U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4157 June 2010

Washington, DC 20436

Barium Chloride from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Third 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

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Amy Sherman, Investigator 

Jack Greenblatt, Industry Analyst 

James Fetzer, Economist 

John Ascienzo, Accountant 

Charles St. Charles, Attorney 

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator

Special assistance from

Steven Hudgens, Statistician
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4157 June 2010

Barium Chloride from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Third Review)

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Part I: Introduction and overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

The original investigation and subsequent five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Previous and related investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Commerce’s reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

The domestic like product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

U.S. purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market ................................ II-1

U.S. market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-1

U.S. supply ............................................................... II-1

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-3

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-7

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-7

Comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports ............ II-10

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-14

U.S. supply elasticity ....................................................... II-14

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-14

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-14

Part III: Condition of the U.S. industry ............................................ III-1

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

Background ............................................................... III-1

Changes experienced in operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

Anticipated changes in existing operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

i
CONTENTS

Page

Part III: Condition of the U.S. industry–Continued

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization .......................... III-2

U.S. producers’ shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-3

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases ............................................. III-3

U.S. producers’ employment, wages, and productivity ................................ III-3

Financial experience of U.S. producer CPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4

Background ............................................................... III-4

Operations on barium chloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4

Variance analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-5

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses ........................ III-6

Assets and return on investment ............................................... III-6

Part IV: U.S. imports and the foreign industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

Imports from subject and nonsubject countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. importers’ imports subsequent to December 31, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

The industry in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

Barium chemical producers in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

Global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9

Part V: Pricing and related information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Factors affecting prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Raw material costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices and the Commission’s statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. CPC’s request to cancel the Commission’s hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

D. Responses of U.S. producers, U.S. importers, and U.S. purchasers concerning the significance 

of the antidumping duty order and the likely effects of revocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-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 asterisks.

ii
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Third Review)

BARIUM CHLORIDE FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

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

International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, 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 barium chloride 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 effective July 1, 2009 (74 FR 31757, July 2, 2009) and

determined on October 5, 2009 that it would conduct a full review (74 FR 54069, October 21, 2009). 

Notice of the scheduling of the Commission’s review and of a public hearing to be held in connection

therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International

Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on November

30, 2009 (74 FR 62587). Counsel for the domestic interested party filed a request to appear at the hearing

or, in the alternative, for consideration of cancellation of the hearing. Counsel indicated a willingness to

submit written testimony and responses to any questions by a date to be specified by the Commission in

lieu of an actual hearing. No other party filed a request to appear at the hearing. Consequently, the

public hearing in connection with the review, scheduled for April 15, 2010, was cancelled (75 FR 20625,

April 20, 2010).

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

1

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 barium chloride 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. 

I. BACKGROUND

In October 1984, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was materially

injured by reason of imports of barium chloride from China that were being sold at less than fair value.1

On October 17, 1984, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) issued an antidumping duty order on

imports of barium chloride from China.2

 In the first (March 1999) and second (July 2004) five-year

reviews, both of which were conducted on an expedited basis, the Commission determined that revocation

of the antidumping duty order on barium chloride 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.3

The Commission instituted the current review effective July 1, 2009.4

 The Commission received

one submission in response to the notice of institution from Chemical Products Corporation (“CPC”), the

domestic producer that accounts for an overwhelming majority of domestic production of barium

chloride. On October 5, 2009, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group

response was adequate, but that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. 

Notwithstanding the inadequacy of the respondent interested party group response, the Commission

determined that it would conduct a full review, pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended, in light of information regarding possible changes in conditions of competition.5 6 7

 

Only domestic producer Chemical Products Corp. (“CPC”) entered an appearance in this review. 

In conjunction with its filing a prehearing brief, CPC requested that the Commission cancel the scheduled

hearing,8

 and the Commission granted that request. CPC submitted written testimony in lieu of a hearing

presentation and subsequently filed written responses to written questions from Commissioners.

The Commission received questionnaire responses from two firms that accounted for virtually all

U.S. production of barium chloride in 2009.9

 The Commission also received questionnaire responses

from eight U.S. importers of barium chloride that are estimated to have accounted for more than 75

 1 Barium Chloride from the People’s Republic of China, Inv. No. 731-TA-149 (Final), USITC Pub. 1584

(October 1984) (“original determination”).

 2

 49 Fed. Reg. 40635 (Oct. 17, 1984).

 3

 Barium Chloride from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-149 (Review), USITC Pub. 3163 (March 1999) (“first review

determination”); Barium Chloride from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-149 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 4425 (July

2004) (“second review determination”). 

 4

 74 Fed. Reg. 31757 (July 2, 2009).

 5

 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5).

 6

 74 Fed. Reg. 54069 (Oct. 21, 2009); see also Explanation of Determination on Adequacy, Confidential Staff

Report (“CR”) and Public Staff Report (“PR”) at Appendix A. 

 7

 Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane, Irving A. Williamson, and Dean A. Pinkert voted to conduct an expedited

review. Id.

 8 See CPC letter of April 6, 2010.

 9

 CPC, which accounts for the vast majority of domestic production of barium chloride, ***. Barium &

Chemicals ***. CR/PR at III-1.

3
percent of subject imports and 95 percent of nonsubject imports during the period of review.10 The

Commission received 11 usable purchaser questionnaires.11 None of the 11 potential producers of barium

chloride in China that were contacted over the course of this proceeding responded to the Commission’s

foreign producer questionnaire.12

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

A. Domestic Like Product

In making its determination under section 751(c) of the Act, the Commission defines “the

domestic like product” and the “industry.”13 The Act defines “domestic like product” as “a product which

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

investigation under this subtitle.”14 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to look to the like

product definition from the original determination and any completed reviews and consider whether the

record indicates any reason to revisit the prior findings.15

1. Product Description

In its third five-year review determination, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as

“barium chloride, a chemical compound having the formulas BaCl2 or BaCl2•2H20, currently classifiable

under subheading 2827.39.45 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.”16 Commerce’s

definition of the subject merchandise has not changed since its original determination.

Barium chloride is produced in crystalline and anhydrous form. Crystalline barium chloride is

used primarily as an intermediate in the production of molecular catalyst sieves, which oil refinery

complexes use to separate out industrially useful paraxylene molecules from other mixed xylenes.17 The

crystalline form also serves as a cleansing agent in the removal of soluble sulfates in certain chemical and

water treatment processes, as a cleansing ingredient in lubricating oil additives, as a raw material in the

production of certain chemicals, pigments, and paper coatings, and as a base material in the production of

other barium intermediate products such as barium titanate and barium metaborate.18 The anhydrous form

 10 CR at I-21, PR at I-17.

 11 CR at I-22, PR at I-18.

 12 CR at IV-6, PR at IV-4.

 13 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 14 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10); see, e.g., Cleo, Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp.

v. Department of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19

CIT 450, 455 (1995); 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). 

 15 See, e.g., Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks From Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-377 (Second Review),

USITC Pub. 3831 at 8-9 (December 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 (February 2003).

 16 CR at I-14, PR at I-12.

 17 CR at I-15, PR at I-13. Paraxylene is a raw material used in the production of terephthalic acid, a precursor to

the polyester PET that is used to make clothing and plastic bottles. CR at I-15-16, PR at I-13.

 18 CR at I-16, PR at I-13-14.

4
of barium chloride is used primarily as an ingredient in heat-treating salts and metal fluxes.19 A high

purity form of barium chloride is used in small quantities by certain customers in the *** industries.20 

2. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews

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

product definition in the Commission’s original determination and the prior reviews.21 In its original

determination, the Commission found that there was one like product, consisting of barium chloride in

both its crystalline and anhydrous forms.22 In its first review determination, the Commission again

defined the domestic like product as all barium chloride, whether crystalline or anhydrous.23 In the

second review, the Commission again found one domestic like product consisting of barium chloride in

all its forms.24

3. Analysis and Conclusion

No new facts have been presented on this record to warrant a conclusion different from that

reached by the Commission in the two prior reviews.25 We therefore find one domestic like product, coextensive with the scope, that includes all barium chloride, whether crystalline or anhydrous.

B. Domestic Industry

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the relevant industry as the domestic “producers as a whole

of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product

 19 CR at I-15, PR at I-13.

 20 CR at I-17, PR at I-14.

 21 In the like product analysis for an investigation, the Commission generally considers a number of factors,

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

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

and, where appropriate, (6) price. See The Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (CIT 1996). No

single factor is dispositive, and the Commission may consider other factors relevant to 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, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49. 

 22 Original Determination at 4. In a footnote to the opinion, the Commission found that high purity barium

chloride produced for laboratory use was not included in the like product, noting that it was produced “only in very

small amounts and at a relatively high price” and that this form of barium chloride “does not compete for general

industrial use with the petitioner’s or the imported product.” Original Determination at 4 n.8.

In the first and second reviews the Commission explained that high purity barium chloride was not

excluded from Commerce’s scope, the Commission had not made a separate injury finding for high purity barium

chloride and, therefore, the like product included high purity barium chloride. First Review Determination at 4 n.12,

Second Review Determination at 5. 

 23 First Review Determination at 4.

 24 Second Review Determination at 5. 

 25 Regarding the domestic like product definition, CPC stated in response to the Commission’s notice of

institution that it agrees with the Commission’s definition of the domestic like product as crystalline and anhydrous

barium chloride, excluding high purity barium chloride. CPC Response to Notice of Institution (July 31, 2009) at

13. CPC, however, offers no argument against the domestic like product definition in the first two reviews, which

included high purity barium chloride. As explained in the first two reviews, we find no basis for excluding high

purity barium chloride from the domestic like product.

5
constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”26 In defining the domestic

industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to include in the industry producers of all domestic

production of the like product, whether toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic

merchant market. Section 771(4)(B) of the Act, the related parties provision, 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.27

In the Commission’s original determination and first two five-year reviews, the Commission

defined the domestic industry as all U.S. producers of the domestic like product.28 In the current review,

no party has raised an objection to the domestic industry definition from the original investigation, and

there is no new evidence to warrant a change in the definition of the domestic industry.29 Therefore,

based on our definition of the domestic like product, we define the domestic industry to include all U.S.

producers of the domestic like product. 

III. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER IS REVOKED

A. Legal Standard

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

antidumping or countervailing 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 or countervailing duty order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”30 The 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.”31 Thus, the

likelihood standard is prospective in nature.32 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.33 34 35

 26 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 are applicable to the entire subtitle containing the

antidumping and countervailing duty laws, including 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675 and 1675a. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677.

 27 19 U.S.C. § 1677 (4)(B).

