and likely continued [sic] prices for the domestic like product in the U.S. market in

making its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order is revoked.” 

SAA at 884.

 29 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (“‘likely’ means

probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d without opinion, 140 Fed.

Appx. 268 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-153 at 7-8 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 24,

2002) (same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-152 at 4 n.3 & 5-6 n.6 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 20,

2002) (“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s opinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’

to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-

105 at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury,

not a certainty”); Usinor v. United States, Slip Op. 02-70 at 43-44 (Ct. Int’l Trade July 19, 2002) (“‘likely’ is

tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 30 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 31 SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the fungibility or

differentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the imported and domestic

products, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as spot sales or long-term contracts),

and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may only manifest themselves in the longer term,

such as planned investment and the shifting of production facilities.” Id.

6

III. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF 

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER IS REVOKED25

A. Legal Standard In a Five-Year Review

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Act, Commerce will revoke an

antidumping duty order unless (1) it makes a determination that dumping or subsidization is likely to

continue or recur and (2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation of the antidumping duty

order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably

foreseeable time.”26 The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), Statement of Administrative

Action (“SAA”), states that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a counterfactual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an important

change in the status quo – the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of its

restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”27 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in

nature.28 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the five-year review

provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five-year reviews.29

The statute states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or termination

may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”30 According to

the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally will exceed the

‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.”31
 32 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 33 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). Commerce did not make any duty absorption findings with respect to the order under

review. CR at I-5; PR at I-4. The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the

Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s

determination. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). While the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is

necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886.

 34 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a

determination when (1) necessary information is not available on the record or (2) an interested party or other person

withholds information requested by the agency, fails to provide such information in the time, form, or manner

requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to section

782(i) of the Act. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a). The verification requirements in section 782(i) are applicable only to

Commerce. 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i). See Titanium Metals Corp., 155 F. Supp. 2d at 765 (“[T]he ITC correctly

responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification procedures for the evidence before

it, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of a Commission investigation.”).

 35 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 

 36 Original Determination at 5. During the original investigation, the quantity of apparent U.S. consumption of

THFA was *** pounds in 2001 and *** million pounds in 2003. In interim 2004 (the first three months of 2004),

apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent lower than in interim 2003.

 37 Original Determination at 6.

7

Although the standard in a five-year review is not the same as the standard applied in an original

antidumping duty investigation, it contains some of the same fundamental elements. The statute provides

that the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subject

merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”32 It

directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury determination, whether any improvement in

the state of the industry is related to the order or the suspension agreement under review, whether the

industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked or the suspension agreement is

terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C.

§ 1675(a)(4).33

No respondent interested party has participated in this review. The record, therefore, contains

limited information with respect to THFA capacity and production in China. Accordingly, as already

noted, we rely on the facts available on the record.34

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, the statute directs

the Commission to consider all relevant economic factors “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”35 The following conditions of

competition are relevant to our determination.

Demand. In the original investigation, the Commission found that demand for THFA in the

United States market was derived from the demand for the final products that require THFA, such as

agricultural chemicals, coatings, and cleaning solutions. The Commission found that demand, as

measured by apparent U.S. consumption, fluctuated during the period and was down overall by ***

percent between 2001 and 2003.36 The Commission also found that the market for THFA was dominated

by a handful of high-volume purchasers, with Penn’s top five purchasers accounting for approximately

*** percent of its shipments in 2003.37

While the available data are limited, we note that there is some evidence in the record that U.S.

demand for THFA has increased since the original investigations. Demand, as measured by apparent U.S.
 38 CR/PR at Table I-7.

 39 CR at I-27; PR at I-17.

 40 Original Determination at 7.

 41 Original Determination at 7.

 42 Original Determination at 8.

 43 CR/PR at Table I-7. Official Commerce statistics were used to determine imports from China and we note that

both THFA and FA are imported under HTS subheading 2932.13.00. CR at I-23 n.86; PR at I-15 n.86. Based on

official Commerce statistics, imports from China were 38,000 pounds in 2008, or *** percent of the U.S. market. 

CR/PR at Tables I-5 & I-7. Penn believes that shipments of THFA from China ceased after the imposition of the

antidumping duty order. CR at I-28; PR at I-18.

 44 CR at I-23; PR at I-16.

 45 CR/PR at Tables I-3 & I-7. In 2008, the domestic industry’s capacity was *** pounds and its production was

*** pounds as compared to apparent U.S. consumption of *** pounds.

 46 Original Determination at 8.

 47 Original Determination at 8.

8

consumption, was *** pounds in 2008.38 Penn indicates that demand for THFA experienced rapid

growth, primarily in agricultural applications, ***.39

Supply. In the original investigation, the Commission found that Penn was the only domestic

producer of THFA. Although some consumers expressed concern about supply disruptions during Penn’s

bankruptcy in the summer of 2001, the Commission noted that Penn in fact continued to produce and

deliver THFA on a timely basis.40 

In the original investigation, the Commission found that subject imports were the only other

source of THFA in the U.S. market. Three firms, Kyzen, Advanced Resin Systems (ARS), and AllChem,

were responsible for all subject imports of THFA during the period covered in the original investigation,

with Kyzen accounting for *** percent of all subject imports during that period.41

The Commission noted in its original determination that *** of shipments of subject merchandise

were imported directly by Kyzen for internal consumption. Kyzen had consistently divided its purchases

between Penn and Zhucheng, the only Chinese producer of THFA identified by the Commission’s

investigation.42

The limited record in this review establishes that subject imports largely exited the U.S. market

after the imposition of the antidumping duty order.43 There were no known nonsubject imports *** in the

current review.44 The domestic industry appears to be able to supply *** U.S. market for THFA.45

Substitutability. In the original determination, the Commission found a high degree of

substitutability between subject imports and the domestic like product.46 Half of the responding

purchasers ranked price as the most important factor in selecting a supplier, and purchasers indicated that

price was an important factor more often than any other factor, including quality.47

Except as discussed above, there is no evidence on the record of this expedited review to suggest

that these conditions have changed significantly since the original investigation. Accordingly, in this

review, we find they provide us with a reasonable basis upon which to assess the likely effects of

revocation of the order in the reasonably foreseeable future.

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping duty order

is revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of imports would be
 48 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 49 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A)-(D).

 50 Original Determination at 9. 

 51 Original Determination at 10. 

 52 Original Determination at 10.

 53 Original Determination at 11.

 54 Original Determination at 11.

 55 CR/PR at Table I-5. As stated previously, both THFA and FA are imported under HTS subheading

2932.13.00, and the 2008 imports may be nonsubject FA.

 56 CR/PR at Table I-6.

 57 In 2003, the Chinese THFA industry’s capacity was *** pounds, their production was *** pounds, and their

capacity utilization was *** percent. CR/PR at Table I-8. Moreover, exports of THFA accounted for *** percent of

the Chinese THFA industry’s total shipments, with the United States being the largest export market at *** percent

of total shipments. CR/PR at Table I-8. We also note that from 2001 to 2003 the Chinese THFA industry became

(continued...)

9

significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.48 In

doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four enumerated

factors: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production capacity in the

exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in inventories;

(3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries other than the

United States; and (4) 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.49

In the original determination, the Commission found that shipments of subject imports increased

by *** percent between 2001 and 2003, increasing from *** pounds in 2001 to *** pounds in 2003.50

Subject imports accounted for *** percent of the U.S. market in 2003, on a quantity basis, up from ***

percent in 2001.51 *** of this gain in market share came at the expense of the domestic industry, ***. 

In the original determination, the Commission noted the unique role that Kyzen played in the

U.S. market for THFA, as it was both the predominant importer and a significant consumer of the

domestic like product since well before the period investigated in the original investigations.52 Kyzen

accounted for *** subject imports, which it internally consumed rather than sold. The Commission found

that Kyzen’s purchasing practices had remained relatively consistent, and therefore the Commission did

not conclude that the volume or increase in the volume of subject imports was significant. The

Commission noted, however, that the subject imports generally rose over the period, at a time when

shipments of the domestic like product and apparent consumption were both trending downward, and that

Kyzen’s substantial purchases of subject imports formed the backdrop for Penn reducing its prices to

several large customers in response to low-price offers of subject imports.53 The Commission also noted

that Commerce’s preliminary affirmative finding discouraged all subject imports in 2004, including those

by Kyzen, and the Commission therefore accorded less weight to interim 2004 data.54

With the antidumping duty order in place, subject import volumes are much smaller than in the

original period of investigation. Based on official statistics, subject imports declined from *** pounds in

2003, the final full year of the period of investigation, to zero in 2004, and were 38,000 pounds in 2008.55

Shipments of subject imports as a share of apparent U.S. consumption on a quantity basis declined from

*** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2008.56 

Nothing in the record of this expedited review contradicts the evidence on the record of the

original investigation that the Chinese industry producing the subject merchandise has substantial excess

capacity and that it is export-oriented.57 Moreover, the facts available on the record indicate that current
 57 (...continued)

increasingly export oriented and focused on the U.S. market. Id.

 58 CR at I-30-I-31; PR at I-19. This capacity figure represents Penn’s estimate for Chinese producers Zhucheng,

Zibo HuaAo, and Qingquan Medical. 

 59 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in considering

the likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and termination, the Commission may rely on

circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” SAA

at 886.

 60 Original Determination at 11.

 61 Original Determination at 12.

 62 Original Determination at 12.

 63 Original Determination at 13.

10

Chinese capacity for THFA is approximately 16.5 million pounds, and that actual production capacity

could be much higher because Chinese FA producers can invest in THFA technology and shift production

from FA to THFA.58

Based on the export orientation of the Chinese THFA industry, the volume and market share that

subject imports held prior to exiting the U.S. market after the antidumping duty order was imposed, and

the evidence on the record of the Chinese industry’s current capacity to produce THFA, we find that the

Chinese industry would have the incentive and the ability to ship increasing volumes of THFA to the

United States if the order were revoked. We therefore find that the likely increase in the volume of

subject imports would be significant if the order were revoked.

D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the antidumping duty order is revoked,

the Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the subject

imports as compared to the domestic like product and whether the subject imports are likely to enter the

United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the

price of the domestic like product.59

In the original investigation, the Commission found that the domestic like product and subject

imports were substitutable and that price was an important factor in purchasing decisions. The

Commission also found that prices for the domestic like product generally declined,60 and noted that

prices for the domestic like product were higher in interim 2004, when the Chinese product exited the

market, than in either the preceding quarter or the same period in 2003.

Commercial sales of imported THFA were relatively rare in the U.S. market at that time. Pricing

data showed mostly overselling, which was likely explained by the fact that import prices were based on

substantially lower quantities of subject imports as compared to the quantities on which the domestic

prices were based.61 

The Commission also considered purchaser prices, which showed underselling for most of the

period by margins up to and exceeding *** percent.62 The underselling gap disappeared at the end of the

period as Penn was forced to reduce its prices. As the Commission noted, the market was small and

dominated by a handful of large purchasers, and these purchasers were able to gain significant price

concessions from Penn by citing lower-price quotes from subject imports.63 The Commission found that

these price concessions were a main reason why prices declined in 2002 and 2003, and that subject

imports had a significant adverse effect on the prices paid by these customers, and thus the revenue

received by Penn. Consequently, the Commission concluded that there had been significant price
 64 Original Determination at 14.

 65 Penn’s Response at 8. Penn states that it was forced to ***. Id.

 66 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 67 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the magnitude

of the margin of dumping” in making its determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute

defines the “magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as “the

dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887. Commerce expedited its determination in its review of THFA

from China and found that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping at the following margins: 136.86 percent for Qingdao Wenken (F.T.Z.) Trading Co., Ltd., and

111.36 percent for the PRC-wide rate. 74 Fed. Reg. 57290 (November 5, 2009). These dumping margins were the

same margins that Commerce calculated in the original less-than-fair value investigation. CR at I-5; PR at I-4.