 28 Original Determination at 4, First Review Determination at 4-5, Second Review Determination at 6.

 29 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 

 30 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 31 SAA at 883-84. 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.” Id. at 883.

 32 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.

 33 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.

(continued...)

6
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.”36 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.”37

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.”38 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).39 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.40

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the order under review is

revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of imports would be

significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.41 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

 33 (...continued)

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’”).

 34 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).

 35 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 this review and all

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

addresses this issue.

 36 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 37 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.

 38 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 39 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). We note that no duty absorption findings have been made by Commerce.

 40 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily

dispositive. SAA at 886.

 41 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

7
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.42

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the order under review 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.43

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the order under review 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.44 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. 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 were revoked.45

When appropriate in this review, we have relied on the facts otherwise available, which consist of

information from the original investigation and prior reviews, and information submitted in this review,

including information provided by the domestic industry, questionnaire responses, and information

available from published sources.46 47

 42 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

 43 See 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.

 44 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 45 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked,

the Commission “considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While

these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an

industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” SAA at

885.

 46 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 any other

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

manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to 19

U.S.C. § 1677m(i). The verification requirements in 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i) are applicable only to Commerce. See

Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“the 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 Commission investigations.”).

 47 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 interpretations 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

(continued...)

8
B. Conditions of Competition

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.”48

1. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews

In its original determination, the Commission observed that demand for barium chloride was

contracting due to the introduction of new products and industrial processes that replaced barium chloride

in certain applications. The Commission explained that this long term decline appeared to be responsible

for other barium chloride manufacturers ceasing production, leaving CPC as the only significant domestic

producer.49

In its first five-year review, the Commission noted that the market for barium chloride continued

to be mature and in decline. The Commission again linked this decline to the emergence of new products

and processes. The Commission also noted that, since the antidumping duty order was issued,

environmental concerns had caused barium chloride to be replaced with calcium chloride in certain

pigment production processes. Also, as a result of environmental regulation, production of leaded

gasoline in the United States, which was a major use for barium chloride in the original investigation, had

ceased. The Commission observed that CPC had remained the only significant domestic producer of

barium chloride in the United States, that nonsubject imports held nearly the same share of the U.S.

market as they did in the original investigation, and that because barium chloride was a commodity

product, “price [was] an important consideration in the purchasing decision.”50

In the second review, the Commission noted that the market for barium chloride remained mature

and shrinking and that aggregate domestic consumption in 2003 was ***, which the Commission

attributed to the emergence of the same substitute products and processes that were noted in the first

review. CPC remained the only significant domestic producer, and it remained subject to strict

environmental requirements for handling barium chloride. Nonsubject imports had declined substantially

by the time of the second review; they accounted for as much as *** and *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption in the original investigation and the first review, but less than *** in 2003. The

Commission again noted the commodity nature of barium chloride and the relatively high degree of

substitutability between imported and domestic barium chloride.51 

2. The Current Review

There have been changes in the industry’s conditions of competition since the Commission’s

original investigation in 1984. In addition to the changes noted in the two previous five-year reviews,

which are still applicable to the industry, some additional changes have occurred since the Commission’s

most recent five-year review in 2004. We find the following conditions of competition relevant to our

determination.

 47 (...continued)

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.

 48 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 49 Original Determination at 4-5. 

 50 First Review Determination at 6-7.

 51 Second Review Determination at 8-9.

9
a. Demand

The U.S. market for barium chloride continues to be mature, with no significant new end use

applications foreseen.52 The market is concentrated among a small number of relatively large customers.53

Demand for barium chloride depends upon the demand for its end use applications. The principal use for

barium chloride, accounting for *** of CPC’s U.S. sales, is as an intermediate material for the production

of molecular catalyst sieves, which oil refinery complexes use to separate paraxylene molecules from

other mixed xylenes. Accordingly, petroleum prices would be expected to affect demand for barium

chloride. Barium chloride is also used to a lesser extent in the production of pigments, in water treatment

applications, and as a component of molten salt baths for heat treating steel parts.54

As measured by apparent U.S. consumption, U.S. demand for barium chloride increased from ***

pounds in 2004 to *** pounds in 2005, before declining to *** pounds in 2006, *** pounds in 2007, ***

pounds in 2008, and *** pounds in 2009, for an overall decline of *** percent over the period examined. 

It is not clear to what extent declining demand, which began in 2006, may be attributable to the economic

downturn, which began in 2008.55 56 

b. Supply

There are currently two domestic producers of barium chloride, CPC and Barium & Chemicals,

with CPC accounting for almost all production.57 The domestic industry’s annual capacity was *** from

2004 to 2009 at *** pounds.58 The volume of subject imports from China declined to low levels after

issuance of the antidumping duty order, and only small volumes of subject merchandise were imported

during the period of review.59 Nonsubject imports, after ranging between 34,000 pounds and 83,000

pounds from 2004 to 2007, increased to 563,000 pounds in 2008 and 1.0 million pounds in 2009.60 CPC

 52 CR at II-6, PR at II-4. CPC explains, for instance, that there has been some growth in the use of barium

chloride for water treatment applications, but that it is not likely that this will result in a major increase in demand

for barium chloride. CPC Response to Commission Questions at 4.

 53 CPC Prehearing Brief at 7.

 54 CR at II-6, PR at II-4. CPC reports that *** of its sales of barium chloride are for molecular sieves, ***

percent for pigment production, *** percent for water treatment, *** percent for heat treating steel, and the

remainder for other uses. CR at II-7, PR at II-4. 

 55 CR/PR at Table C-1. CPC states that, after remaining steady for several years, demand dropped sharply in

2009, largely as a result of the economic downturn, and that demand has not yet recovered. CPC Prehearing Brief at

6-7, CPC Response to Commission Questions at 11. Market participants’ views were mixed regarding whether

demand in the future would increase, decrease, fluctuate, or remain unchanged. CR at II-8, PR at II-4-5.

 56 We realize that, because prices for barium chloride increased between 2004 and 2009, the general decline in

apparent consumption could also reflect to some extent the decreased supply of barium chloride (most likely due to

higher raw material costs). See discussion at CR at II-21 to II-22, PR at II-14.

 57 CR I-19, PR at I-16. CPC accounted for *** percent of production during the period examined in this five-year

review. Id.

 58 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 59 CR/PR at Table I-1. Subject imports accounted for *** in each year of the period examined in this five-year

review. CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 60 CR/PR at Table C-1.

10
attributes the recent increase in nonsubject imports to purchases of barium chloride from India by ***. 

Those imports have reduced the share of *** requirements that are supplied by CPC.61

c. Other Conditions

As the Commission has consistently observed, barium chloride is a commodity product, and there

is a high degree of substitutability between domestically produced barium chloride and the subject

imports.62 Price is an important factor in purchasing decisions.63

Raw material and natural gas costs constitute an important part of the total cost of producing

barium chloride. Raw material costs accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. producers’ total

cost of goods sold (“COGS”) in 2009, while natural gas, an element of the industry’s ***, accounted for

*** percent of total COGS.64 Raw material cost per pound nearly *** over the period of review,

increasing from $*** per pound in 2004 to $*** per pound in 2009.65 The industry’s “other factory

costs” also increased, from $*** per pound in 2004 to $*** per pound in 2009,66 as did direct labor costs,

which increased from $*** per pound in 2004 to $*** per pound in 2009.67

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

1. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews

During the period examined in the original investigation, the volume of U.S. imports of barium

chloride from China increased from 4.0 million pounds in 1981 to 5.3 million pounds in 1983, and

increased greatly both as a share of domestic consumption and relative to domestic producers’ shipments. 

The subject import volume was lower in interim (January to June) 1984 than in the same period in 1983,

which the Commission attributed to the pending investigation.68 

In its first five-year review, the Commission observed that the volume of subject imports declined

to minimal levels after the antidumping duty order was issued. The Commission found it reasonable to

infer, however, that Chinese producers would resume exporting significant volumes of barium chloride to

the United States if the order were revoked, given the similarity between conditions of competition at that

time and those prevailing prior to issuance of the order. Additionally, the Chinese industry had

substantially increased its production capacity since the original investigation to a level that was several

times greater than apparent consumption in the United States.69

In the second review, the Commission found that the volume of subject imports would likely

return to significant levels absent the restraining effect of the antidumping duty order. The Commission

based its conclusion on the Chinese producers’ large production capacity, the continued attractiveness of

the U.S. market, an increase in the volume of subject imports during the period examined, and,

 61 CPC Responses to Commissioner Questions at 12, 14. 

 62 CR at II-11, PR at II-7.

 63 CR/PR at Table II-3 (all but one of the eight responding purchasers identified price as “very important” in their

purchasing decisions).

 64 CR/PR at V-1.

 65 CR/PR at Table III-6. 

 66 Prices for natural gas, reflected in CPC’s “other factory costs,” increased substantially in the final years of the

period examined. CR at III-11 n.18, PR at III-5 n.18; CR/PR at Table III-6.

 67 CR/PR at Table III-6. 

 68 Original Determination at 6. 

 69 First Review Determination at 8-10.

11
notwithstanding other similarities between conditions of competition at that time and those prevailing at

the time of the original investigation, the continued contraction of the U.S. market for barium chloride.70

2. The Current Review

The record indicates that the antidumping duty order has had a restraining effect on the volume of

subject imports, with the market share of subject imports remaining below *** percent throughout the

period examined.71 Several factors support the conclusion that the subject import volume is likely to be

significant in the event of revocation of the order. First, China is the world’s *** producer of barium

chemicals, which include barium chloride, accounting for approximately *** percent of global output.72

Second, in the original investigation, exports by Chinese barium chloride producers ranged

between *** pounds and *** pounds annually and accounted for as much as *** percent of those

producers’ total production.73 Chinese producers’ total exports remain substantial, ranging between 63.0

million pounds and 99.6 million pounds annually during the period examined.74 Moreover, in the original

investigation, exports to the United States accounted for as much as *** percent of total barium chloride

exports by subject producers.75 Accordingly, the producers in China are export oriented and, absent the

order, would view the United States as an important export market.

Third, Chinese producers’ production capacity is estimated to have increased from *** pounds at

the time of the original investigation to at least 269 million pounds currently.76 This capacity in China

contrasts with total apparent U.S. consumption in 2009 of only *** pounds.77

Fourth, due to the absence of questionnaire responses from Chinese producers, we lack current

data on excess barium chloride capacity in China. We note, however, that Chinese producers’ export

shipments to all markets declined from 88.7 million pounds in 2008 to 63.0 million pounds in 2009. This

decrease in export shipments likely increased the unused capacity available in China.78 

Fifth, the record includes evidence that prices for barium chloride in the United States are higher

than prices in other markets, indicating that the U.S. market would be relatively attractive for Chinese

producers.79 We find it likely that Chinese exporters would be particularly motivated to increase exports

 70 Second Review Determination at 9-11. 

 71 Subject imports declined from 211,000 pounds in 2004 to zero in 2008 and 2009, and subject imports’ market

share declined from *** percent in 2004 to zero in 2008 and 2009. CR/PR at Table I-1.

 72 CR at IV-8, PR at IV-6.

 73 Staff Report to the Commission on Investigation Number 731-TA-149 (Sep. 17, 1984) at Table 9. 

 74 CR/PR at Table IV-3. 

 75 Staff Report to the Commission on Investigation Number 731-TA-149 (Sep. 17, 1984) at Table 9. 

 76 CR at IV-8, PR at IV-6. Chinese capacity was estimated to have increased from *** pounds in the original

investigation to at least *** pounds in the first five-year review and to at least *** pounds in the second five-year

review. CR at IV-5-6, PR at IV-4. 

 77 Id., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 78 CR/PR at Table IV-3. We have no information that would suggest that Chinese home market consumption

would have increased sufficiently in 2009 to offset the decreased export shipments.

 79 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-3, V-2, V-3. CPC presented evidence that prices for barium chloride in the

United States are about three times those in Canada. CPC Prehearing Brief at 10, CPC Response To Commission

Questions at 4 and Attachment A. CPC also states that many Chinese producers of barium chloride also produce

barium carbonate, demand for which has declined along with declining demand for cathode ray tubes, its principal

use, following the advent of LCD and plasma televisions. CPC maintains that the likelihood that Chinese producers

would want to increase sales of barium chloride to offset declining sales of barium carbonate suggests a likely

(continued...)

12
of barium chloride to the United States if the order were revoked to offset in part the recent decline in

Chinese producers’ export shipments.80

Accordingly, based on the demonstrated ability of Chinese barium chloride producers to increase

imports into the U.S. market rapidly, their substantial production capacity and likely unused capacity,

their export orientation, and the attractiveness of the U.S. market, we find that the likely volume of

subject imports, both in absolute terms and as a share of the U.S. market, would be significant if the order

were revoked.

D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

1. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews

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

undersold the domestic product in every quarter of the period examined for which comparisons were

available and that domestic prices had declined in the latter half of the period as a result of that

underselling. The Commission also was able to confirm petitioner’s lost sales allegations with respect to

seven customers and more than half of the petitioner’s lost revenue allegations.81

In the first five-year review, the Commission found that the average unit values (“AUVs”) of the

subject imports were about the same as they had been in the original investigation, whereas the domestic

producers’ prices were higher than they were in the original investigation. The Commission found that

these comparisons, together with the commodity nature of barium chloride, the importance of price in

purchasing decisions, and the information obtained during the original investigation, indicated likely

underselling and adverse price effects if the order were revoked.82

In the second five-year review, the Commission found that the available evidence regarding likely

price effects was largely unchanged from that in the first five-year review. The Commission observed

that the AUVs of the subject imports were higher than in the original investigation and the first review,

but remained well below those for the domestic like product. The Commission found that, given that the

conditions of competition at that time were similar to those that prevailed during the original investigation

and that there was no indication that the nature of the imported product had changed, it was likely that, if

the order were revoked, Chinese producers would significantly undersell the domestic like product to gain

market share and subject imports would likely have significant depressing and/or suppressing effects on

prices for domestic barium chloride.83

2. The Current Review

The record in this review indicates that barium chloride remains a commodity product and that

barium chloride from China is readily substitutable with the domestic like product.84 Price remains an

 79 (...continued)

increase in Chinese exports to the United States if the order were revoked. CPC Prehearing Brief at 11. 

 80 CR/PR at Table IV-3. 

 81 Original Determination at 6-8. 

 82 First Review Determination at 10-11.

 83 Second Review Determination 11-12.

 84 CR at II-11, PR at II-7.

13
important factor in the purchase of barium chloride, with most purchasers reporting that price is “very

important” in purchasing decisions.85 

Although domestic producers’ prices increased over the period examined,86 the increase was not

sufficient to offset increased COGS, resulting in a cost-price squeeze for the industry.87 In light of the

minimal presence of subject imports in the U.S. market during the period examined, quarterly price

comparison data are limited. The available data, however, show that the subject imports undersold the

domestic like product in the majority of comparisons and, thus, have continued to compete on the basis of

price notwithstanding the antidumping duty order.88 

As discussed above, if the order were revoked it is likely that the United States would become an

attractive export market for Chinese producers, given their substantial unused capacity and export

orientation and attractive prices in the U.S. market. It is also likely that Chinese producers would resume

their aggressive underselling practices, which have persisted to some extent even with the order in place,

in order to increase their U.S. market share. Given the high degree of interchangeability between subject

and domestic barium chloride and the importance of price in purchasing decisions, such underselling is

likely to result in significant adverse price effects. Thus, we conclude that, if the antidumping duty order

were revoked, significant volumes of subject imports from China likely would significantly undersell the

domestic like product to gain market share and likely would have significant depressing and/or

suppressing effects on the prices of the domestic like product.

E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports89

1. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews

In the original investigation, the Commission found that, in the context of declining domestic

consumption, the domestic industry’s market share declined, worker productivity declined, unit labor cost

of production increased, and net sales, profitability, and cash flow all deteriorated. Moreover, the

Commission found that any minor improvements in the industry’s performance when the interim periods

were compared were attributable to the decline in subject imports following the Commission’s affirmative

preliminary determination. On the basis of the record data, the Commission found that subject imports

had displaced U.S. production, depressed prices, and adversely affected the profitability of the domestic

 85 CR/PR at Table II-3.

 86 E.g., CR/PR at Tables V-2, V-3

 87 The industry’s unit COGS as a percentage of net sales increased overall during the period examined from ***

percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2009. CR/PR at Tables III-6, C-1. 

 88 The subject imports undersold the domestic product in four of six comparisons by margins ranging from ***

percent to *** percent. CR/PR at Table V-2. 

 89 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked,

the Commission “considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While

these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an

industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” SAA at

885, 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Tariff Act states that “the Commission may consider the

magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy” 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.

In the final results of its expedited sunset review of the antidumping duty order on barium chloride from

China, Commerce found a likely PRC-wide antidumping duty margin of 155.50 percent. 74 Fed. Reg. 55814, 55815

(Oct. 29, 2009).

14
industry. It concluded that the domestic industry, which had been made vulnerable by declining demand,

was suffering material injury by reason of the dumped subject imports.90 

In its first five-year review, the Commission noted that the domestic industry was in a reasonably

healthy financial condition. The Commission found that the improvement in the domestic industry’s

performance occurred because the domestic industry captured all of the market share previously held by

imports from China. Thus, the Commission concluded that, should imports from China regain U.S.

market share, it would come entirely at the expense of the domestic industry. The Commission found

that, because the relative health of the domestic industry was primarily a result of the restraining effect of

the order, revocation of the order likely would result in a significant volume of subject imports that would

have significant price suppressing or depressing effects and a significant adverse impact on the industry’s

performance. The Commission found, therefore, that revocation would likely lead to the continuation or

recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time 91

In the second review, the Commission observed that, although the industry’s prices for barium

chloride were higher than its prices in the original investigation and the first five-year review, the

industry’s total shipments declined significantly as apparent U.S. consumption declined. The

Commission found that, if the order were revoked, it was likely that subject import volume would

increase significantly, subject imports would undersell the domestic like product and have significant

price suppressing or depressing effects, and the imports would have a significant adverse impact on the

industry’s performance. Accordingly, the Commission found that revocation would likely lead to the

continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.92

2. The Current Review

The condition of the domestic industry, after improving from 2004 to 2007, declined in 2008 and

declined even more sharply in 2009. U.S. production of barium chloride increased irregularly from ***

pounds in 2004 to *** pounds in 2007, before declining to *** pounds in 2008 and *** pounds in 2009.93

The domestic industry’s production capacity remained constant from 2004 to 2009 at *** pounds. 

Capacity utilization increased irregularly from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2007, before

decreasing to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009.94

U.S. shipments increased from *** pounds in 2004 to *** pounds in 2005, before decreasing to

*** pounds in 2006, *** pounds in 2007, *** pounds in 2008, and *** pounds in 2009. Net sales

increased irregularly from *** pounds in 2004 to *** pounds in 2007, before decreasing to *** pounds in

2008 and *** pounds in 2009.95

Domestic producers’ inventories increased from *** pounds in 2004 to *** pounds in 2006, then

declined to *** pounds in 2007, before increasing to *** pounds in 2008 and 2009.96

 90 Original Determination 4-5, 8. 

 91 First Review Determination at 11-12.

 92 Second Review Determination at 12-13.

 93 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 94 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 95 CR/PR at Table C-1. The growth in net sales from 2004 to 2007 reflected strong growth in domestic

producers’ exports in that time frame. Id. 

 96 CR/PR at Table C-1. The ratio of domestic producers’ inventories to U.S. shipments increased from ***

percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2006, then declined to *** percent in 2007, before increasing to *** percent in

2008 and *** percent in 2009. Id.

15
The domestic industry’s production and related workers increased from *** in 2004 to *** in

2005-2009. The number of hours worked increased from *** in 2004 to *** in 2005-2009.97

The domestic industry’s financial performance improved from 2004 to 2007, then declined

sharply through 2009.98 The industry’s operating income increased from $*** in 2004 to $*** in 2007,

before declining to $*** in 2008 and *** in 2009.99 The industry’s operating income margin increased

irregularly from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2007, before declining to *** percent in 2008 and

*** percent in 2009.100

In addition, the industry’s performance was affected by an increased COGS that was not fully

offset by domestic producers’ price increases.101 Moreover, demand, as reflected by apparent U.S.

consumption, declined overall by *** percent between 2004 and 2009.102 

Accordingly, based on recent performance indicators, the current level of demand for barium

chloride, and recent trends in the industry’s COGS-to-net-sales ratio, we find that the domestic industry is

vulnerable to material injury if the antidumping duty order were revoked.

We also find that revocation of the order would likely have a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry. As discussed above, revocation would likely lead to significant increases in the

volume of subject imports that would aggressively undersell the domestic like product in order to regain

market share and significantly depress and/or suppress U.S. prices. In addition, the volume and price

effects of the subject imports would likely have a significant negative impact on the production,

shipments, sales, market share, employment, and revenues of the domestic industry.103 Declines in these

indicators of industry performance would have a direct adverse impact on the industry’s profitability, as

well as its ability to raise capital and to make and maintain capital investments. 