11

underselling by the subject imports and that the effect of subject imports had been to depress prices for

the domestic like product to a significant degree.64

There is no new product-specific pricing information on the record in this expedited review. 

Although subject imports have essentially exited the U.S. market as a result of the antidumping duty

order, Penn notes that the Chinese THFA industry directly competes with Penn in the Asian market and

that the Chinese THFA industry *** that market.65 As explained above, we find that the Chinese THFA

industry likely would significantly increase exports to the United States in the reasonably foreseeable

future if the antidumping duty order were revoked. There is nothing in the record of this review to

suggest that price does not continue to be an important factor in purchasing decisions, or that purchasing

practices have changed since the original investigation. Consequently, as in the original investigation, we

find that subject imports would be likely to undersell the domestic like product in order to gain market

share. We also find that purchasers would be likely to attempt to gain significant price concessions from

the domestic industry by citing lower-price quotes for subject imports, as the Commission found they did

in the original investigation. Therefore, we conclude that, if the order were revoked, subject imports from

China likely would increase significantly at prices that likely would undersell the domestic like product

and that those imports would likely have a depressing or suppressing effect on prices for the domestic like

product.

E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping duty order is

revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are likely to have a

bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to the following: (1)

likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization

of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to

raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing development and production

efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic

like product.66 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the business cycle

and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry.67 As instructed by the statute, we

have considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is related to

the order at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order is revoked.

In its original determination, the Commission found that the subject imports had a significant

adverse impact on the domestic industry’s performance. The Commission noted that domestic shipments

declined somewhat faster than did overall apparent U.S. demand, and the domestic industry lost market
 68 Original Determination at 15.

 69 Original Determination at 15.

 70 Original Determination at 15. The Commission did not attribute Penn’s *** performance to its bankruptcy to

any significant degree.

 71 Original Determination at 16.

 72 We note that Penn provided all the information requested in response to the Commission’s Notice of

Institution.

 73 See CR/PR at Table I-3.

 74 The domestic industry’s production was *** pounds in 2008 compared to *** pounds in 2003. CR/PR at Table

I-3. The domestic industry’s shipments, by quantity, were *** pounds in 2008 compared to *** pounds in 2003. 

CR/PR at Table I-3.

 75 The average unit value of the domestic industry’s shipments was $*** per pound in 2008 compared to $*** per

pound in 2003. CR/PR at Table I-3.

 76 The domestic industry’s net sales were $*** in 2008 compared to $*** in 2003. CR/PR at Table I-3. Its cost

of goods sold was $*** in 2008 compared to $*** in 2003. CR/PR at Table I-3.

 77 CR/PR at Table I-3. The domestic industry’s operating *** was $*** in 2008 compared to $*** in 2003.

 78 The domestic industry’s operating income ratio was *** percent in 2008 compared to *** percent in 2003. 

CR/PR at Table I-3. 

 79 There is no current information in the record of this expedited review pertaining to many of the other

indicators, such as productivity, return on investments, cash flow, wages, ability to raise capital, investment capacity,

and employment levels, that we customarily consider in assessing whether the domestic industry is in a weakened

condition.

12

share.68 Declines in shipments and revenues were reflected in worsening industry performance by a

number of measures, including declines in the number of employees, hours worked, and total wages. The

Commission found that lower prices were a main reason why the industry posted consistently poor

operating results over the period.69 The Commission found that subject imports depressed prices to a

degree that could not be offset by the improved cost structure of Penn after its emergence from

bankruptcy.70 In light of the significant adverse price effects of the subject imports, and the causal

linkage between the subject imports and the domestic industry’s declines in shipments, market share,

employment indicators, and operating performance, the Commission concluded that the subject imports

had a significant adverse impact on the domestic THFA industry.71

Because this is an expedited review, there is only limited information on the record concerning

the performance and condition of the domestic industry since the original injury determination.72 This

information pertains only to certain economic factors and is available only for 2008.73 The data show that

the domestic industry’s production and shipments were higher in 2008 than in 2003, the last full year of

the original period of investigation, which is consistent with the increases in apparent U.S. consumption

of THFA during this time period, and the near-total absence of imports from the U.S. market.74 The

average unit value of U.S. shipments was also higher in 2008 than in 2003.75 The domestic industry’s net

sales in 2008 were *** those in 2003, and its cost of goods sold showed a comparable percentage

increase.76 The domestic industry’s operating *** as much in 2008 than in 2003,77 while operating

margins improved somewhat, but were still *** in 2008.78 The limited evidence in this expedited review

does not permit us to determine whether the domestic industry producing THFA is vulnerable to the

continuation or recurrence of material injury in the event of revocation of the order.79

Based on the information available in this review, including information in the record of the

original investigation, we find that revocation of the order would likely lead to a significant increase in

the volume of subject imports, and that this increased volume of subject imports would likely undersell

the domestic like product to a significant degree and significantly depress or suppress U.S. prices for the
13

domestic like product. We find that the intensified subject import competition that would likely occur

after revocation of the order would likely have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry.

Specifically, the domestic industry would likely lose market share to subject imports, and lower prices

due to competition from subject imports, which would adversely impact its production, shipments, sales,

and revenue. These reductions would likely have a direct adverse impact on the industry’s profitability

and employment levels, as well as its ability to raise capital and make and maintain necessary capital

investments.

Accordingly, we conclude that, if the antidumping duty order on THFA from China were

revoked, subject imports from China would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic

industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine, under section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the

antidumping duty order on THFA from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

 1

 19 U.S.C. § 1675(d)(2).

 2

 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 3

 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at 883-84 (1994). The SAA states that “[t]he likelihood of injury standard

applies regardless of the nature of the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of material injury,

or material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that were never

completed.” SAA at 883.

 4

 While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not necessary,” it

indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely continued depressed

shipment levels and current and likely continued [sic] prices for the domestic like product in the U.S. market in

making its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order is revoked.” 

SAA at 884.

15

DISSENTING VIEWS OF VICE CHAIRMAN DANIEL R. PEARSON, COMMISSIONER

DEANNA TANNER OKUN, AND COMMISSIONER CHARLOTTE R. LANE

Section 751(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires that the U.S.

Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) revoke a countervailing duty or an antidumping duty order in a

five-year (“sunset”) review unless Commerce determines that dumping or a countervailable subsidy

would be likely to continue or recur and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”)

determines that material injury to a U.S. industry would be likely to continue or recur within a reasonably

foreseeable time.1

 Based on the record in this first five-year review, we determine that material injury is

not likely to continue or recur within a reasonably foreseeable time if the antidumping duty order on

tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol (“THFA”) from China is revoked.

We join our colleagues’ discussion regarding domestic like product and domestic industry. We

write separately to discuss the legal standard governing sunset reviews, conditions of competition, and to

provide our analysis of the statutory factors.

I. REVOCATION OF THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER ON THFA FROM CHINA IS

NOT LIKELY TO LEAD TO CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL

INJURY WITHIN A REASONABLY FORESEEABLE TIME

A. Legal Standard

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Act, Commerce will revoke a

countervailing or antidumping duty order or terminate a suspended investigation unless: (1) it makes a

determination that dumping is likely to continue or recur, and (2) the Commission makes a determination

that revocation of an order or termination of a suspended investigation “would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”2

 The Statement of

Administrative Action (“SAA”) states that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in

a counter-factual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an

important change in the status quo – the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of

its restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”3

 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in

nature.4

 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the five-year review

provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five-year 
 5

 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (“‘likely’ means

probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d mem., 140 Fed. Appx. 268

(Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 CIT 1416, 1419 (2002) (same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v.

United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn.3, 6 (2002) (“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s

opinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals

(Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-105 at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a

likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”); Usinor v. United States, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002)

(“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 6

 For a complete statement of Commissioner Okun’s interpretation of the likely standard, see Additional Views of

Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun Concerning the “Likely” Standard in Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel

Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-362 (Review) and

731-TA-707 to 710 (Review)(Remand), USITC Pub. 3754 (Feb. 2005).

 7

 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy, Inv. No.

AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004), she does not concur with the U.S. Court of

International Trade’s interpretation of “likely,” but she will apply the Court’s standard in these reviews and all

subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

addresses this issue. 

 8

 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 9

 SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the fungibility or

differentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the imported and domestic

products, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as spot sales or long-term contracts),

and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may only manifest themselves in the longer term,

such as planned investment and the shifting of production facilities.” Id.

 10 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 11 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the

Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s

determination. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). While the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is

necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886. We note that no duty absorption findings have been made by Commerce. 

16

reviews.5 6 7 The statute states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or

termination may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”8

According to the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally will

exceed the ‘imminent’ time frame applicable in a threat of injury analysis in antidumping and

countervailing duty investigations.”9

Although the standard in five-year reviews is not the same as the standard applied in original

antidumping or countervailing duty investigations, it contains some of the same fundamental elements. 

The statute provides that the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of

imports of the subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation

is terminated.”10 It directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury determination, whether

any improvement in the state of the industry is related to the order or the suspension agreement under

review, whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order is revoked or the suspension

agreement is terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C.

§ 1675(a)(4).11
 12 Commissioner Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year

reviews, but such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence as

a whole in making its determination. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. She generally gives credence to the facts supplied by

the participating parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole, and does

not automatically accept participating parties’ suggested interpretation of the record evidence. Regardless of the

level of participation, the Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factors

and may not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. In general, the Commission makes

determinations by “weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic

industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869.

 13 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 14 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (Final), USITC Pub. 3709 (July 2004),

Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun, Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane, and Commissioner

Daniel R. Pearson (“Dissenting Views”) at 14.

17

B. Information Available in this Expedited Review

As an initial matter, we note that in this review, we are basing our decision on a limited record. 

Although the Commission does not issue questionnaires in expedited reviews, the Commission’s Notice

of Institution affords interested parties the opportunity to provide information that is relevant to this

review. In this review, very little information was provided by interested parties that would inform the

Commission’s determination. In particular, with regard to the statutory factors the Commission is

directed to consider under 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2), we lack information on the Chinese industry’s

capacity to produce THFA, its capacity utilization, its existing inventories of subject merchandise, and

whether there is any potential for product shifting in the event of revocation of the order. Similarly, with

regard to the statutory factors the Commission is directed to consider under 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3) and

(4), we lack information on current price levels in the domestic THFA market, along with information on

the domestic THFA industry’s employment and inventory levels. Accordingly, we have relied on the

facts available in this review, which consist primarily of the staff report and views in the original

investigation, information collected by the Commission since the institution of this five-year review, and

information submitted by Penn A Kem LLC (“Penn”), the primary domestic producer, in this review.12

C. Conditions of Competition

In evaluating the impact of subject imports on the domestic industry upon revocation of the order,

the statute directs the Commission to evaluate all the relevant economic factors “within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”13 On the basis

of the record in this expedited review, we conclude that an important condition of competition in this

market differs significantly from conditions existing during the original period of investigation.

First, in the original investigation, we noted one particularly significant event affecting the

conditions of competition in the THFA market: the bankruptcy proceeding involving Penn, which at that

time was the sole domestic supplier of THFA.14 We observed that at the beginning of the period

examined, Penn was in bankruptcy, but had emerged from bankruptcy by the end of the period. Thus,

during the period that Penn was in bankruptcy, its ability to supply THFA to its customers was in doubt. 

We also noted that Penn’s creditors were also putting pressure on Penn to sell the THFA business, further

increasing uncertainty in the market. We concluded that these events likely caused some of Penn’s

customers to look elsewhere, particularly to subject imports, for their supplies of THFA. We recognized

that Kyzen, the largest importer of THFA from China, and a major customer of Penn, imported *** from
 15 USITC Pub. 3709 (“Dissenting Views”) at 15.