We have also considered the role of nonsubject imports in the U.S. market. Nonsubject imports

increased their market share from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2009.104 As noted above, CPC

attributes the recent increase in nonsubject imports to purchases of barium chloride from India by ***.105

Accordingly, *** of nonsubject imports. There is no indication on this record, however, that the

increased presence of nonsubject imports from India would prevent subject imports from aggressively reentering the U.S. market in significant quantities. We note in this regard that the AUVs of nonsubject

imports were markedly higher than the AUVs of subject imports in each year of the period examined for

which comparisons are possible, indicating that subject imports likely would be priced more aggressively

 97 CR/PR at Table C-1. Productivity (pounds/hour) increased irregularly from *** in 2004 to *** in 2007, before

decreasing to *** in 2008 and *** in 2009. Id. 

 98 From 2004 to 2009, the domestic industry’s SG&A expenses per unit *** percent, and the unit COGS ***. 

CR/PR at Table C-1.

 99 CR/PR at Table C-1. The industry’s capital expenditures were $*** in 2004, $*** in 2005, $*** in 2006, $***

in 2007, $*** in 2008, and *** in 2009. Id.

 100 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 101 This cost-price squeeze is shown by the overall increase in the ratio of COGS to net sales in 2008 and 2009. 

CR/PR at Table C-1. In addition, the negative net cost/expense variance (unit costs increased from 2004 to 2009) is

greater than the positive price variance (unit price increased from 2004 to 2009). CR at III-12, PR at III-5; CR/PR at

Table III-7. 

 102 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 103 CPC explains that it ***. CR at III-11-12, PR at III-5. CPC likely would not be able to maintain its current

employment levels if the antidumping duty order were revoked. 

 104 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 105 CPC Responses to Commissioner Questions at 12, 14. 

16
than both domestic barium chloride and nonsubject imports if the order were revoked.106 Therefore, we

conclude that nonsubject imports would not break the likely causal link between the subject imports and

the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry in the event of revocation.

We also recognize that reduced demand for barium chloride and the industry’s increased COGS

are factors contributing to the industry’s vulnerability. These factors, however, do not sever the causal

link between subject imports and likely material injury because the subject producers’ incentive to ship

significant volumes of aggressively priced barium chloride from China is not significantly diminished by

either factor. 

Consequently, we find that revocation of the order would likely have a significant adverse impact

on the domestic industry, notwithstanding the increased presence of nonsubject imports in the U.S.

market. 

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping order on barium chloride

from China will likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic barium

chloride industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

 106 CR/PR at Table C-1. Whereas the AUVs of subject imports from China ranged between $0.21 and $0.24 from

2004 to 2007 (the only years in the period examined in which there were subject imports), the AUVs of all

nonsubject merchandise were between $0.64 and $2.98 during that time. CR/PR at Table C-1. The majority of

nonsubject imports during the period examined, and virtually all nonsubject imports in 2009, were from India. CR at

IV-3, PR at IV-1. 

17

PART I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND

Effective July 1, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”)

gave notice, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”),1

 that it had

instituted a review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on barium chloride from

China would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry.2 3

 On

October 5, 2009, the Commission determined that it would conduct a full review pursuant to section

751(c)(5) of the Act.4

 Information relating to the background and schedule of this proceeding appears in

the following tabulation:5

Effective date Action

October 17, 1984 Commerce’s antidumping duty order on barium chloride from China (49 FR

40635)

October 1, 1998 Commission’s institution (63 FR 52750) and Commerce’s initiation (63 FR

52683) of first review

February 4, 1999 Commerce’s final results of expedited first review (64 FR 5633)

February 24, 1999 Commission’s expedited first review determination (64 FR 10317, March 3,

1999)

March 10, 1999 Commerce’s first continuation of the antidumping duty order (64 FR 42654,

August 5, 1999)

February 2, 2004 Commission’s institution (69 FR 4979) and Commerce’s initiation (69 FR 4921)

of second review

June 7, 2004 Commerce’s final results of expedited second review (69 FR 31791)

 1 19 U.S.C. 1675(c).

 2 Barium Chloride from China, 74 FR 31757, July 2, 2009. All interested parties were requested to respond to

this notice by submitting the information requested by the Commission. The Commission received one submission

in response to its notice of institution for the subject review. It was filed on behalf of Chemical Products Corp.

(CPC), a U.S. producer of barium chloride and the Petitioner in the original investigation.

 3

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

notice of initiation of five-year review of the subject antidumping duty order. Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’)

Review, 74 FR 31412, July 1, 2009. 

 4 Barium Chloride from China, 74 FR 54069, October 21, 2009. Chairman Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman

Daniel R. Pearson, and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun found that the domestic group response was adequate

and the respondent group response was inadequate, but that circumstances warranted a full review. Commissioners

Charlotte R. Lane, Irving A. Williamson, and Dean A. Pinkert found that the domestic group response was adequate

and the respondent group response was inadequate and voted for an expedited review.

 5

 The Commission’s notice of institution, notice to conduct a full review, scheduling notice, and statement on

adequacy appear in appendix A and may also be found at the Commission’s web site (internet address

www.usitc.gov). Commissioners’ votes on whether to conduct expedited or full reviews may also be found at the

web site. 

I-1
July 20, 2004 Commission’s expedited second review determination (69 FR 44059, July 23,

2004)

August 5, 2004 Commerce’s second continuation of the antidumping duty order (69 FR 47405)

July 1, 2009 Commission’s institution (74 FR 31757, July 2, 2009) and Commerce’s initiation

(74 FR 31412) of third review

October 5, 2009 Commission’s determination to conduct a full review (74 FR 54069, October 21,

2009)

October 29, 2009 Commerce’s final results of expedited third review (74 FR 55814)

November 16, 2009 Commission’s scheduling of the review (74 FR 62587, November 30, 2009)

April 15, 2010 Date for Commission’s hearing (hearing cancelled at the request of domestic

interested parties, 75 FR 20625, April 20, 2010)

May 26, 2010 Commission’s vote

June 9, 2010 Commission’s determination transmitted to Commerce

THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION AND SUBSEQUENT FIVE-YEAR REVIEWS

The original investigation resulted from a petition filed on October 25, 1983, by Chemical

Products Corp. (“CPC”), Cartersville, GA. On August 27, 1984, Commerce made a final affirmative

determination of sales at less than fair value (“LTFV”) with respect to barium chloride imports from

China.6

 The Commission completed the original investigation in October 1984, determining that an

industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports of barium chloride from China

that were being sold at LTFV.7

 After receipt of the Commission’s determination, Commerce issued an

antidumping duty order on imports of barium chloride from China, effective October 17, 1984.8

 The final

weighted-average dumping margins were 14.5 percent for SINOCHEM and 14.5 percent for all others.

In March 1999, the Commission completed an expedited five-year review of the subject order and

determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on barium chloride 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.9

 Following affirmative determinations in the first five-year reviews by

Commerce and the Commission, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty order on

imports of barium chloride from China, effective March 10, 1999.10

In July 2004, the Commission completed a second expedited five-year review of the subject order

and determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on barium chloride from China would be

 6 Commerce also made a determination that “critical circumstances” did not exist with respect to imports of

barium chloride from China. Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Barium Chloride From the

People’s Republic of China, 49 FR 33918, August 27, 1984.

 7 Barium Chloride From the People’s Republic of China, Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Final), USITC

Publication 1584, October 1984.

 8 Barium Chloride from the People’s Republic of China, Antidumping Duty Order, 49 FR 40635, October 17,

1984.

 9 Barium Chloride from China, 64 FR 10317, March 3, 1999.

 10 Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order: Barium Chloride From the People’s Republic of China, 64 FR

42654, August 5, 1999.

I-2
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time.11 Following affirmative determinations in the second five-year reviews by

Commerce and the Commission, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty order on

imports of barium chloride from China, effective August 5, 2004.12

SUMMARY DATA

Table I-1 presents a summary of data from the original investigation as well as the first, second,

and current reviews. From 1981 to 1983, the full years included in the period for which data were

collected in the original investigation, U.S. imports of barium chloride from China increased over each

annual period, both absolutely and relative to apparent U.S. consumption, while U.S. imports from other

sources decreased over each annual period by both measures.13 The U.S. industry’s production, U.S.

shipments, and net sales value decreased over the period, while the industry’s operating income decline

irregularly. Likewise, capacity utilization declined each year during the period. 

As noted in table I-1, certain data, including U.S. production and shipments of barium chloride for

the first and second five-year expedited reviews, were based on submissions by the domestic interested

party in response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the respective reviews. In the current fiveyear review, U.S. industry data and related information are based on the questionnaire responses of two

U.S. producers of barium chloride. U.S. import data are based on official Commerce statistics. 

 11 Barium Chloride from China, 69 FR 44059, July 23, 2004.

 12 Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order: Barium Chloride From the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR

47405, August 5, 2004.

 13 The leading nonsubject sources of U.S. imports of barium chloride during 1981-83 were the Federal Republic

of Germany, Italy, Belgium & Luxembourg, and France.

I-3
I-4

Table I-1Barium chloride: Summary data from the original investigation, first, second, and current reviews, 1981-83, 1997, 2003

(Quantity=1,000 pounds; value=1,000 dollars; unit value=per pound)

Item 1981 1982 1983 1997 2003 2004 2005 2006 

U.S. consumption quantity:

Amount *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Producers’ share1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Importer’s share:1

China *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other countries *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Total imports *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

U.S. consumption value:

Amount *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Producers’ share1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Importer’s share:1

China *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other countries *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Total imports *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

U.S. imports from--

China:

Quantity 3,994 4,319 5,330 243 573 211 174 132 Value 329 322 471 23 104 45 42 29 Unit value $0.08 $0.07 $0.09 $0.09 $0.18 $0.21 $0.24 $0.22 

Table continued on next page.
I-5

Table I-1--ContinuedBarium chloride: Summary data from the original investigation, first, second, and current reviews, 1981-83, 1997, 2003

(Quantity=1,000 pounds; value=1,000 dollars; unit value=per pound)

Item 1981 1982 1983 1997 2003 2004 2005 2006 

All other countries:

Quantity 3,209 1,541 1,475 2,703 22 76 34 83 Value 530 282 230 870 51 94 101 67 Unit value $0.17 $0.18 $0.16 $0.32 $2.32 $1.24 $2.98 $0.80 

All countries:

Quantity 7,203 5,860 6,805 2,945 594 287 208 215 

Value 859 604 701 893 155 140 143 96 Unit value $0.12 $0.10 $0.10 $0.30 $0.26 $0.49 $0.69 $0.45 

U.S. producers’--

Capacity quantity *** *** *** *** (2) *** *** *** 

Production quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capacity utilization1 *** *** *** *** (2) *** *** *** U.S. shipments:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** 

Export shipments:

Quantity *** *** *** (2) (2) *** *** *** Value *** *** *** (2) (2) *** *** *** Unit value $*** $*** $*** (2) (2) $*** $*** $*** 

Ending inventory quantity *** *** *** (2) (2) *** *** *** Inventories/total shipments1 *** *** *** (2) (2) *** *** *** 

Table continued on next page.
I-6

Table I-1--ContinuedBarium chloride: Summary data from the original investigation, first, second, and current reviews, 1981-83, 1997, 2003

(Quantity=1,000 pounds; value=1,000 dollars; unit value=per pound)

Item 1981 1982 1983 1997 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Production workers *** *** *** (2) (2) *** *** *** 

Hours worked (1,000 hours) *** *** *** (2) (2) *** *** *** Wages paid (1,000 dollars) *** *** *** (2) (2) *** *** *** Hourly wages $*** $*** $*** (2) (2) $*** $*** $*** Productivity (pounds per 

 hour) *** *** *** (2) (2) *** *** *** 

Net sales:

Quantity (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) *** *** *** Value *** *** *** (2) (2) *** *** *** Unit value (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) $*** $*** $*** 

Cost of goods sold *** *** *** (2) (2) *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) *** *** *** (2) (2) *** *** *** SG&A *** *** *** (2) (2) *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) *** *** *** (2) (2) *** *** *** Unit cost of goods sold (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) $*** $*** $*** 

 Unit operating income or 

 (loss) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) $*** $*** $*** 

 Cost of goods sold/sales1 *** *** *** (2) (2) *** *** ***  Operating income or

(loss)/sales1 *** *** *** (2) (2) *** *** *** 

1 In percent.2 Data not available.

Source: Data for the period 1981-83 are compiled from information presented in the Original Staff Report (September 17, 1984); data for 1997 and 2003 are c

the Second Review Staff Report (INV-BB-070, June 3, 2004); data for 2004-09 are from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Import da

Commerce statistics.
PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

Barium chloride has not been the subject of any prior countervailing or antidumping duty

investigations in the United States. The Commission has, however, conducted antidumping duty

investigations on a related product, barium carbonate. The Commission made an affirmative final

determination with respect to imports of barium carbonate from the Federal Republic of Germany in June

1981,14 and Commerce subsequently issued an antidumping order.15 In November 1998, as part of a

five-year review, Commerce revoked the antidumping duty order effective January 1, 2000, because no

domestic interested party responded to the notice of initiation by the applicable deadline.16

On October 25, 1983, CPC filed an antidumping duty petition on imports of barium chloride and

barium carbonate (precipitated) from China. The Commission made an affirmative preliminary

determination on both products;17 however, Commerce made a negative final dumping determination

regarding imports of barium carbonate.18

On September 30, 2002, CPC filed an antidumping duty petition on imports of barium carbonate

(regardless of form or grade) from China. The Commission made an affirmative final determination with

respect to imports of barium carbonate from China in September 2003,19 and Commerce subsequently

issued an antidumping duty order.20 In January 2009, as part of a five-year review, Commerce

determined that revocation of the order on barium carbonate would likely lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping.21 In March 2009, the Commission, in an expedited five-year review, determined

that revocation of the antidumping duty order on barium carbonate 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.22

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

Section 751(c) of the Act requires Commerce and the Commission to conduct a review no later

than five years after the issuance of an antidumping or countervailing duty order or the suspension of an

investigation to determine whether revocation of the order or termination of the suspended investigation

 14 Precipitated Barium Carbonate From The Federal Republic of Germany, Investigation No. 731-TA-31 (Final),

USITC Publication 1154, June 1981.

 15 Precipitated Barium Carbonate From the Federal Republic of Germany; Antidumping Duty Order, 46 FR

32864, June 25, 1981.

 16 October 1998 Sunset Reviews: Final Results and Revocations, 63 FR 64677, November 23, 1998.

 17 Barium Chloride and Barium Carbonate (Precipitated) From The People's Republic of China, Investigations

Nos. 731-TA-149 and 150 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 1458, December 1983.

 18 Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value; Barium Carbonate From the People’s Republic of

China, 49 FR 33913, August 27, 1984.

 19 Barium Carbonate from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1020 (Final), USITC Publication 3631, September

2003.

 20 Antidumping Duty Order: Barium Carbonate from the People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 56619, October 1,

2003.

 21 Barium Carbonate from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the

Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 882, January 9, 2009.

 22 Barium Carbonate From China, 74 FR 10278, March 10, 2009. 

I-7
“would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the

case may be) and of material injury.”

Section 752(a) of the Act provides that in making its determination of likelihood of continuation

or recurrence of material injury--

(1) IN GENERAL.-- . . . the Commission shall determine whether 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. The

Commission shall 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. The Commission shall take into account--

(A) its prior injury determinations, including the volume, price

effect, and impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry

before the order was issued or the suspension agreement was accepted, 

(B) whether any improvement in the state of the industry is related

to the order or the suspension agreement, 

(C) whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order

is revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated, and 

(D) in an antidumping proceeding . . ., (Commerce’s findings)

regarding duty absorption . . ..

(2) VOLUME.--In evaluating the likely volume of imports of the subject

merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the

Commission shall consider whether the likely volume of imports of the subject

merchandise would be significant if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is

terminated, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the

United States. In so doing, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors,

including--

(A) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused

production capacity in the exporting country, 

(B) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely

increases in inventories, 

(C) the existence of barriers to the importation of such merchandise

into countries other than the United States, and 

(D) 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.

(3) PRICE.--In evaluating the likely price effects of imports of the subject

merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the

Commission shall consider whether--

(A) there is likely to be significant price underselling by imports of

the subject merchandise as compared to domestic like products, and 

(B) imports of the subject merchandise 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.

I-8
(4) IMPACT ON THE INDUSTRY.--In evaluating the likely impact of imports of

the subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended

investigation is terminated, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors

which are likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States,

including, but not limited to–

(A) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, 

(B) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment,

wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment, and 

(C) 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.

The Commission shall evaluate all such relevant economic factors . . . within the context

of the business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected

industry.

Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states further that in making its determination, “the Commission

may consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable

subsidy. If a countervailable subsidy is involved, the Commission shall consider information regarding

the nature of the countervailable subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or

6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement.”

Organization of the Report

Information obtained during the course of the review that relates to the statutory criteria is

presented throughout this report. A summary of trade and financial data for barium chloride as collected

in the review is presented in appendix C. U.S. industry data are based on the questionnaire responses of

two U.S. producers of barium chloride that are believed to have accounted for virtually all domestic

production of barium chloride in 2004-09. U.S. import data and related information are based on

Commerce’s official import statistics and the questionnaire responses of eight U.S. importers of barium

chloride that are believed to have accounted for over 75 percent of U.S. imports of barium chloride from

China and for virtually all U.S. imports of barium chloride from all other sources during 2004-09. 

Foreign industry data and related information are based on CPC’s response to the Commission’s Notice

of Institution and ***.23 Responses by U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers of barium chloride to a

series of questions concerning the significance of the existing antidumping duty order and the likely

effects of revocation of the order are presented in appendix D.

 23 CPC’s response to the Notice of Institution, July 31, 2009. ***. 

I-9
COMMERCE’S REVIEWS

Administrative Reviews24

Commerce has completed six administrative reviews of the outstanding antidumping duty order

on barium chloride from China. The results are shown in table I-2.25 None of the reviews have resulted

in revocations, in full or in part, and the last administrative review was carried out prior to the second

five-year review in 2004.

Table I-2

Barium chloride: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for China

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin

(percent)

January 5, 1987 (52 FR 313) 10/01/84-09/30/85 SINOCHEM1 7.82

January 3, 1989 (54 FR 52) 04/06/84-09/30/84

10/01/85-09/30/86

SINOCHEM1 27.70

SINOCHEM1 60.84

July 2, 1992 (57 FR 29467) 10/01/90-09/30/91 SINOCHEM1 60.84

November 16, 1999 (64 FR 62168) 10/01/97-09/30/98

SINOCHEM1 14.50

All others 14.50

March 17, 2003 (68 FR 12669) 10/01/00-09/30/01

SINOCHEM1 155.50

China-wide rate 155.50

 1 SINOCHEM refers to China National Chemicals Import and Export Corporation.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

 24 No duty absorption findings were made.

 25 For previously reviewed or investigated companies not included in an administrative review, the cash deposit

rate continues to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period.

I-10
Five-Year Reviews

Table I-3 presents the dumping margins calculated by Commerce in its first, second, and third

reviews. 

Table I-3

Barium chloride: Commerce’s first, second, and third five-year dumping margins for

producers/exporters in China

Producer/exporter

First five-year

review margin

(percent)

Second five-year

review margin

(percent)

Third five-year

review margin

(percent)

SINOCHEM1 14.50 155.50 (2

)

All others/PRC-Wide 14.50 155.50 155.50

 1 SINOCHEM refers to China National Chemicals Import and Export Corporation. 2 Not listed separately.

Note.–The weighted-average margins in the original antidumping duty order were 14.5 percent for SINOCHEM and

14.5 percent for all others. These margins remained the same through the first five-year review. However, in the

second five-year review, Commerce recalculated the margin that was determined in the original investigation. 

Commerce found that the outdated information of this order did not take into account changes in sales and input

prices or changes in the methodology used by Commerce in NME cases.

Source: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Barium Chloride From the People’s Republic of China (PRC),

64 FR 5633, February 4, 1999; Barium Chloride from The People’s Republic of China; Final Results of the Sunset

Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 69 FR 31791, June 7, 2004; and Barium Chloride From the People’s Republic

of China: Final Results of Expedited Third Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 55814, October 29,

2009.

DISTRIBUTION OF CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT FUNDS

The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”) (also known as the Byrd

Amendment) provides that assessed duties received pursuant to antidumping or countervailing duty

orders must be distributed to affected domestic producers for certain qualifying expenditures that these

producers incur after the issuance of such orders.26 Qualified U.S. producers of barium chloride were

eligible to receive disbursements from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) under

CDSOA relating to the orders covering the subject merchandise beginning in Federal fiscal year 2002.27

Tables I-4 presents CDSOA disbursements and claims for Federal fiscal years 2004-09, by firm.28

 26 Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)). The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

repealed the CDSOA with respect to duties on entries of goods made and filed on or after October 1, 2007. See Pub.