 16 Id, and Confidential Staff Report (“CR”) in this five-year review at I-18.

 17 CR, PR at table I-3. THFA production was *** in 2008, compared with *** in 2003.

 18 Penn response at 9; CR, PR at I-22.

 19 CR, PR at table I-7.

 20 Penn's Response to Commission Notice of Institution (Penn response), July 31, 2009, at 10-11.

 21 USITC Pub. 3709 (“Dissenting Views”) at 14-15.

 22 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

18

China pursuant to a long-established strategy (put in place in 1997) of obtaining THFA from more than

one source.15

In this review, no such uncertainty in the market exists. Penn emerged from its bankruptcy

proceeding in 2002, and has not re-entered bankruptcy since.16 In fact, Penn appears to have ***

expanded its operations since the original period of investigation as, for example, its production of THFA

in 2008 is *** its production in any calendar year of the original period.17 Thus, one of the key

conditions of competition that led to increases in subject imports during the original period of

investigation is no longer in force. Moreover, based on the record in this review, Kyzen, formerly the

largest importer, ***.18

Second, although demand as measured by apparent U.S. consumption declined during the original

period of investigation, the market for THFA currently appears significantly larger. In particular,

apparent U.S. consumption of THFA was approximately *** in 2008, up from approximately *** in

2003, the last year of the original period.19 Penn reported that demand for THFA experienced rapid

growth, particularly in agricultural applications, but that growth slowed after ***.20 Inasmuch as the

current record provides only one year of data, we do not have a basis upon which to evaluate Penn’s

claim of a slowing market. 

Finally, in the original investigation we determined that THFA is a product that is sensitive to

price, but that price considerations became paramount only after suppliers were qualified.21 The record

indicated that a significant number of purchasers reported that they required THFA suppliers to be

certified or pre-qualified with respect to quality, and nearly all purchasers noted that THFA had to meet

either internal specifications, customer specifications, or industry standards. Thus, to a purchaser

weighing a decision to buy from Penn versus buying from a new, unproven supplier, quality mattered

more than price. There is no evidence on the record of this review that would indicate that this condition

of competition has changed.

D. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

The Commission is to consider whether the likely volume of subject imports would be significant

either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States if the order under

review were revoked. In so doing, the Commission shall consider “all relevant economic factors,”

including four enumerated in the statute: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused

production capacity in the exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely

increases in inventories; (3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise in

countries other than the United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if the production facilities

in the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to

produce other products.22
 23 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 24 USITC Pub. 3709 (Dissenting Views) at 16 (citing INV-BB-085 at table IV-3).

 25 Id (citing INV-BB-085 at table C-1).

 26 In the original investigation, we recognized that the staff’s market share calculations are based on shipments of

imports. As subject imports were zero in interim 2004, shipments of imports in interim 2004 were likely related to

imports made in 2003. USITC Pub. (Dissenting Views) at 16, n.31.

 27 Penn response at 7-8. 

 28 CR/PR at Table I-8.

 29 CR/PR at table I-8.

 30 Penn response at p. 7, n.12.

 31 USITC Pub. 3709 (Dissenting Views) at 21-22.

19

Our focus in this review is whether subject import volume is likely to be significant in the

reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping duty order is revoked.23 In performing our analysis, we

have taken into account our previous volume findings with respect to the subject imports from China. In

our original determination, we found that the volume of subject imports from China increased from ***

pounds in 2001 to *** pounds in 2002, a ***-percent increase, then declined in 2003 to *** pounds, a

***-percent decline.24 Subject import volumes began to decline in March 2003, three months before the

petition was filed, and had completely exited the market in January-March (“interim”) 2004, when

compared to *** pounds in the comparable period of 2003. We further found that, as a share of domestic

consumption, subject imports increased from *** percent of the market in 2001 to *** percent in 2002,

then declined to *** percent in 2003.25 Subject imports held a ***-percent share of the market in interim

2004, as opposed to *** percent in interim 2003.26

Because current data are limited in this expedited review, our analysis of the statutory factors

focuses on the data and market at the time of the original investigation and also compares any data

available for the current market. There is no new information on the record concerning China’s capacity

utilization or THFA inventories, and limited new information concerning its capacity to produce THFA.

Penn claims that Chinese producers possess significant excess capacity and estimates total production

capacity in China at 7,500 metric tons. It also claims that Chinese producers are “export-oriented,” based

on information from three firms gleaned from their web sites, and hence theorizes that such firms would

have little trouble resuming exports to the United States.27 Penn did not report the existence of any

barriers facing Chinese exporters in third-country markets.

In the original investigation, China’s production capacity reportedly remained steady at ***

pounds and its capacity utilization fluctuated from a low of *** in *** to a high of *** in ***.28

Moreover, while the Chinese industry became increasingly export-oriented (to the U.S. market and all

other markets) from 2001 to 2003, these increases were at the expense of shipments to the home market. 

Shipments of subject Chinese merchandise to the U.S. market declined in 2003 and *** in 2004.29

It is uncertain whether the Chinese industry is significantly different in size from the original

investigation. While Penn alleges that Chinese production capacity is significantly higher in the review

(7,500 metric tons), Penn has not provided a basis for this estimate nor is it clear from other record

evidence. We recognize that, at least in theory, there appears to be a significant probability of

product-shifting, because it is likely that Chinese factories that produce THFA can also produce furfuryl

alcohol (“FA”) and, as Penn points out, Chinese producers would prefer to produce the higher-valued

THFA product.30 This potential for product-shifting, however, also existed at the time of the original

investigation and we found the evidence did not support such a shift, even with the then-existing

antidumping duty orders on imports of FA from China into the United States and the European Union.31
 32 USITC Pub. 3709 (Dissenting Views) at 17.

 33 CR, PR at table I-3.

 34 Penn Response at 9-10.

 35 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(3).

 36 USITC Pub. 3709 (Dissenting Views) at 15-16.

 37 Id at 18. We also declined to place significant weight on alternative price comparisons proffered by Penn and

the Commission staff (and relied upon by the Commission majority) because they were not made at the same level of

trade.

 38 Id at 19.

20

Nonetheless, even though the volume and market share of subject imports increased overall

during the original investigation period, we determine that subject import volume is not likely to increase

significantly in the event the order is revoked, because the conditions of competition that encouraged the

increase in subject imports that occurred during the original investigation period no longer exist. In

particular, we found that the main driver behind any increases in volume was the fact that, during the

early part of the period, Penn was an unreliable supplier because of its bankruptcy situation.32 We

observed that after Penn emerged from bankruptcy in mid-2002, imports declined, and did so before the

petition was filed in June 2003. By contrast, in the current market, Penn, although ***, is not in

bankruptcy and presumably is and has been a reliable supplier throughout the period of review.33

Moreover, based on the record in this review, ***.34 Thus, notwithstanding some record evidence

alleging the possibility of an expanded Chinese industry, we conclude that imports would be unlikely to

enter the U.S. market in significant quantities, because the circumstances that encouraged subject imports

to do so during the original investigation no longer exist.

Therefore, we find that revocation of the antidumping duty order is not likely to lead to an

increase in the volume of subject imports such that the likely volume of subject imports would be

significant.

E. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the antidumping duty order is revoked,

the Commission considers whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the subject imports as

compared to the domestic like product, and if the subject imports are likely to enter the United States at

prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the price of domestic

like products.35

In performing our analysis, we have taken into account our previous price findings. In the

original determination, we found that THFA produced in the United States and in China was readily

interchangeable, once suppliers are qualified.36 The Commission did not collect specific pricing data in

this expedited review, nor did the parties provide such data. In the original investigation, however, we

found that, although U.S. prices generally declined, this decline was not attributable to subject imports,

because subject imports predominantly oversold domestic product, with overselling occurring in 11 of 15

comparisons.37 We also noted that even when subject imports began to leave the U.S. market in early

2003, domestic prices continued to decline. With regard to price suppression, we observed that given the

fact that prices of subject imports appear to have fluctuated without any clear trend while for the most part

overselling the domestic product, we could not conclude that subject import prices prevented Penn’s

prices from rising to levels that would enable Penn to recoup its rising production costs.38

Because current pricing data are unavailable on the record in this review, we have no information

that would enable us to evaluate whether subject imports, in the event of revocation of the order, would
 39 Penn asserts that ***, and that this shows that subject producers would undersell in the U.S. market if the order

were revoked. Penn response at 7. We find Penn’s argument unpersuasive. The submitted information, showing

that ***, does not necessarily indicate that subject producers would undersell in the U.S. market, as ***.

 40 74 Fed. Reg. 57,290 (Nov. 5, 2009). We note, however, that the level of dumping margins, per se, tells us

nothing about whether there is likely to be significant price underselling by subject imports or whether subject

imports are likely to be sold at prices that depress or suppress U.S. prices for THFA.

 41 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).

 42 USITC Pub. 3709 (Dissenting Views) at 20.

 43 We noted that, on an overall establishment basis, Penn had ***. USITC Pub. 3709 (Dissenting Views) at 20,

n.57.

21

be likely to enter the United States at prices that would undersell the domestic like product.39 We

acknowledge Commerce’s determination that dumping is likely to continue or recur if the antidumping

duty order is revoked as well as the fact that THFA, to a limited extent, is a commodity product.40 Our

conclusions, however, regarding the likely price effects if the antidumping duty order is revoked are

drawn largely from our conclusions on the likely volume of subject imports. As discussed above, subject

imports are not likely to increase significantly if the antidumping duty order is revoked, because the

unique conditions of competition that led to surges in subject imports during the original investigation

period no longer exist. Consequently, we find that revocation of the antidumping duty order would not

likely lead to significant underselling by the subject imports as compared to the domestic like product, or

to significant price depression or suppression, within a reasonably foreseeable time. Therefore, we find

that revocation of the order is not likely to lead to any significant adverse price effects.

F. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping duty order is

revoked, the Commission considers all relevant economic factors that are likely to have a bearing on the

state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to: (1) likely declines in output, sales,

market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative

effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment; and

(3) likely negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the industry, including

efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product.41

During the original investigation, we found that the impact of subject imports was not

significant.42 We recognized that Penn’s financial performance was *** in all periods of the original

investigation, but found that subject imports did not contribute significantly to that condition. We noted

that most of Penn’s economic and financial indicators appeared to improve at around the time Penn

emerged from bankruptcy protection (i.e., mid-2002). Because the volume of subject imports peaked in

late 2002 and early 2003, there was no correlation between Penn’s financial performance and subject

imports, inasmuch as Penn’s financial performance improved at the same time that imports reached their

highest level. We concluded that, even if such a link could be demonstrated, because the volume of

subject imports was not significant and those imports had little, if any, effect on domestic prices, it would

be difficult to conclude that Penn’s losses were caused by subject imports. We noted that it was far more

likely that Penn’s troubles in the THFA industry were caused by the same issues that triggered its

bankruptcy filing, coupled with a decline in demand for THFA.43
 44 Domestic parties only provided 2008 data on capacity, production, volume and value of shipments,

net sales, cost of goods sold, SG&A expenses, operating income, and the ratio of operating income to net

sales. CR, PR at table I-3.

 45 The capacity of the THFA industry was *** pounds in 2008, compared with *** pounds in 2003. Production

was *** pounds in 2008, as opposed to *** pounds in 2003. Capacity utilization in 2008 was *** percent,

compared with *** percent in 2003. The volume of U.S. shipments was *** pounds in 2008, while it was ***

pounds in 2003. The unit value of U.S. shipments was $*** per pound in 2008, up from $*** in 2003. As a percent

of net sales, Penn’s operating *** was *** percent in 2008, compared with *** percent in 2003. CR, PR at table I-3.

22

Because the Commission elected not to conduct a full review, we have limited new information

on the current condition of the domestic industry.44 Capacity, production, capacity utilization, and

shipment levels were *** higher than during the original investigation. Shipment unit values were higher

and profitability levels were improved, although Penn ***.45 On balance, the economic health of the

THFA industry appears *** better than it was at the time of the original investigation. Consequently,

despite the fact that the THFA industry ***, we do not conclude that it is vulnerable to future imports,

given its *** increased size and the fact that, based on the limited information we have on the unit value

of shipments, prices appear to have increased or at least stabilized.

Nevertheless, even were we to conclude that the industry is currently vulnerable, because we have

concluded that, in the event of revocation, the volume of subject imports and their effect on U.S. prices

would not likely be significant, we would not conclude that such imports would be likely to have a

significant impact on domestic THFA producers’ cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth,

ability to raise capital, or investment within a reasonably foreseeable time in the event the order is

revoked. We therefore find that revocation of the order is not likely to lead to the continuation or

recurrence of material injury to the domestic THFA industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

II. CONCLUSION

Subject imports are not likely to have significant adverse volume or price effects in the event of

revocation, and are therefore not likely to have a negative impact on the domestic industry. Thus, we find

that material injury to the U.S. THFA industry is not likely to continue or recur within a reasonably

foreseeable time if the antidumping duty order on THFA from China is revoked.
I-1

INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE REVIEW

 1

 19 U.S.C. 1675(c).

 2 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China, 74 FR 31752, July 2, 2009. All interested parties were requested to

respond to this notice by submitting the information requested by the Commission. The Commission’s notice of

institution is presented in app. A.

 3

 In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published a

notice of initiation of a five-year review of the subject antidumping duty order concurrently with the Commission’s

notice of institution. Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Review, 74 FR 31412, July 1, 2009.

 4

 The Commission received one submission from domestic producer Penn A Kem LLC (“Penn”) in response to

its notice of institution for the subject review. The domestic interested party is represented by the law firm of

Thompson Hine LLP. The domestic interested party reported that it accounted for *** percent of total U.S.

production of THFA in 2008. Response of domestic interested party, July 31, 2009, p. 10.

 5

 The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested parties to its notice of institution.

 6

 The Commission’s notice of an expedited review appears in app. A. The Commission’s statement on adequacy

is presented in app. B.

 7

 Cited Federal Register notices beginning with the Commission’s institution of a five-year sunset review are

presented in app. A.

I-3

INTRODUCTION

Effective July 1, 2009, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(“the Act”),1

 the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”) gave notice that it

had instituted a review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on imports of

tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol (“THFA”) from China would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence

of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.2 3

 On October 5, 2009, the Commission

determined that the domestic interested party response to its notice of institution was adequate4

 and that

the respondent interested party group response was inadequate.5

 In the absence of respondent interested

party responses and any other circumstances that would warrant the conduct of a full review, the

Commission determined to conduct an expedited review of the antidumping duty order pursuant to

section 751(c)(3) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)).6

 The following tabulation presents selected

information relating to the schedule of this five-year review.7

Effective date Action

Federal Register

citation

July 1, 2009 Commission’s institution of five-year review 74 FR 31752

July 1, 2009 Commerce’s initiation of five-year review 74 FR 31412

October 5, 2009

Commission’s determination to conduct an expedited five-year review

and scheduling of expedited review 74 FR 54067

November 19,

2009 Commission’s vote Not applicable

November 30,

2009 Commission’s determination to Commerce Not applicable
 8

 The petition was filed by Penn Specialty Chemicals, Inc. (“Penn Specialty”), Plymouth Meeting, PA. In July

2008, Minafin SARL (Luxembourg) acquired Penn Specialty and changed its name to Penn A Kem LLC (hereinafter

referred to as the domestic interested party and/or Penn). Response of domestic interested party, July 31, 2009, pp.

2-3. 

 9 Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From the People’s Republic

of China, 69 FR 34130, June 18, 2004.

 10 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China, 69 FR 47178, August 4, 2004.

 11 Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From The People’s Republic of China, 69 FR

47911, August 6, 2004.

 12 Letter from Barbara E. Tillman, Senior Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, August 20, 2009. 

I-4

The Original Investigation

On June 23, 2003, a petition was filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an

industry in the United States was materially injured and threatened with further material injury by reason

of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of THFA from China.8

 On June 18, 2004, Commerce made an

affirmative final LTFV determination9

 and, effective July 29, 2004, the Commission determined that an

industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of THFA from China.10

After receipt of the Commission’s final affirmative determination, Commerce issued an antidumping duty

order on imports of THFA from China.11

Commerce’s Original Determination and Administrative Review Determinations

Commerce’s original determination was published on June 18, 2004, and the antidumping duty

order concerning THFA from China was issued on August 6, 2004. Since the issuance of the

antidumping duty order, there have been no administrative reviews, no scope rulings concerning the

antidumping duty order, no new shipper reviews, no changed circumstances determinations, and no duty

absorption findings. 

Commerce’s Original Determination and Its Expedited Five-Year Review

On August 20, 2009, Commerce notified the Commission that it did not receive an adequate

response to its notice of initiation from the respondent interested parties with respect to THFA from China

and that it would conduct an expedited review of the order.12 Information on Commerce’s final

determination and antidumping duty order is presented in table I-1.

Table I-1

THFA: Commerce’s final determination and antidumping duty order

Action

Effective

date

Federal

Register

citation

Period of

investigation/

review

Antidumping duty margins

Firmspecific PRC-wide1

Percent ad valorem

Final

determination 06/18/2004 69 FR 34130 10/01/02-03/31/03

Qingdao Wenkem (F.T.Z.)

Trading Co.Ltd . . . . . . 136.86 136.86

Antidumping

duty order 08/06/2004 69 FR 47911 --

Qingdao Wenkem (F.T.Z.)

Trading Co.Ltd . . . . . . 136.86 136.86

 1

 The PRC-wide rate applies to all companies that did not otherwise receive a “firm-specific” rate.

 

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
 13 19 CFR 159.64(g).

 14 Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports 2004-09, found at

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/.

 15 Furfuryl Alcohol From China and Thailand, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-703 and 705 (Review), USITC Publication

3412, April 2001.

 16 Furfuryl Alcohol From China and Thailand, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-703 and 705 (Second Review), USITC

Publication 3885, September 2006. 

 17 Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand, 72 FR

58056, October 12, 2007.

 18 Antidumping Duty Order: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 47911,

August 6, 2004.

I-5

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act Funds to Affected Domestic Producers

Qualified U.S. producers of THFA are eligible to receive disbursements from U.S. Customs and

Border Protection (“Customs”) under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000

(“CDSOA”), also known as the Byrd Amendment.13 No CDSOA disbursements have been made for the

subject merchandise from China since the imposition of the order in 2004.14

Previous and Related Commission Investigations and Reviews

THFA has not been the subject of prior countervailing or antidumping duty investigations or

reviews in the United States.

Furfuryl alcohol (“FA”) is the primary precursor chemical for THFA. In May 1994, an

antidumping petition was filed against imports of FA from China, South Africa, and Thailand, on behalf

of Quaker Oats Chemicals, the predecessor company to Penn, the domestic interested party in the present

review. In June 1995, the Commission made affirmative injury determinations for imports from all three

countries. The Department of Commerce issued antidumping duty orders with margins ranging from

43.54 to 50.43 percent ad valorem for China, and single margins of 7.82 percent and 11.55 percent for

Thailand and South Africa, respectively. The antidumping duty order on FA from South Africa was

revoked by Commerce in 1999. In 2001, the Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping

duty orders on China and Thailand would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material

injury, and the orders were continued.15 In 2006, the Commission determined that revocation of the

antidumping duty orders on China and Thailand would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of

material injury, and the orders were continued.16 On October 12, 2007, Commerce published its final

results from its administrative review on FA and the results were a de minimis rate of 0.39 percent for

Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd.17 The current deposit rates for FA imports from China remain

unchanged.

THE PRODUCT

Scope

In its original antidumping duty order, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as follows:

The product covered by this order is tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol (C5H10O2) (‘THFA’).

THFA, a primary alcohol, is a clear, water white to pale yellow liquid. THFA is a

member of the heterocyclic compounds known as furans and is miscible with water and

soluble in many common organic solvents.18
 19 The written description provided above is dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage. The HTS

classification is provided for convenience and for Customs purposes only.

 20 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (Final), USITC Publication 3709, July 2004,

p. 5.

 21 Response of domestic interested party, July 31, 2009, p. 11.

 22 Response of domestic interested party, July 31, 2009, pp. 2-3.

 23 During the preliminary phase of the investigation, only one other U.S. producer of THFA was identified,

Synetex. Synetex was a start-up firm that produced small quantities of THFA in 2000 and went out of business

shortly thereafter. Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (Final), USITC Publication 3709,

July 2004, p. III-2.

 24 Penn *** internally consume, *** shipments of THFA to related parties. Confidential Staff Report, July 1,

2004, INV-BB-085, p. III-4.

 25 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (Final), USITC Publication 3709, July 2004,

p. 5. 

 26 Response of domestic interested party, July 31, 2009, p. 11.

I-6

Commerce has not received any requests for scope rulings since the original antidumping duty

order date. 

U.S. Tariff Treatment

THFA is provided for in subheading 2932.13.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United

States (“HTS”).19 THFA has a normal trade relations tariff rate of 3.7 percent ad valorem, applicable to

imports from China. 

Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry

The domestic like product is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in

the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the subject merchandise. In its original

determination, the Commission found a single domestic like product, coextensive with the scope,

consisting of all domestically-produced THFA.20 The domestic interested party indicated in its response

to the Commission’s notice of institution in this review that it agreed with the definition of the domestic

like product as set out in the Commission’s notice of institution and its final determination in the original

investigation.21

The domestic industry is the collection of U.S. producers as a whole of the domestic like product,

or those producers whose collective output of the domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of

the total domestic production of the product. The original investigation resulted from a petition filed by

Penn Specialty (which later was acquired and changed its name to Penn A Kem LLC) on June 23, 2003.22

U.S. industry data presented in the Commission’s staff report in the original investigation were based on

the questionnaire response of one firm, Penn.23 This firm was believed to have accounted for virtually all

U.S. production of THFA. There were no related party issues identified in the original investigation.24 

The Commission, based on its domestic like product determination, found one domestic industry,

consisting of all U.S. producers of the domestic like product.25 The domestic interested party indicated in

its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this review that it agreed with the definition of

the domestic industry as set out in the Commission’s notice of institution and its final determination in the

original investigation.26 

The domestic interested party participating in this review indicated in its response to the

Commission’s notice of institution that the structure of the domestic industry has not changed
 27 Ibid., p. 8.

 28 http://www.novamolecular.com/products.html, retrieved October 15, 2009.

 29 Response of domestic interested party, July 31, 2009, p. 8.

 30 Much of the industry information presented throughout this section of the report is from the report issued in the

final investigation, Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (Final), USITC Publication

3709, July 2004.

 31 Ibid., pp. I-4-I-5.

 32 Ibid.

 33 Ibid., p. I-5.

I-7

substantially since the original investigation. That is, it is still essentially the only domestic producer of

THFA. However, in its response to the Commission’s notice of institution it stated that there may be a

new entrant in the market, Nova Molecular Technologies, Inc. (“Nova Molecular”), Janesville, WI.27

According to Nova Molecular’s website, it is able to produce THFA.28 The domestic interested party

reported that it is not related to any exporter or importer of the subject merchandise from China.29

Physical Characteristics and Uses30

THFA is an environmentally acceptable and biodegradable specialty solvent. It is a member of

the heterocyclic compounds known as furans, which are characterized by a nucleus consisting of an

unsaturated ring of four carbon atoms and one oxygen atom. THFA has a high flash point, a high boiling

point, a low freezing point, chemical and thermal stability, and a high solvency for organic and inorganic

materials. There are no ASTM standards for THFA.31

The major use of THFA is as a solvent. In agricultural applications, THFA is used as a solvent

for biocides, pesticides, and herbicides. It is also widely used as a solvent in a broad variety of cleaning

products, from graffiti and floor polish removers to cleaners for printed circuit boards. THFA is also

frequently used in the production of UV curables – adhesives, paints, coatings, and inks that bond

chemically when exposed to ultraviolet light. Other applications in which THFA is used, though less

commonly, include as an ingredient in paint and grime strippers for the automotive industry; as a

coalescing agent for paints; as a solvent for epoxy resins; as a solvent for lacquers, shellac, and enamels;

as a solvent in refining lubricating oils; as antifreeze in extremely cold temperatures; and as a chemical

reactant in the production of lysine and certain plasticizers and pharmaceuticals.32

Manufacturing Process

THFA is produced by the hydrogenation of FA. The raw materials required for the production of

THFA are precursor FA, hydrogen, and a catalyst to facilitate the chemical reaction yielding THFA. 