L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4, 154 (2006).

 27 19 CFR 159.64 (g).

 28 The Federal fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30 of the next calendar year.

I-11
Table I-4

Barium chloride: CDSOA disbursements and claims, Federal fiscal years 2004-09

Item

Federal fiscal year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Disbursements (dollars)

CPC1 $64,644 $34,580 $9,358 $37,180 (2

) (2)

Claims (dollars)

CPC1 $51,928,708 $52,063,064 $53,587,484 $56,193,126 (2

) (2)

 1 CPC was the only firm to submit claims and receive disbursements.

 2

 None listed.

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s CDSOA Annual Reports. Retrieved from

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

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

The imported product subject to the antidumping duty order under review, as defined by

Commerce in its original order, is as follows:

Barium chloride, a chemical compound having the formulas BaCl2 or BaCl2•2H2O.

29

Tariff Treatment

Barium chloride is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(“HTS”) under subheading 2827.39.45, a subheading that covers only the subject merchandise. As

presented in table I-5, the current general tariff rate for barium chloride is 4.2 percent ad valorem. 

 29 Barium Chloride From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Third Sunset Review of

Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 55814, October 29, 2009.

I-12
Table I-5

Barium chloride: Tariff rates, 2010

HTS provision Article description

General1 Special2

Column

23

Rates (percent ad valorem)

2827

2827.39

2827.39.45

Chlorides, chloride oxides and chloride hydroxides;

bromides and bromide oxides; iodides and iodide oxides:

 Other chlorides:

 Other: 

 Of barium..............................................................

 

4.2% Free (A,

AU, BH,

CA, CL, E,

IL, J, JO,

MA, MX,

OM, P,

PE, SG)

28.5%

 1 Normal trade relations, formerly known as the most-favored-nation duty rate. 

 2

 Special rates apply to imports of barium chloride from certain trading partners of the United States as follows: A (GSP); AU

(United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement); BH (United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act); CA and

MX (North American Free Trade Agreement); CL (United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement); E (Caribbean Basin Economic

Recovery Act); IL (United States-Israel Free Trade Area); J (Andean Trade Preference Act); JO (United States-Jordan Free Trade

Area Implementation Act); MA (United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act); OM (United States-Oman

Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act) ; P (Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement

Implementation Act); PE (United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act); SG (United States-Singapore

Free Trade Agreement). China is not eligible for any special duty rates.

 3

 Applies to imports from a small number of countries that do not enjoy normal trade relations duty status.

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010).

THE DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

Description and Applications

Barium chloride is a solid chemical compound having the formula BaCl2 (if in powdered, or

anhydrous, form) or BaCl2•2H2O (if in crystalline form). The anhydrous form of barium chloride (BaCl2)

is used primarily as an ingredient in heat-treating salts and metal fluxes--molten baths used to harden

metal parts, usually small specialty steel parts such as tools and dies.30 

Crystalline barium chloride (BaCl2•2H2O) is used primarily as an intermediate in the production

of molecular catalyst sieves, which in turn are used in oil refinery complexes to separate out industrially

useful paraxylene molecules from other mixed xylenes.31 Paraxylene is a raw material used in the

production of terephthalic acid, a precursor to the polyester PET that is used to make clothing and plastic

bottles.32 Barium chloride in crystalline form also serves as a cleansing agent in the removal of soluble

sulfates in certain chemical and water treatment processes; as a cleansing ingredient in lubricating oil

additives; and as a raw material in the production of certain chemicals, pigments, and paper coatings. The

 30 Staff Trip Notes, February 24, 2010, p. 2. Presented publicly with permission from CPC.

 31 CPC’s response to the Notice of Institution, July 31, 2009, p. 8.

 32 CPC’s response to question IV-25(b) in the producers’ questionnaire. Presented publicly with permission from

CPC.

I-13
crystalline form of barium chloride is also used as a base material for production of ink pigments and

other barium intermediate products such as barium titanate and barium metaborate.

Barium chloride was previously used in the production of sodium metal, which was an input into

leaded gasoline.33 While this application was once a major use for barium chloride, it has been eliminated

as a result of the discontinued production of leaded gasoline in the early 1980s.34 Also, increased

environmental regulation of barium compounds has led to the development of new processes in pigment

production that substitute less costly and reportedly more environmentally friendly calcium chloride for

barium chloride. Demand for barium chloride has grown slightly in certain environmental applications,

particularly in wastewater treatment where the barium chloride is used to precipitate heavy metal

impurities.35 Nevertheless, CPC states that this application is not likely to result in a major increase in

demand for barium chloride.36

CPC produces a single commercial grade of the crystalline and the anhydrous product.37 The

stated specification for barium chloride content is 98 percent barium chloride, although the actual barium

chloride content sold to customers may be much higher. Additionally, certain impurities must be kept

below a given threshold. Even water is considered an impurity for the anhydrous grade barium chloride,

because water molecules may interfere with the desired process in metallurgical applications. Although

high purity barium chloride exists and is used in small quantities in certain applications,38 CPC has stated

that it does not produce a high purity form of barium chloride.39

Manufacturing Process

CPC produces barium chloride by crushing barite ore (naturally occurring barium sulfate), mixing

it with petroleum coke, and reducing it at high temperatures to barium sulfide, which is purified and

dissolved in water. The barium sulfide solution is then reacted with hydrochloric acid to remove

byproduct hydrogen sulfide as a gas. When the resulting solution is evaporated, barium chloride crystals

remain. The crystalline form is reduced to the anhydrous form by applying intense heat, which drives off

the water that is molecularly bonded in the crystals.40 This barium chloride production process is depicted

in Figure I-1. According to CPC, the production process is ***.41 CPC also indicated that production

equipment has been updated since the last five year review, but the overall process of making barium

chloride is largely unchanged.42

 33 CPC’s response to Commission’s Questions, April 26, 2010, p. 16. 

 34 EPA issued the first leaded gasoline reduction standards in 1973, which called for a gradual phasedown of lead

to one tenth of a gram per gallon in 1986. EPA Takes Final Step in Phaseout of Leaded Gasoline,

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/lead/02.htm, retrieved March 17, 2010.

 35 CPC’s response to question IV-14 in the producers’ questionnaire. Presented publicly with permission from

CPC.

 36 CPC’s response to Commission’s Questions, April 26, 2010, p. 4.

 37 CPC’s response to Commission’s Questions and Comments on Draft Questionnaires, January 5, 2010, p. 1.

 38 Barium & Chemicals produces small amounts of high purity barium chloride ***. Staff interview with ***.

 39 CPC’s response to Staff questions, February 23, 2010; and CPC’s response to Commission’s Questions and

Comments on Draft Questionnaires, January 5, 2010, p. 2.

 40 Because of the additional processing and increased concentration, the anhydrous form sells at a premium price.

 41 Staff Trip Notes, February 24, 2010, p. 1.

 42 CPC’s response to Staff questions, February 23, 2010. Presented publicly with permission from CPC.

I-14
Figure I-1

Barium chloride: Process flowchart

Source: CPC. Presented publicly with permission from CPC. 

Barium & Chemicals produces high purity barium chloride ***. According to Barium &

Chemicals, it ***.43

Petroleum 

Coke

Leaching

BaS + H2O  Ba(SH)(OH)

Chloride Reaction

Ba(SH)(OH) +2HCl  BaCl2 +H2O + H2S

Anhydrous

BaCl2

Crystal

BaCl2·2H2O

Barite Ore

BaSO4

Reduction 

BaSO4 + 2C  BaS + 2 CO2

Crystallization

Drying

Petroleum 

Coke

Leaching

BaS + H2O  Ba(SH)(OH)

Chloride Reaction

Ba(SH)(OH) +2HCl  BaCl2 +H2O + H2S

Anhydrous

BaCl2

Crystal

BaCl2·2H2O

Barite Ore

BaSO4

Reduction 

BaSO4 + 2C  BaS + 2 CO2

Crystallization

Drying

 43 Barium & Chemicals’ response to Staff questions, March 17, 2010.

I-15
DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

In its original determination, the Commission defined the domestic like product as crystalline and

anhydrous barium chloride, excluding high purity barium chloride.44 In its expedited first and second

five-year determinations, the Commission found one domestic like product coextensive with Commerce’s

scope: all forms of barium chloride, including crystalline, anhydrous, and high purity. In its notice of

institution in the current five-year review, the Commission solicited comments from interested parties

regarding the appropriate domestic like product and domestic industry.45 CPC, the sole interested party

commented on the Commission’s definition of the domestic like product and indicated that it agrees with

the Commission's definition set forth in the original investigation as “crystalline and anhydrous barium

chloride, excluding high purity barium chloride.”46 However, in its comments on the draft questionnaires,

CPC did not request separate data collection or other information regarding high purity barium chloride.47

U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Producers

The structure of the domestic barium chloride industry has not changed substantially since the

Commission’s original investigation concerning barium chloride was conducted in 1984. During the

original investigation, CPC accounted for at least *** percent of total U.S. production, and was the only

firm to supply the Commission with information on its U.S. operations with respect to barium chloride.48

CPC accounted for *** percent of U.S. production of barium chloride in 2004-09. 

In the Commission’s first five-year review, CPC was the only party to respond to the

Commission’s notice of institution. CPC described itself as the sole remaining commercial producer of

barium chloride in the United States. CPC also identified three other domestic firms that produced

“small” amounts of barium chloride in 1998 and explained that two of the U.S. producers (Barium &

Chemicals and GTE Products Corp.) produced small amounts of barium chloride for internal consumption

and that the third U.S. producer (G.F. Smith Chemical Co.) produced small amounts of ultra-pure barium

chloride for laboratory use.49

In the Commission’s second five-year review, CPC again was the only party to respond to the

Commission’s notice of institution. CPC described itself as the sole remaining commercial producer of

barium chloride in the United States, and only listed Barium & Chemicals of Steubenville, OH, and

 44 Barium Chloride from the People’s Republic of China, Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Final), USITC

Publication 1584, October 1984. The Commission found in the original investigation that high purity barium

chloride produced for laboratory use was not included in the domestic like product, noting that it was produced “only

in very small amounts and at a relatively high price” and that this form of barium chloride “does not compete for

general industrial use with the petitioner’s or the imported product.” Since Commerce did not explicitly exclude

high purity barium chloride from the scope of the original order, the scope appears to include high purity barium

chloride.