There are two possible technologies for the production of THFA: vapor phase and liquid phase. The

basic process by which THFA is produced is the same for both technologies: raw FA, in liquid or vapor

form, is mixed with hydrogen and fed into a reactor; a catalyst is then added to the mixture, converting

the FA to THFA; the resulting THFA is then dehydrated and distilled.33

Based on evidence available in the record during the original investigation, Chinese producer

Zhucheng employs liquid phase technology for the production of THFA. U.S. producer Penn has
 34 Confidential Staff Report, July 1, 2004, INV-BB-085, pp. I-6-I-7.

 35 Ibid., p. I-7. ***. Ibid. 

 36 Ibid. According to importer Kyzen, in the original investigation, ***. Both products meet commercial

specifications. Ibid.

 37 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (Final), USITC Publication 3709, July 2004,

p. V-1. 

 38 Ibid., p. 7. 

 39 Ibid., p. I-5. 

 40 Ibid., pp. 7-8. 

 41 Ibid., p. 8. 

 42 Response of domestic interested party, July 31, 2009.

 43 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (Final), USITC Publication 3709, July 2004,

p. II-6 and Confidential Staff Report, July 1, 2004, INV-BB-085, p. II-9.

I-8

traditionally employed vapor phase technology for its THFA production. ***.34 ***.35 The production

cost and quality of THFA produced by the two different technologies are comparable.36

Raw Materials

The main raw material used in the production of THFA is FA. During the Commission’s

original investigation, the U.S. producer, Penn, reported that its raw material costs accounted for

approximately *** percent of the costs of goods sold, up from *** percent in 2001.37

Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions

During the period examined in the original investigation, the Commission found that “a high

degree of substitutability exists between subject imports and the domestic like product.”38 The U.S.

producer and importers responding to Commission questionnaires in the original investigation largely

agreed that THFA produced in the United States, China, and nonsubject countries was interchangeable.39

The Commission found that “three quarters of responding purchasers reported that subject imports were

comparable to the domestic like product in terms of product consistency and in meeting industry

standards.”40 Additionally, the Commission determined that price is an important consideration for

THFA purchasers in selecting a supplier: half of the responding purchasers ranked price first. “Further,

purchasers indicated that price was an important factor more often than any other factor, including

quality.”41 The domestic interested party in this review did not address interchangeability in its response

to the Commission’s notice of institution.42

Substitute Products

 In the final phase of the original investigation, the following importers responded to the

Commission’s question on substitutes: Kyzen Corp. (“Kyzen”), ***. *** reported in its response to the

Commission’s questionnaire that there were no substitutes for THFA, *** did not answer the question,

and Kyzen stated at the conference that THFA is a unique product, but also reported that ***.43 Eight of

14 responding purchasers reported either “none” or “not applicable” in response to the question on

substitutes, while four did not provide information; *** listed cyclic TMP, propoxylated THFA, and
 44 Ibid.

 45 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (Final), USITC Publication 3709, July 2004,

p. 6.

 46 Ibid.

 47 ***’s Adequacy Phase U.S. Purchasers’ Questionnaire, section 5a.

 48 Ibid., p. II-2.

 49 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (Final), USITC Publication 3709, July 2004,

p. II-2. In 2002, Penn sold *** percent of its THFA by volume to distributors and *** percent to end users. In 2001,

Penn sold *** percent to distributors and *** percent to end users. THFA is sold in 55-gallon drums and bulk

containers of 20 metric tons, or approximately 44,100 pounds. In 2003, Penn sold *** percent of its THFA in bulk

containers and *** percent in 55-gallon drums. Penn also sells ***. Confidential Staff Report, July 1, 2004, INVBB-085, table II-1 and p. II-3.

 50 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (Final), USITC Publication 3709, July 2004,

p. II-2. In 2003, Penn shipped THFA to *** U.S. states, although *** percent of Penn’s THFA sales were shipped

to just *** states: ***. The top *** states (adding *** to the list) accounted for *** percent of Penn’s THFA

shipments. Confidential Staff Report, July 1, 2004, INV-BB-085, p. II-3, fn. 7.

 51 Ibid., p. II-3. 

 52 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (Final), USITC Publication 3709, July 2004,

p. II-2. ***. Confidential Staff Report, July 1, 2004, INV-BB-085, p. II-3, fn. 9.

I-9

isobornyl acrylate as possible substitutes for THFA.44 Reformulating either in favor of using THFA or

away from using THFA may involve significant time and testing expenses, and purchasers of the end

product may resist any reformulation.45 As a result, purchasers of THFA are not particularly sensitive to

changes in the price of THFA, and lower prices for THFA are not likely to spur additional demand.46 The

Commission determined that there were no substitutes for THFA in most applications. 

During the adequacy phase of this review, purchaser questionnaires were sent to *** leading

purchasers of THFA. The Commission received *** response from ***.47

Channels of Distribution

In the U.S. market, domestic and imported THFA are sold to both distributors and end users.48

During the original investigation, in 2003, data reported by the domestic interested party indicated that

*** percent of its THFA was sold through distributors, with the remaining *** percent sold to end users.49

In the original investigation, Penn reported it sold THFA on a nationwide basis, reducing its exposure to

an economic downturn in any one region.50

Importers, other than Kyzen, reported that *** percent of their Chinese-produced THFA was sold

to distributors and *** percent was sold to end users in 2003.51 The three responding importers,

AllChem, ARS, and Kyzen, all reported selling their THFA on the spot market.52 AllChem sold its

imported THFA in *** while ARS sold imported THFA in the ***. Kyzen reported that the vast majority

of its imported THFA is used in the manufacture of cleaning agents which are sold throughout the United

States. 

Pricing

During the period examined in the original investigation, the Commission found that pricing data

for commercial sales showed mostly overselling by subject imports, which was likely explained by the

fact that the import prices were based on substantially lower quantities of subject imports as compared to
 53 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (Final), USITC Publication 3709, July 2004,

p. 10.

 54 Ibid. Penn argued that the Commission should rely on a comparison of Kyzen’s import prices to prices for

Penn’s sales to end users, Penn Prehearing Brief at exh. 4, but this comparison ignores differences in the levels of

trade. Kyzen argued that the Commission should rely on a comparison of the unit value of Kyzen’s direct imports to

the price of Kyzen’s purchases from Penn. This comparison ignored differences in the product (shipped in 55-gallon

drums versus bulk containers) and also ignored that Kyzen represented only a minority of the merchant market for

THFA. The Commission stated that it hesitated to rely on a comparison of average unit values, given the differences

in product mix. Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (Final), USITC Publication 3709,

July 2004, p. 10, fn. 58.

 55 Ibid., p. 10.

 56 Ibid.

 57 Ibid.

 58 Ibid. *** was able to gain similar price concessions from Penn in 2003. 

 59 Ibid., pp. 10-11.

 60 Ibid. Penn’s price to Kyzen undersold subject imports for most of the period of the original investigation. 

However, the price Penn granted to Kyzen remained far below the price paid by even higher-volume customers. The

subject THFA imported by Kyzen was also packaged in 55-gallon drums, and should have commanded a higher

price, while the domestic THFA purchased by Kyzen was in bulk containers. The Commission stated that it was

reasonable to conclude that Kyzen’s import purchases gave it significant leverage to obtain lower prices from Penn. 

Ibid., fn. 64.

I-10

the quantities on which the domestic prices were based.53 Penn and Kyzen suggested alternate ways of

considering the pricing data, each of which had limitations.54 

The Commission also considered purchaser prices, which show underselling by subject imports

as compared to the domestic like product. For most of the period of original investigation, subject

imports undersold the domestic like product by margins up to or exceeding *** percent.55 The

underselling gap disappeared by the end of the period of original investigation, as Penn lowered its prices. 

This margin was not caused by volume differences, as prices paid by high-volume purchasers of the

domestic like product were nearly as high as prices paid by lower-volume purchasers of subject imports.56

Subject imports affected domestic prices even when they did not take market share from Penn. 

As the Commission noted in its original determination, sales in the THFA market tended to be made

informally; the market was small and dominated by a handful of large purchasers. In 2002, when Penn

was emerging from bankruptcy, ***, were able to gain significant price concessions from Penn by citing

lower-price quotes for subject imports.57 Penn lost significant revenue from these concessions, and ***

continued to purchase at reduced prices through 2002 and 2003.58 Thus, subject imports had a significant

adverse effect on the prices paid by these customers, and thus the revenue received by Penn. Penn’s sales

to *** represented a significant share of the price data Penn reported to the Commission. Thus, Penn’s

lower prices to these customers were a main reason why its overall prices declined in 2002 and 2003. 

Similarly, throughout the period of original investigation, Kyzen received a lower price from

Penn than did any other domestic purchaser, even though Kyzen was only Penn’s *** biggest customer

by volume.59 Penn was, however, aware of Kyzen’s imports, and Kyzen’s importing influenced the price

concessions it received from Penn.60

Domestic prices generally declined throughout the period examined in the original investigation,

but rose once subject imports left the market; purchasers generally paid significantly more for the

domestic like product; and the domestic producer lost significant revenues when purchasers threatened to

buy lower-cost imports. The Commission thus found that the subject imports had significant pricedepressing effects on the domestic like product.
 61 Ibid., p. 11. 

 62 Confidential Staff Report, July 1, 2004, INV-BB-085, p. V-2.

 63 Ibid., pp. V-2-V-3.

 64 Ibid., p. V-12.

 65 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (Final), USITC Publication 3709, July 2004,

p. V-5.

 66 ***. Confidential Staff Report, July 1, 2004, INV-BB-085, p. V-2, fn.3.

 67 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (Final), USITC Publication 3709, July 2004,

p. V-6.

I-11

During the period examined in the original investigation, the Commission found significant

underselling by the subject imports and that the subject imports had depressed prices for the domestic like

product to a significant degree.61 

During the original investigation, the Commission collected usable pricing data for sales of

THFA in the U.S. market from the U.S. producer, Penn, and the three responding importers, *** on two

products. *** reported that sales of THFA are made on a transaction-by-transaction basis, with 100

percent of their sales taking place in the spot market. ***, on the other hand, reported that it uses a price

list; negotiates contract prices for large-volume orders; and meets all competitive prices. Approximately

*** percent of ***’s sales took place via contract, while the remaining *** percent took place in the spot

market.62

The average duration of Penn’s contracts was *** years, during which both the quantity and price

were fixed. While contracts are negotiated at expiration, Penn typically offered meet-or-release terms. 

According to Penn, it changed *** percent of its contract prices during the period examined as a result of

its meet-or-release obligations.63 

In the original investigation, information collected indicated that THFA purchasers were gaining

clout in negotiations in both the contract and spot markets. For example, *** and *** indicated on their

lost revenue response forms that quotes from Chinese suppliers were used to re-negotiate with Penn.64

Similarly, Penn described at the hearing how offers to sell THFA from Chinese producers increased the

bargaining power of purchasers in the spot market, causing prices to fall:

The way this happens is that our major customers outside Kyzen . . . came to us in the year 2002

with credible offer of Chinese THFA at very low prices, and they’ve told us very emphatically

and clearly that we would lose most or all of our business if we didn’t match those prices or at

least come close . . . we decided that we weren’t going to give up the volume so we didn’t

literally meet the Chinese THFA prices, but we came close enough so that our major customers at

least decided to stick with us.65

According to Penn, offers to sell THFA were also used by its contract customers66 to negotiate down the

price of THFA: 

Typically, a customer who received the lower-price quotes for the purpose of subject product

would approach Penn, and give Penn the option to retain that business by meeting the lower price

offered . . . Penn, in an effort to maintain market share and customer relationships, as you heard

earlier, often chose to meet the lower price.67

Penn also describes the domestic-or-import decision faced by many of its customers:
 68 Ibid., p. V-6.

 69 A second firm, Synetex, was identified in the preliminary phase of the investigation. It was a start-up firm that

it produced small quantities of THFA in 2000 and then shortly thereafter it went out of business. Tetrahydrofurfuryl

Alcohol From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (Final), USITC Publication 3709, July 2004, p. III-2. 

 70 Response of domestic interested party, July 31, 2009, p. 8.

 71 Response of domestic interested party, July 31, 2009, p. 8. Minafin, Minakem Group’s Holding Company

(“Minakem Group”) and Penn Specialty Chemicals, Inc. announced that Penn Specialty Chemicals, Inc.’s chemical

assets have been acquired by PennAkem, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the French Minakem Group. “With this

acquisition, PennAkem becomes the world leading producer of furan, methyltetrahydrofuran (a green solvent with

several technical advantages over tetrahydrofuran) and tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol.” 

http://www.pennakem.com/pdfs/PennakemPressRelease20080704.pdf, retrieved October 15, 2009.

I-12

I think a smart purchaser says to himself or herself, I’ve been buying from Penn for years. They

have always done what I needed. I would rather continue to purchase from them, buy from one

source, but I want a lower price. So our argument is that Chinese THFA has been used many,

many times to get a lower price from us, legitimately . . . the source of the subject imports

resulted in offers of lower prices to customers who we ultimately defended and met the prices;

and, therefore, there were no imports.68

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Producers

U.S. industry data collected in the original investigation were based on the questionnaire response

of one domestic producer that accounted for virtually all U.S. production of THFA.69 

The domestic interested party reported in its response to the Commission’s notice of institution

that currently there are two domestic producers of THFA: Penn and a new market entrant, Nova

Molecular.70 Penn responded to the Commission’s notice of institution in this review; Nova Molecular is

not participating. Details regarding each firm’s location and company shares of 2003 and 2008 total

domestic production of THFA are presented in table I-2. 

Table I-2

THFA: U.S. producers, locations, and company shares of 2003 and 2008 total domestic production

Firm Location

Share of 2003 reported

production (percent)

Estimated share of 2008

domestic production

(percent)

Penn Memphis, TN *** ***

Nova Molecular Janesville, WI (1

) (1)

 Total 100.0 100.0

 1 Not available.

Source: Confidential Staff Report, INV-BB-085, July 1, 2004, p. III-1 and response of domestic interested party, July 31, 2009, p.

10. 

Penn

Penn is headquartered in Memphis, TN, and in 2008 was acquired by Minafin SARL,

Luxembourg.71 Penn’s facility was originally commissioned by the U.S. government during the Second

World War to produce furfural for the synthetic rubber industry. In 1946, the site was purchased by

Quaker Oats Chemicals, and production expanded to include furan and tetrahydrofuran (“THF”). When
 72 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (Final), USITC Publication 3709, July 2004,

p. III-1.

 73 Ibid., pp. III-1-III-2. Penn’s bankruptcy agreement listed aggressive European competition, fluctuating

exchange rates, and a threefold increase in natural gas prices as factors contributing to its bankruptcy filing. Ibid., p.

III-1, fn. 4.

 74 Ibid., p. III-1.

 75 Ibid., p. III-1.

 76 http://www.pennakem.com/products/tetrahydrofufuryl_alchohol.htm, retrieved October 15, 2009. 

 77 Ibid.

 78 Ibid. 

 79 http://www.novamolecular.com/about.html, retrieved October 15, 2009.

I-13

Great Lakes Chemicals (“Great Lakes”) purchased the facility in 1987, furfural production had been

discontinued. Soon after its acquisition of the site, Great Lakes embarked on an expansion project that

included the construction of a specialty chemicals plant. Great Lakes’ capital expansion project was

completed just prior to Penn’s acquisition of the Memphis facility in July 1999.72 

In July 2001, Penn went into bankruptcy as a result of cash flow problems that compromised its

ability to service its debt. The impact of subject THFA was not a significant factor in driving Penn to file

for bankruptcy protection.73 In July 2002, Penn emerged from bankruptcy, and, as part of a courtapproved plan, entered into a toll agreement with its largest raw material supplier and unsecured creditor

to produce THF and polytetramethylene ether glycol (“PTMEG”), products that accounted for more than

half of Penn’s sales revenue. The agreement provided Penn with needed fixed cost coverage, but

increased its reliance on its value-added fine chemicals and solvents products, and THFA in particular.74

As a result of the toll agreement, THFA, which only accounted for 14 percent of Penn’s total revenue,

accounted for 30 percent of Penn’s non-toll, profit-generating revenue.75

 Today, Penn manufactures and sells THFA.76 The primary applications for THFA are:

agricultural “green” solvents or adjuvants, electronics cleaners, printing inks, reactive diluent for epoxy

resins, industrial cleaner/paint strippers, and pharmaceutical intermediates.77 The company has over 60

years of specialty and fine chemicals development and manufacturing experience. Its facility is modern

and efficient, with over $75MM of capital investment in the last seven years.78

Nova Molecular

Nova Molecular is a privately owned Texas corporation, primarily owned by active participants

in the company. Its high pressure reaction and fractional distillation plant is located in Pasadena, TX and

its sales and administration office is located in Janesville, WI. On its website, Nova Molecular reports

that its employees have expertise and success in batch and continuous distillation and high pressure

reaction, amine chemistry, tetrahydrofuran recovery, hydrogenation, analytical, research, scale-up, custom

production, and commercial chemical development. Nova Molecular offers both custom chemical

processing and specialty chemicals, including THFA.79

U.S. Producer’s Trade, Employment, and Financial Data

Data reported by the U.S. producer of THFA in the Commission’s original investigation and in

response to its five-year review institution notice are presented in table I-3. Data presented for 2001-03

and January-March 2003 and 2004 were provided by one producer (Penn) and were believed to have

represented nearly 100 percent of the U.S. production of THFA during 2003. Data presented for 2008
 80 Response of domestic interested party, July 31, 2009, pp. 8 and 10.

 81 Confidential Staff Report, July 1, 2004, INV-BB-085, p. III-3.

 82 Response of domestic interested party, July 31, 2009, p. 3.

 83 Response of domestic interested party, July 31, 2009, pp. 4-7.

I-14

were provided by one producer (Penn) which is believed to have represented *** percent of U.S. THFA

production during the period of review.80

Table I-3

THFA: U.S. producer’s trade, employment, and financial data, 2001-03, January-March 2003, January-March

2004, and 2008

* * * * * * *

During the original period of investigation, at *** pounds, Penn’s THFA production capacity

was ***. Capacity was limited only by equipment size, ***.81 U.S. production increased throughout the

original period examined, from *** pounds in 2001 to *** pounds in 2002 and *** pounds in 2003. The

growth represented an increase of *** percent between 2001 and 2002, and *** percent between 2002

and 2003. Penn’s capacity utilization similarly increased though the original period, from *** percent in

2001 to *** percent in 2002 and *** percent in 2003. Capacity utilization in the interim 2004 period was

*** percentage points lower than in the corresponding 2003 period.

During the period examined in this five-year review (2003-08), production volume, U.S.

commercial shipment volume, value, and unit value, net sales, cost of goods sold, gross profit or loss,

SG&A expenses, and operating income or loss for calendar year 2008 are the only industry indicators

available. U.S. production in 2008 was higher than production during the original investigation, by ***

percent compared to 2001 and by *** percent compared to 2003. Capacity *** between the original

period of investigation and 2008. In 2008, unit values have increased by *** percent when compared to

unit values reported in 2003. 

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution, the domestic producer stated that the

antidumping duty order on imports of THFA from China has had a significant beneficial impact on the

domestic industry because the unfairly-traded imports of Chinese THFA ceased in response to the order. 

The antidumping duty order, it claims, allowed the domestic industry to succeed in increasing demand in

the U.S. market and enjoy periods of profitability.82

The domestic interested party noted in its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in

this review that there is significant capacity in China to provide THFA and that if the order is revoked

Chinese exporters will immediately re-enter the U.S. market. The domestic interested party believes that

Chinese exporters will resume their previous offerings of unfairly-traded, low-priced THFA which will

undersell or significantly depress its price and result in a decrease in its revenue stream. It further argues

that in the Asian market where it competes with Chinese exporters, the exporters quote and sell THFA at

prices significantly lower than what it can sell for and still be profitable.83

U.S. IMPORTS AND APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

U.S. Imports

During the original investigation, three firms (Kyzen, AllChem, and ARS) provided requested 

data to the Commission and the U.S. import data for the original period of investigation are based on their

questionnaire responses. Kyzen was by far the largest importer during the original period examined,
 84 Confidential Staff Report, July 1, 2004, INV-BB-085, p. IV-1. 

 85 Response of domestic interested party, July 31, 2009, p. 9 and exh. 2.

 86 Official Commerce statistics were used for data reported from 2004-08. Both THFA and FA are imported

under HTS subheading 2932.13.00.

I-15

accounting for *** percent of THFA imports in ***, *** percent of imports in ***, and *** percent of

total imports over the 2001-03 period. AllChem imported THFA into the United States in ***.84

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this review, the domestic interested

party listed the following three companies that it knows to have been importers of subject merchandise

from China: Kyzen, AllChem, and ARS; however, it indicated that imports of Chinese THFA essentially

ceased after the imposition of the antidumping duty order.85 Table I-4 below provides publicly available

information on each company. 

Table I-4

THFA: Importer, headquarters, business, and products

Importer Headquarters Business Products

Kyzen Nashville, TN

•Claims to be the worldwide

leader in the precision

cleaning industry.

•Cleaning solutions and

services

AllChem Gainesville, FL

•Claims to be a market leader

in the fields of water

treatment, petroleum

additives, and industrial

chemicals (established as an

importer/distributor of

chemical products).

•National distributer of

solvents, amines, and

thiocyanates; provides

custom packaging,

manufacturing, formulating,

blending, and compounding

of various water treatment

products to serve water

treatment industries; leading

marketer of specialty

chemicals, fuel additives, and

process chemicals to the

energy-related industries.

ARS Des Plaines, IL (1

)

•Manufactures and distributes

industrial chemicals and

related products.

 1

 Not available. 

Source: Company websites, http://www.allchem.com/, retrieved October 16, 2009 and http://www.kyzen.com/,

retrieved October 16, 2009. BusinessWeek website,

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=6910591, retrieved October

16, 2009.

THFA import data for the annual periods 2001-08 are presented in table I-5. The quantity of U.S.

imports of THFA from China increased by *** percent from 2001 to 2003, and ceased completely from

2004 to 2006. There may have been some imports from China in 2007 and 2008.86 The value of U.S.

imports from China increased from 2001 to 2002 by *** percent and decreased from 2002 to 2003 by ***
 87 Based on information developed in *** investigation Nos. 701-TA-703 and 705 (Second Review), Furfuryl

Alcohol from China and Thailand, it appears that any imports under HTS subheading 2932.13.00 from countries

other than China may consist solely of furfuryl alcohol. Furfuryl Alcohol From China and Thailand, Investigation

Nos. 701-TA-703 and 705 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3885, September 2006, p. I-13.

I-16

percent. There were *** from nonsubject countries from 2001 to 2003; since 2003 there have been no

known imports from nonsubject countries.87

Table I-5

THFA: U.S. imports, by source, 2001-08

Source 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

China *** *** *** 0 0 0 59 38

 All others *** *** *** 0 0 0 0 0

 Total imports *** *** *** 0 0 0 59 38

Value ($1,000)

China *** *** *** (1

) (1) (1) 84 51

 All Others1 (

1

) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

 Total imports *** *** *** (1) (1) (1) 84 51

Unit value (per pound)

China *** *** *** (1

) (1) (1) $1.43 $1.36

 All Others1 (

1

) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

 Average total imports *** *** *** (1) (1) (1) $1.43 $1.36

Share of quantity (percent)

China *** *** *** (1

) (1) (1) 100.0 100.0

 All Others1 (

1

) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

 Total imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Not applicable.