 45 Barium Chloride from China, 74 FR 31757, July 2, 2009.

 46 CPC’s response to the Notice of Institution, July 31, 2009, p. 13.

 47 CPC’s response to Commission’s Questions and Comments on Draft Questionnaires, January 5, 2010, p. 2.

 48 CPC supplied the Commission with usable questionnaire information during the original investigation. Two

other firms, Barium and Chemicals and GTE Products Corp., were identified as producers of barium chloride for

internal consumption. One firm, J.T. Baker, produced very small quantities for the open market, and one firm, G.F.

Smith Chemical Co., produced very small quantities of ultra-pure barium chloride for laboratory use.

 49 Second Review Staff Report, p. I-8. 

I-16
Osram Sylvania (formerly GTE Products Corp.) of Towanda, PA, as domestic producers of small

amounts of barium chloride for internal consumption.50

In response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the present review, CPC again identified

itself as the lone remaining domestic barium chloride producer.51 The Commission issued producers’

questionnaires to six firms, two of which provided the Commission with information on their barium

chloride operations. These two firms are believed to have accounted for virtually all U.S. production of

barium chloride in 2009.52 Presented in table I-6 is a list of current domestic producers of barium chloride

and each company’s position on continuation of the order, production location, related and/or affiliated

firms, and share of reported production of barium chloride in 2009.

Table I-6

Barium chloride: U.S. producers, positions on the order, U.S. production locations, related and/or

affiliated firms, and shares of 2009 reported U.S. production

Firm

Position on

continuation

of the order

U.S. production

location

Related and/or

affiliated firms

Share of 2009

production

(percent)

CPC *** Cartersville, GA

Dellinger

Management Corp.

***

Barium & Chemicals,

Inc. *** Steubenville, OH None ***

Note.–Barium & Chemicals produced *** of barium chloride during 2004-08 and *** in 2009.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. Importers

The Commission issued 11 questionnaires to potential U.S. importers of barium chloride

identified through independent Staff research. The Commission also sent importer questionnaires to all

U.S. producers. Of these, the Commission received useable data from eight U.S. importing firms on their

operations involving the importation of barium chloride.53 Of these eight usable questionnaires, only two

reported importing barium chloride from China since 2004. Staff believes that the data reported by the

responding U.S. importers account for more than 75 percent of U.S. imports of barium chloride from

China and more than 95 percent of U.S. imports from all other sources during the period for which data

were collected. Table I-7 lists all responding U.S. importers of barium chloride from China and other

sources, their headquarters, and their shares of U.S. imports in 2009.

Table I-7

Barium chloride: U.S. importers, U.S. headquarters, and shares of imports in 2009

* * * * * * *

 50 Ibid. 

 51 CPC’s response to the Notice of Institution, July 31, 2009, pp. 8-9.

 52 ***. Staff telephone interview with ***.

 53 Two firms responded that they do not import barium chloride and two firms have not responded to the importer

questionnaire.

I-17
U.S. Purchasers

The Commission received 11 useable purchaser questionnaire responses from firms that have

bought barium chloride since 1984.54 Three responding purchasers are solely distributors, seven are

solely end users, and one is both a distributor and an end user. In general, responding U.S. purchasers

were located in the East Coast and the Midwest. The responding purchasers represented firms in the

chemical industry. The largest responding purchasers of barium chloride are ***.

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND MARKET SHARES

Table I-8 and figure I-2 present apparent U.S. consumption of barium chloride for 2004-09, while

table I-9 presents U.S. market shares for the same period. Official Commerce import statistics were used

to derive the import component of apparent U.S. consumption.

Table I-8

Barium chloride: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S.

consumption, 2004-09

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from–

China 211 174 132 43 0 0

All other sources 76 34 83 69 563 1,028

Total U.S. imports 287 208 215 112 563 1,028

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from--

China 45 42 29 9 0 0

All other sources 94 101 67 44 319 567

Total U.S. imports 140 143 96 53 319 567

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** *** *** ***

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce

statistics.

 54 Of the 11 responding purchasers, 9 purchased domestically produced barium chloride, none purchased imports

of the subject merchandise from China, and 2 purchased imports of barium chloride from other sources.

I-18
Figure I-2

Barium chloride: Apparent U.S. consumption, by sources, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

Table I-9

Barium chloride: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

I-19

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET 

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

Both responding U.S. producers and one of six responding importers (***) reported selling

barium chloride nationally. At least three additional importers sold to each of the northeast, Midwest,

mountains, and Pacific coast regions, while in the southeast and central southwest regions only the one

importer and both producers reported sales.

Both U.S. producers indicated that *** of their sales were between 101 and 1,000 miles from

their production facility. One producer, ***, reported that *** percent of its sales were more than 1,000

miles from its production facility while the other producer, ***, reported that *** percent of its sales were

more than 1,000 miles from its production facility. Two of four reporting importers indicated that all of

their sales were over 1,000 miles from with their storage facility or point of importation and one importer

reported that all its sales were made 101 to 1,000 miles from its point of importation. The remaining

importer reported making 50 percent of its sales between 101 and 1,000 miles from its storage facility and

40 percent over 1,000 miles from its storage facility.

The reported lead times for delivery of U.S.-produced and imported barium chloride from subject

and nonsubject countries vary widely. One responding producer (***) reported making *** of its sales

from inventory with a lead time of *** days while the other responding producer (***) reported making

*** percent of sales from inventory with a lead time of *** weeks. *** lead times were reported for noninventory orders by this producer. Three of four responding importers reported making all of their sales

to order with lead times ranging from 30 to 90 days while one importer (***) reported making all of its

sales from inventory.

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

U.S. producers and importers of Chinese barium chloride generally sell to end users, however, all

but one importer of barium chloride from nonsubject countries sells to distributors (see table II-1). 

During 2004-09, *** of U.S. producer sales went to end users in every year. For importers of barium

chloride from China, *** sales went to end users. Importers of barium chloride from other sources made

*** percent of their sales to distributors in 2004 to 2005. During 2006 through 2009, at least *** percent

of sales made by importers from other sources were to end users. This shift primarily reflects *** by U.S.

importer ***.

Table II-1

Barium chloride: Channels of distribution for U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments

of barium chloride, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

U.S. Supply

Domestic Industry

The only responding producer indicated that it does not anticipate any changes in terms of the

availability of U.S.-produced barium chloride in the U.S. market in the future. Based on available

information, U.S. barium chloride producers have the ability to respond to changes in demand with large

changes in the quantity shipped to the U.S. market. Supply responsiveness is enhanced by the availability
 1

 ***.

 2

 ***’s response to purchaser survey for adequacy phase.

 3

 ***.

 4

 None of the 10 responding purchasers indicated that their firm purchased barium chloride from China before

1984 or since 2004. 

II-2

of unused capacity, the existence of inventories, and an ability to use alternative markets, but is

constrained by a limited ability to shift production.

Industry capacity

The capacity utilization rate for U.S. producers increased from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent

in 2008, and then fell to *** percent in 2009. This level of capacity utilization indicates that U.S.

producers have unused capacity with which they could increase production of barium chloride in the

event of a price change. 

Inventory levels

 The ratio of inventories to total shipments for U.S. producers increased from *** percent in 2004

to *** percent in 2009. These data indicate that U.S. producers have an ability to use inventories as a

means of increasing shipments of barium chloride to the U.S. market.

Alternative markets

Exports of barium chloride, as a share of total shipments, for U.S. producers increased from ***

percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2009. Both U.S. producers indicated that their exports of barium

chloride are not subject to any tariff or non-tariff barriers to trade in other countries. *** indicated that

pricing is depressed in off-shore markets due to what it characterized as “unfair pricing practices” of the

Chinese producers. These data and questionnaire responses indicate that U.S. producers have an ability to

divert shipments of barium chloride to or from alternative markets in response to price changes.

Production alternatives

Both responding producers indicated that they are not able to switch production between barium

chloride and other products in response to a relative change in the price of barium chloride vis-a-vis the

price of other products, using the same equipment and labor. However, *** indicated that ***.1

Therefore, U.S. producers have a limited ability to shift production in response to a price change.

According to purchaser ***.2

 ***.3 

Subject Imports4

All six responding importers indicated that they do not anticipate any changes in terms of the

availability of barium chloride imported from China in the U.S. market in the future. No Chinese

producer responded to the foreign producer questionnaire. Based on available information, exporters of

Chinese barium chloride have the ability to respond to changes in demand with moderate changes in the

quantity shipped to the U.S. market. Supply responsiveness is enhanced by the ability to divert shipments

from alternate markets, but is limited by an inability to use production alternatives.
 5

 CPC's response to the Notice of Institution, July 31, 2009, p. 4.

 6

 Compiled from Global Trade Atlas. See table IV-3.

 7

 ***.

II-3

Industry capacity

CPC estimates that current capacity for barium chloride production in China is 137,700 metric

tons (300 million pounds) per year.5

 However, there are no available estimates for production or capacity

utilization for barium chloride production in China.

Inventory levels

There are no available estimates for inventories of barium chloride production in China.

Alternative markets

Most of the barium chloride produced in China goes to markets other than the United States. 

Exports of barium chloride to markets other than the United States as a share of total exports was at least

99 percent during 2004 to 2009.6

 These data indicate that Chinese producers may be able to divert

shipments of barium chloride from alternative markets in response to price changes. 

Production alternatives

As noted, no Chinese producer responded to the foreign producers questionnaire. However, ***

believes that the production process for barium chloride is similar in the United States, China, and the rest

of the world.7

 Therefore, Chinese producers likely have a limited ability to shift production to other

products in response to a price change, as is the case with U.S. producers. 

Nonsubject Imports

The only responding U.S. producer and one of eight responding importers indicated that the

availability of nonsubject imported barium chloride has changed since 1984. Both indicated that there

has been an increase in imports of barium chloride from India. 

Five of 10 responding purchasers indicated that their firms did not purchase from nonsubject

sources either before or after the antidumping duty order; three responding purchasers indicated that their

pattern of purchasing is unchanged since 1984; and two responding purchasers indicated that their pattern

of purchases of barium chloride from nonsubject countries changed for reasons other than the order. One

purchaser (***) reported purchasing barium chloride imported from Mexico between 2004 and 2009 and

another purchaser (***) reported purchasing barium chloride imported from India between 2006 and

2009.

U.S. Demand

Based on the available information, it is likely that changes in the price level of barium chloride 

will result in a small change in the quantity of barium chloride demanded. The main contributing factors

to the small degree of responsiveness of demand for barium chloride is the lack of substitute products and

the low share of cost of its principal end-use, molecular sieves, and the limited number of substitute

products and the small to moderate share of cost of its other end-use products.
 8

 CPC's response to Commission's Questions, April 26, 2010, p. 4. 

 9

 CPC's response to the Notice of Institution, July 31, 2009, pp. 8, 11-12.