Note.– Both THFA and FA are imported under HTS subheading 2932.13.00.

Source: Confidential Staff Report, INV-BB-085, July 1, 2004, table IV-3 ***; Official Commerce statistics for China, HTS

subheading number 2932.13.00 (2004-08). Furfuryl Alcohol From China and Thailand, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-703 and 705

(Second Review), USITC Publication 3885, September 2006, p. I-13. 

Ratios of Imports to U.S. Production

Information concerning the ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production of THFA is presented in table

I-6. Subject imports of THFA from China were equivalent to *** percent of U.S. production during

2001, increased to *** percent during 2002, and then decreased to *** percent in 2003. Subject imports

of THFA from China were equivalent to *** percent of U.S. production during 2008. The ratio of
 88 Staff cautions that the import data used for 2008 include THFA and FA.

 89 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (Final), USITC Publication 3709, July 2004,

p. 6. 

 90 Response of domestic interested party, July 31, 2009, pp. 10-11. 

 91 Ibid. 

I-17

nonsubject imports to domestic production *** during the original period examined and is believed to

have been zero in 2008.

Table I-6

THFA: Ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production, by sources, 2001-03, January-March 2003, January-March

2004, and 2008

* * * * * * *

Apparent U.S. Consumption and Market Shares

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares are presented in table I-7. The volume of

apparent U.S. consumption of THFA declined by *** percent between 2001 and 2003. Apparent

consumption quantity in 2008 was *** greater than apparent consumption during the original period,

2001-03, and was *** percent more than apparent consumption in 2003.88 The quantity of THFA

consumed in the United States remained fairly stable over the period examined in the original

investigation. The value of U.S. apparent consumption declined in each year of the original period

examined, and by a total of *** percent between 2001 and 2003.

Penn lost *** percentage points of market share to imports from China between 2001 and 2002. 

In 2003, Penn recovered *** percentage points of market share, its U.S. shipments accounting for ***

percent of apparent U.S. consumption in that year. In the interim 2004 period, Penn’s shipments

accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, compared to *** percent in the corresponding

2003 period. The domestic THFA industry in 2008 held an estimated *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption on the basis of quantity and an estimated *** percent on the basis of value. China held a ***

percent share of the U.S. market in 2008.

Table I-7

THFA: U.S. producer’s U.S. shipments, U.S. shipments of imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, 2001-03,

January-March 2003, January-March 2004, and 2008

* * * * * * *

Demand for THFA is determined by the demand for the final products that require THFA. The

primary end markets for THFA are agricultural chemicals, coatings, and cleaning solutions. Demand in

each of these markets was sluggish during the original period of investigation; some of the markets

experienced long-term weakness in demand.89

The domestic interested party indicated in its response to the Commission’s notice of institution

that demand for THFA experienced rapid growth, primarily in agricultural applications. ***. ***. ***.90

***.91
 92 Zhucheng, the only Chinese firm to report production or export of THFA in the period examined, certified that

***. Confidential Staff Report, July 1, 2004, INV-BB-085, p. VII-6.

 93 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (Final), USITC Publication 3709, July 2004,

p. VII-1. 

 94 Confidential Staff Report, July 1, 2004, INV-BB-085, p. VII-2. ***.

 95 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (Final), USITC Publication 3709, July 2004,

p. VII-1.

 96 Response of domestic interested party, July 31, 2009, p. 9 and exh. 2.

 97 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (Final), USITC Publication 3709, July 2004,

pp. VII-1-VII-2.

 98 Ibid., p. VII-2.

 99 http://www.zhuchengchem.com/cgi/search-en.cgi?f=introduction_en_1_+company_en_1_+product_en&t

=introduction_en_1, retrieved October 19, 2009.

 100 http://www.zhuchengchem.com/cgi/search-en.cgi?f=introduction_en_1_+company_en_1_+product_en&t=

introduction_en_1_, retrieved October, 19, 2009.

I-18

ANTIDUMPING ACTIONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

During the original investigation, no evidence on the record suggested that THFA exported from

China was subject to antidumping findings or remedies in any third country markets.92

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

In the original investigation, the Commission sent foreign producer/exporter questionnaires to

nine Chinese firms believed to produce THFA. Two of the nine firms, Taizhou Qingquan Medical &

Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Taizhou Qingquan”) and Zhucheng Huaxiang Chemical Co. (“Zhucheng”),

submitted responses to the Commission, and only Zhucheng reported having produced or exported THFA

since January 2001. *** identified Zhucheng as the sole producer of the THFA it imported into the

United States from China. *** identified Qingdao Wenkem Trading Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao Wenkem”) as

the Chinese producer of its THFA imports. Commerce confirmed in its preliminary investigation that

Qingdao Wenkem exports, in full, the THFA manufactured by Zhucheng.93 *** did not identify the

producer of the THFA it imported from China.94 Penn acknowledged that Zhucheng is the primary

manufacturer and exporter of THFA imported into the United States.95 

The domestic interested party’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution stated that it

believed shipments of Chinese THFA to the United States ceased after the imposition of the antidumping

duty order and cited the same Chinese producers from the original investigation.96 Publicly available

information on the operations of Zhucheng (the only actual producer during the original period of

investigation) is presented below. 

In 1996, Zhucheng’s THFA production capability was established with the assistance of ARS and

the encouragement of Kyzen, which provided Zhucheng with quality advice and tested its THFA through

to market standard.97 Kyzen began importing THFA produced by Zhucheng in significant quantities in

1997, with imports peaking in 1998 at about 1.3 million pounds.98 On December 17, 2003, Zhucheng

Huaxiang Chemical Co., Ltd. changed its name to Zhucheng Taisheng Chemical Co., Ltd.99 On its

company website, Zhucheng, states it is now “. . . mainly engaged in the production and trade of furan

series, . . . {t}he main products include furfuryl alcohol, tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol, . . . .”100 The
 101 Ibid.

 102 Confidential Staff Report, July 1, 2004, INV-BB-085, p. VII-2. 

 103 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (Final), USITC Publication 3709, July 2004,

p. VII-2.

 104 Confidential Staff Report, July 1, 2004, INV-BB-085, p. VII-3. ***. Ibid.

 105 Response of domestic interested party, July 31, 2009, pp. 6-7. The figure reported by Penn is based on

Zhucheng Huaxiang, Zibo HuaAo, and Qingquan Medical. Response of domestic interested party, July 31, 2009, p.

7 n. 13.

I-19

company has 736 employees (200 of them are technicians), 9 departments, 5 plants, one factory, and 2

Sino-foreign joint ventures (subsidiaries).101

THFA Operations

Table I-8 presents trade data for the Chinese THFA industry compiled during the original

investigation. In the original investigation, Zhucheng estimated that it accounted for *** percent of total

Chinese production of THFA, and *** percent of THFA exported from China to the United States, in

2003.102 Based on data provided by U.S. importers, Zhucheng’s shipments of THFA to the United States

accounted for *** percent of U.S. imports of THFA from China during the original period examined.

Zhucheng’s production capacity remained constant between 2001 and 2003 at *** pounds. This

capacity represented *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2003. Capacity utilization fluctuated

over the period examined, increasing from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2002, then declining to

*** percent in 2003. 

As a proportion of its production, Zhucheng’s exports of THFA increased steadily over the period

examined, from *** percent of total shipments in 2001 to *** percent of shipments in 2003. Shipments

to the United States accounted for the majority of Zhucheng’s exports between 2001 and 2003. Zhucheng

reported *** exports of THFA to the United States in the first quarter of 2004. By comparison, shipments

to the United States in the first quarter of 2003 accounted for *** percent of Zhucheng’s total exports to

the United States in that year. As a proportion of total shipments, home market shipments were at their

highest level within the original period examined in the first quarter of 2004. Zhucheng identified Japan

and the EU as its primary other export markets.103

Zhucheng projected that its home market shipments would account for *** percent of total

shipments in 2004 and 2005, with exports to the United States accounting for a further *** percent, or

*** pounds. Zhucheng based its 2004 and 2005 projections on ***.104

Table I-8

THFA: China’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2001-03, January-March 2003, JanuaryMarch 2004, and 2008

* * * * * * *

The domestic interested party’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution estimated

Chinese capacity for THFA to be 7,500 metric tons (16.5 million pounds) and that the actual production

capacity is much higher because Chinese furfuryl alcohol producers can invest in THFA technology and

shift production from FA to THFA.105 It also stated that if the order is revoked Chinese exports will

immediately reenter the market at unfairly-traded, low prices which will depress its prices and result in a
 106 Ibid., p. 5.

 107 Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (Final), USITC Publication 3709, July 2004,

p. 11.

I-20

decrease in its revenue.106 In the original investigation, the Commission found “. . . that the effect of

subject imports has been to depress prices for the domestic like product to a significant degree.”107
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

31752 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 09–5–201, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., 

the level of production that your 

establishment(s) could reasonably have 

expected to attain during the year, 

assuming normal operating conditions 

(using equipment and machinery in 

place and ready to operate), normal 

operating levels (hours per week/weeks 

per year), time for downtime, 

maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a 

typical or representative product mix); 

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(d) The quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(e) The value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include 

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country(ies), provide 

the following information on your 

firm’s(s’) operations on that product 

during calendar year 2008 (report 

quantity data in number of bags and 

value data in U.S. dollars). If you are a 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from each Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from each 

Subject Country; and 

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from each Subject Country. 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject 

Country(ies), provide the following 

information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2008 (report quantity data 

in number of bags and value data in U.S. 

dollars, landed and duty-paid at the 

U.S. port but not including antidumping 

duties). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in each Subject Country accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) The quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country since the Order 

Date, and significant changes, if any, 

that are likely to occur within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. Supply 

conditions to consider include 

technology; production methods; 

development efforts; ability to increase 

production (including the shift of 

production facilities used for other 

products and the use, cost, or 

availability of major inputs into 

production); and factors related to the 

ability to shift supply among different 

national markets (including barriers to 

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(ies), 

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: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary. 

Issued: June 29, 2009. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–15636 Filed 7–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1046 (Review)] 

Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol from 

China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted a review 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on 

tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol from China 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of material injury. 

Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, 

interested parties are requested to 

respond to this notice by submitting the 

information specified below to the 

Commission; 1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is July 31, 2009. Comments 

on the adequacy of responses may be 

filed with the Commission by 

September 15, 2009. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

this review and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 31753 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: July 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired 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 (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On August 6, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce issued an 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol from China 

(69 FR 47911). The Commission is 

conducting a review to determine 

whether revocation of the order would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to the 

domestic industry within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. It will assess the 

adequacy of interested party responses 

to this notice of institution to determine 

whether to conduct a full review or an 

expedited review. The Commission’s 

determination in any expedited review 

will be based on the facts available, 

which may include information 

provided in response to this notice. 

Definitions. The following definitions 

apply to this review: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year review, as defined 

by the Department of Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Country in this review 

is China. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determination, the Commission found a 

single Domestic Like Product, 

coextensive with the scope, consisting 

of all domestically-produced 

tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determination, 

the Commission found one Domestic 

Industry consisting of all domestic 

producers of the Domestic Like Product. 

(5) The Order Date is the date that the 

antidumping duty order under review 

became effective. In this review, the 

Order Date is August 6, 2004. 

(6) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the review 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 review as parties must 

file an entry of appearance with the 

Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the review. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

official recently has advised that a fiveyear review is no longer considered the 

‘‘same particular matter’’ as the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 

207, the post employment statute for 

Federal employees, and Commission 

rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are no 

longer required to seek Commission 

approval to appear in a review under 

Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if 

the corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy 

Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205– 

3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list. Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in this review available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the review, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the review. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification. Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with this 

review must certify that the information 

is accurate and complete to the best of 

the submitter’s knowledge. In making 

the certification, the submitter will be 

deemed to consent, unless otherwise 

specified, for the Commission, its 

employees, and contract personnel to 

use the information provided in any 

other reviews or investigations of the 

same or comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions. Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is July 31, 2009. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct an 

expedited or full review. The deadline 

for filing such comments is September 

15, 2009. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of sections 

201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission’s 

rules and any submissions that contain 

BPI must also conform with the 

requirements of sections 201.6 and 

207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The 

Commission’s rules do not authorize 

filing of submissions with the Secretary 

by facsimile or electronic means, except 

to the extent permitted by section 201.8 

of the Commission’s rules, as amended, 

67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, 

in accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (as identified by 

either the public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
31754 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 

are not a party to the review you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information. Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determination in the review. 

Information To Be Provided in 

Response to This Notice of Institution: 

As used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ includes 

any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address if available) and name, 

telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in this review by providing information 

requested by the Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on the Domestic Industry in 

general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of 

subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in the Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries since 

the Order Date. 

(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in 

the U.S. market for the Domestic Like 

Product and the Subject Merchandise 

(including street address, World Wide 

Web address, and the name, telephone 

number, fax number, and E-mail address 

of a responsible official at each firm). 

(8) A list of known sources of 

information on national or regional 

prices for the Domestic Like Product or 

the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or 

other markets. 

(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2008, except as noted 

(report quantity data in pounds and 

value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). 

If you are a union/worker group or 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms in which your workers are 

employed/which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., 

the level of production that your 

establishment(s) could reasonably have 

expected to attain during the year, 

assuming normal operating conditions 

(using equipment and machinery in 

place and ready to operate), normal 

operating levels (hours per week/weeks 

per year), time for downtime, 

maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a 

typical or representative product mix); 

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(d) The quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(e) The value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include 

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2008 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from the Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country; and 

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from the Subject Country. 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2008 

(report quantity data in pounds and 

value data in U.S. dollars, landed and 

duty-paid at the U.S. port but not 

including antidumping duties). If you 

are a trade/business association, provide 

the information, on an aggregate basis, 

for the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in the 

Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) The quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 31755 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 09–5–197, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

Merchandise from the Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country since the Order 

Date, and significant changes, if any, 

that are likely to occur within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. Supply 

conditions to consider include 

technology; production methods; 

development efforts; ability to increase 

production (including the shift of 

production facilities used for other 

products and the use, cost, or 

availability of major inputs into 

production); and factors related to the 

ability to shift supply among different 

national markets (including barriers to 

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 review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary. 

Issued: June 29, 2009. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–15647 Filed 7–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted a review 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on ironing 

tables from China. would be likely to 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury. Pursuant to section 

751(c)(2) of the Act, interested parties 

are requested to respond to this notice 

by submitting the information specified 

below to the Commission; 1 to be 

assured of consideration, the deadline 

for responses is July 31, 2009. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

September 15, 2009. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

this review and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: July 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired 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 (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On August 6, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce issued an 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

ironing tables from China (69 FR 47868). 

The Commission is conducting a review 

to determine whether revocation of the 

order would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to the domestic industry within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. It will 

assess the adequacy of interested party 

responses to this notice of institution to 

determine whether to conduct a full 

review or an expedited review. The 

Commission’s determination in any 

expedited review will be based on the 

facts available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions. The following definitions 

apply to this review: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year review, as defined 

by the Department of Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Country in this review 

is China. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determination, the Commission found 

one Domestic Like Product consisting of 

floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables, 

coexistent with the scope. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determination, 

the Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry as U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. 

(5) The Order Date is the date that the 

antidumping duty order under review 

became effective. In this review, the 

Order Date is August 6, 2004. 

(6) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the review 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 review as parties must 

file an entry of appearance with the 

Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the review. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
31412 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 125 / Wednesday, July 1, 2009 / Notices 

Dated: June 24, 2009. 

James H. Lecky, 

Office Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–15552 Filed 6–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XP85 

Incidental Taking of Marine Mammals; 

Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental 

to the Explosive Removal of Offshore 

Structures in the Gulf of Mexico 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of letters of 

authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) and implementing regulations, 

notification is hereby given that NMFS 

has issued one-year Letters of 

Authorization (LOA) to take marine 

mammals incidental to the explosive 

removal of offshore oil and gas 

structures (EROS) in the Gulf of Mexico. 

DATES: These authorizations are 

effective from July 1, 2009 through June 

30, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: The application and LOAs 

are available for review by writing to P. 

Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation, and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910–3235 or by telephoning the 

contact listed here (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT), or online at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm. Documents cited in this 

notice may be viewed, by appointment, 

during regular business hours, at the 

aforementioned address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Howard Goldstein or Ken Hollingshead, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

301–713–2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 

1361 et seq.) directs the NMFS to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by United States 

citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region, 

if certain findings are made by NMFS 

and regulations are issued. Under the 

MMPA, the term ‘‘taking’’ means to 

harass, hunt, capture, or kill or to 

attempt to harass, hunt capture, or kill 

marine mammals. 

Authorization for incidental taking, in 

the form of annual LOAs, may be 

granted by NMFS for periods up to five 

years if NMFS finds, after notification 

and opportunity for public comment, 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s) of 

marine mammals, and will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

subsistence uses (where relevant). In 

addition, NMFS must prescribe 

regulations that include permissible 

methods of taking and other means 

effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact on the species and its habitat 

(i.e., mitigation), and on the availability 

of the species for subsistence uses, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating rounds, and areas of similar 

significance. The regulations also must 

include requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

Regulations governing the taking 

incidental to EROS were published on 

June 19, 2008 (73 FR 34889), and remain 

in effect through July 19, 2013. For 

detailed information on this action, 

please refer to that Federal Register 

notice. The species that applicants may 

take in small numbers during EROS 

activities are bottlenose dolphins 

(Tursiops truncatus), Atlantic spotted 

dolphins (Stenella frontalis), 

pantropical spotted dolphins (Stenella 

attenuata), Clymene dolphins (Stenella 

clymene), striped dolphins (Stenella 

coeruleoalba), spinner dolphins 

(Stenella longirostris), rough-toothed 

dolphins (Steno bredanensis), Risso’s 

dolphins (Grampus griseus), melonheaded whales (Peponocephala electra), 

short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala 

macrorhynchus), and sperm whales 

(Physeter macrocephalus). 

Pursuant to these regulations, NMFS 

has issued an LOA to St. Mary Land & 

Exploration Company and Apache 

Corporation. Issuance of these LOAs is 

based on a finding made in the 

preamble to the final rule that the total 

taking by these activities (with 

monitoring, mitigation, and reporting 

measures) will result in no more than a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stock(s) of marine mammals and will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on subsistence uses. NMFS also finds 

that the applicants will meet the 

requirements contained in the 

implementing regulations and LOA, 

including monitoring, mitigation, and 

reporting requirements. 

Dated: June 25, 2009. 

James H. Lecky, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–15551 Filed 6–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

automatically initiating a five-year 

review (‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the 

antidumping duty orders listed below. 

The International Trade Commission 

(‘‘the Commission’’) is publishing 

concurrently with this notice its notice 

of Institution of Five-year Review which 

covers the same orders. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

For information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) 

and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). 

Guidance on methodological or 

analytical issues relevant to the 

Department’s conduct of Sunset 

Reviews is set forth in the Department’s 

Policy Bulletin 98.3 - Policies Regarding 

the Conduct of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

duty orders: 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 125 / Wednesday, July 1, 2009 / Notices 31413 

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As 

provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the 

Department will consider individual requests to 

extend that five-day deadline based upon a showing 

of good cause. 

DOC Case No. ITC Case No. Country Product Department Contact 

A–570–007 ......... 731–TA–149 PRC Barium Chloride (3rd Review) Matthew Renkey (202) 482–2312 

A–570–002 ......... 731–TA–130 PRC Chloropicrin (3rd Review) Matthew Renkey (202) 482–2312 

A–570–888 ......... 731–TA–1047 PRC Floor–Standing, Metal Top Ironing Tables 

And Parts Thereof 

Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391 

A–570–886 ......... 731–TA–1043 PRC Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391 

A–557–813 ......... 731–TA–1044 Malaysia Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391 

A–549–821 ......... 731–TA–1045 Thailand Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391 

A–427–001 ......... 731–TA–44 France Sorbitol (3rd Review) Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391 

A–475–820 ......... 731–TA–770 Italy Stainless Steel Wire Rod (2nd Review) Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 

A–588–843 ......... 731–TA–771 Japan Stainless Steel Wire Rod (2nd Review) Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 

A–580–829 ......... 731–TA–772 South Korea Stainless Steel Wire Rod (2nd Review) Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 

A–469–807 ......... 731–TA–773 Spain Stainless Steel Wire Rod (2nd Review) Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 

A–401–806 ......... 731–TA–774 Sweden Stainless Steel Wire Rod (2nd Review) Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 

A–583–828 ......... 731–TA–775 Taiwan Stainless Steel Wire Rod (2nd Review) Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 

A–570–887 ......... 731–TA–1046 PRC Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol Matthew Renkey (202 482–2312 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statute and Department’s 

regulations, the Department schedule 

for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past 

revocations and continuations, and 

current service lists, available to the 

public on the Department’s sunset 

Internet Web site at the following 

address: ‘‘http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.’’ 

All submissions in these Sunset 

Reviews must be filed in accordance 

with the Department’s regulations 

regarding format, translation, service, 

and certification of documents. These 

rules can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103 (d), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews 

can be very short, we urge interested 

parties to apply for access to proprietary 

information under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The Department’s regulations on 

submission of proprietary information 

and eligibility to receive access to 

business proprietary information under 

APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304– 

306. 

Information Required from Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties defined in 

section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)) wishing 

to participate in a Sunset Review must 

respond not later than 15 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The required contents of the notice of 

intent to participate are set forth at 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance 

with the Department’s regulations, if we 

do not receive a notice of intent to 

participate from at least one domestic 

interested party by the 15-day deadline, 

the Department will automatically 

revoke the order without further review. 

See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

If we receive an order–specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the Sunset 

Review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order–specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 

requirements.1 Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews. Please 

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department. 

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218 

(c). 

June 23, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–15570 Filed 6–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XQ09 

Marine Mammals; File No. 774–1847 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application 

for an amendment 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center, Antarctic Marine Living 

Resources Program (Michael Gobel, Ph 

D, Principal Investigator), 3333 N Torrey 

Pines Ct, La Jolla, CA 92037, has 

requested an amendment to scientific 

research Permit No. 774–1847–03. 

DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail 

comments must be received on or before 

July 31, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: The application and related 

documents are available for review by 

selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public 

Comment’’ from the Features box on the 

Applications and Permits for Protected 

Species (APPS) home page, https:// 

apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting 

File No. 774–1847–04 from the list of 

available applications. 

These documents are also available 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the following office(s): 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

B-1

APPENDIX B

COMMISSION’S STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

 1

 Penn A Kem believes that it is the sole U.S. producer of THFA, but it noted that a new entrant, Nova

Molecular Technologies, Inc., may have started producing THFA in the United States in 2008. Penn A Kem

Response to Notice of Institution at 8 (July 31, 2009).

B-3

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1046 (First Review)

On October 5, 2009, the Commission determined that it should proceed to an expedited review in

the subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,

19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B).

The Commission received a single response filed by Penn A Kem LLC (“Penn A Kem”), which

may be the sole domestic producer of tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol (“THFA”).1

 The Commission

determined that the individual response of Penn A Kem was adequate. The Commission also determined

that the domestic interested party group response was adequate. 

The Commission received no response from any respondent interested party, and therefore

determined that the respondent interested party group response to the notice of institution was inadequate. 

In the absence of an adequate respondent interested party group response or any other circumstances

warranting a full review, the Commission determined to conduct an expedited review.

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and the

Commission’s web site (http://www.usitc.gov).