 10 E-mail from ***, March 9, 2010.

 11 CPC's response to the Notice of Institution, July 31, 2009, p. 12.

 12 CPC's response to Commission's Questions, April 26, 2010, pp. 15-16. 

 13 CPC's response to the Notice of Institution, July 31, 2009, p. 12.

 14 Also, the response for one importer that indicated that demand decreased due to overseas competition was not

included.

II-4

Demand Characteristics

According to U.S. producer CPC, the U.S. market for barium chloride continues to be mature and

declining, with no significant new end use applications foreseen at this time.8

 CPC indicated that the

principal use for crystalline barium chloride is as an intermediate material for the production of molecular

catalyst sieves, used in oil refinery complexes to separate para-xylene molecules from other mixed

xylenes. CPC indicated that anhydrous barium chloride is used principally as a component of molten salt

baths used in certain steel hardening processes. It also indicated that other formerly significant uses for

barium chloride, such as in the production of pigments, are declining because of environmental

restrictions applicable to the production of toxic inks.9

CPC indicated that about *** of its U.S. sales of barium chloride is used for molecular sieves,

*** percent are used for pigments, *** percent are used for water treatment, and *** percent are used for

heat treating steel.10

CPC indicated that the molecular sieves are expensive, fluid-bed catalyst reactor systems used in

refinery operations to segregate out certain industrially useful para-xylenes.11 It notes that ***. CPC

indicated that molecular sieves are manufactured in the United States by Honeywell and understands that

most new installations of molecular sieves take place at petrochemical refinery complexes under

construction in Asia.12 It indicated that demand for barium chloride varies with demand for these

molecular sieves, which in turn is closely correlated with petroleum prices and demand for polyethylene

containers and polyesters. According to CPC, after several years of relatively strong market conditions,

demand for barium chloride has fallen sharply since late 2008. CPC also observed that other uses for

crystalline barium chloride in the United States primarily involve production of certain pigments. CPC

indicated that the anhydrous form of barium chloride is used primarily as an ingredient in heat-treating

salts and metal fluxes -- molten-salt baths into which metal parts are inserted for purposes of hardening. 

According to CPC, there has been an increase in the environmental regulation of barium compounds,

which has affected the production and handling of barium chloride and limited the applications in which

it is used.13

The only responding producer and three responding purchasers indicated that demand for barium

chloride in the U.S. market has increased since 1984. The producer (***) indicated that worldwide

demand for molecular sieves has increased over the period and that the business is very cyclical. Three

importers and one purchaser indicated that demand has not changed since 1984, one importer/purchaser

and one importer indicated that demand has declined, and one purchaser indicated that demand has

fluctuated.14 The importer/purchaser (***) indicated that demand decreased because of petrochemical

market fluctuations and the trend to more operations using barium chloride offshore.

Two of three responding importers and two of three responding purchasers indicated that they

expected no changes in future demand for barium chloride in the U.S. market. One importer indicated
 15 *** responded to both the importer and purchaser questionnaires. In instances where responses to question

posed to both importers and purchasers is reported, *** is considered to be an importer.

 16 These estimates are based on a 95 percent confidence interval.

 17 E-mail from ***, March 9, 2010.

II-5

that it expects demand to fluctuate.15 The remaining responding purchaser (***) expects demand to

decrease as the heat treating industry loses barium chloride business to overseas business and competing

technologies. The only responding producer (***) expects possible increases in demand for water

treatment applications, although it does not expect this market to be nearly as large as the molecular sieve

business. 

As noted above, CPC indicated that demand for barium chloride is closely correlated with

petroleum prices. Between January 2004 and April 2010, the price of crude oil fluctuated widely,

increasing overall from $34.31 per barrel to $82.00 per barrel or by 139 percent (figure II-1). According

to the NYMEX, the futures price for crude oil is projected to range between $43.33 to $163.93 per barrel

in December 2011.16 

CPC also indicated that barium chloride is used to produce molecular sieves that are used to

segregate out certain para-xylenes. Therefore demand for barium chloride depends on prices for these

para-xylenes. Between January 2004 and February 2010, the average unit value of U.S. imports of paraxylene increased by 310 percent while the average unit value of U.S. exports of para-xylene increased by

166 percent (figure II-2).

Four of seven responding purchasers indicated that demand for their end-use products using

barium chloride has decreased since 1984. Two purchasers reported that demand has fluctuated and one

purchaser reported that demand has increased. All seven responding purchasers indicated that demand for

end use products has had an effect on their demand for barium chloride. 

Business Cycles

Two of five responding purchasers indicated that the market for barium chloride is subject to

business cycles. One purchaser (***) reported that the business cycle was dependent on electronics

market dynamics and raw material availability. *** indicated that demand for *** is very cyclical.

Substitute Products

No producers or importers indicated that there were substitutes for barium chloride. However,

*** indicated that in wastewater (cleansing) applications, calcium chloride could provide a 

mechanism for tying up sulfates, but not as efficiently as barium chloride.17 Two responding purchasers

indicated that there are substitutes for barium chloride. One purchaser (***) indicated that atmosphere

furnaces; vacuum furnaces, and fluidized bed furnaces are substitutes in the heat treatment of high speed

steel. It indicated that all three of these substitutes have been developed by their company since 1984 to

replace barium chloride. Another purchaser (***) indicated that barium carbonate can be used to make a

similar end product using a different production process. Neither of the two responding purchasers

reported that the price of substitutes can affect barium chloride prices. Only one purchaser and no

producers or importers anticipate changes in the substitutability of other product for barium chloride. 

Purchaser *** indicated that based on history it expects that competing technologies will continue to be

develop. 
II-6

Figure II-1

Oil: Short term actual and predicted monthly West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil prices,

January 2004 to December 2011 base case and 95 percent confidence interval

Source: U.S. EIA, retrieved on April 27, 2010.

Figure II-2

Para-xylene: Import and export average unit values, monthly, January 2004 - February 2010

Source: USITC dataweb.
 18 CPC's response to the Notice of Institution, July 31, 2009, p. 12.

II-7

Cost Share

 Most firms reported that barium chloride generally accounts for a small share of the cost of

molecular sieves and a small to moderate share of the cost of its other final end-use products. CPC

indicated that the cost of barium chloride is only a tiny fraction of the cost of the complete molecular

sieves, which are expensive.18 Five of six responding purchasers reported cost shares ranging from 3

percent to 44 percent for heat treating applications. However, one purchaser (***) reported cost shares

ranging from *** percent to *** percent for use in heat treating applications.

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported barium chloride depends upon such

factors as relative prices, quality (e.g., grade standards, reliability of supply, defect rates, etc.), and

conditions of sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, lead times between order and delivery dates, payment

terms, product services, etc.). Based on available data, staff believes that there is a high degree of

substitutability between domestically-produced barium chloride and barium chloride imported from

China.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Purchasers reported considering a variety of factors to be important when purchasing barium

chloride. Information obtained from their responses indicated that availability, price, and quality are all

important factors. 

As indicated in table II-2, quality was named by five of eight responding purchasers as the

number one factor generally considered in deciding from whom to purchase barium chloride. Also, as

indicated in table II-3, six of eight responding purchasers indicated that quality meeting industry

standards was a “very important” factor in their purchase decisions for barium chloride. However, only

two of eight responding purchasers indicated that quality exceeding industry standards as being a “very

important” factor in their purchase decisions. Many purchasers defined the quality of barium chloride by

factors such as moisture, impurities, pH, particle size, composition of trace components, free flowing

powder, surface area, and equal or brighter UV phosphor.

Six of eight responding purchasers reported that they require their suppliers to become certified

or pre-qualified for all of their purchases. Four of these six purchasers specifically indicated that some

type of ISO (International Organization for Standardization) certification was required for suppliers to 

qualify. Two purchasers (***) indicated that it takes one to two years for a supplier to qualify while one

purchaser (***) indicated it takes six to eight months for a supplier to qualify. One of six responding

purchasers indicated that since 1984, certain domestic or foreign producers failed in their attempts to

certify or qualify their barium chloride or have lost their approved status. *** indicated that in 2000,

distributor ***’s product from an unknown Chinese source failed qualification because the product’s

particle was too fine and had high moisture; that distributor ***’s product from an unknown Chinese

source failed in 2001 because of high moisture; and that ***’s product from South America failed in 2000

because the product’s particle was too fine.
II-8

Table II-2

Barium chloride: Ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Number one factor Number two factor Number three factor

Quality 5 0 0

Availability 1 4 0

Price 1 3 4

Approved supplier 1 0 0

Reliability 0 0 2

Other1 01 2

 1 Other factors include credit terms, delivery time, and supply ability.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table II-3

Barium chloride: Importance of factors used in purchasing decisions, as reported by U.S.

purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Availability 8 0 0

Delivery terms 2 4 2

Delivery time 7 1 0

Discounts offered 2 3 3

Extension of credit 4 3 1

Minimum quantity requirements 2 5 1

Packaging 3 5 0

Price 7 1 0

Product consistency 7 1 0

Product range 0 4 4

Quality exceeds standards 2 5 1

Quality meets standards 6 2 0

Reliability of supply 8 0 0

Technical support 3 4 1

U.S. transport cost 1 7 0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 19 CPC's response to Commission's Questions, April 26, 2010, p. 1. 

 20 CPC's response to Commission's Questions, April 26, 2010, p. 2. 

II-9

CPC indicated that it does not consider certification or pre-qualification requirements to be

significant barriers to Chinese producers in the U.S. market. It indicated that most certifications and prequalifications are made known to the manufacturers and that most significant Chinese producers have ISO

registration. CPC also cites the ability of ***.19 

As indicated in table II-2, price was named by one of eight responding purchasers as the number

one factor generally considered in deciding from whom to purchase barium chloride, and as the number

two factor by three purchasers and the number three factor by four other responding purchasers. Also, as

indicated in table II-3, seven of eight responding purchasers indicated that price was a “very important”

factor in their purchase decisions for barium chloride. Six of eight responding purchasers indicated that

the lowest-priced barium chloride “sometimes” wins a sale, one reported “usually,” and one reported

“never.”

All responding purchasers indicated that availability was a “very important” factor in their

purchasing decisions for barium chloride. One of eight responding purchasers reported that availability

was the number one factor in their purchasing decisions and availability was identified as the number two

factor by four purchasers. 

Two of eight responding purchasers reported that buying a product that is produced in the United

States is an important factor in their firm’s purchases of barium chloride. *** indicated that 75 percent of

its purchases are of domestically-produced product because the lead times to source barium chloride from

overseas sources can be too long to meet domestic customers’ needs. Seven of eight purchasers indicated

that delivery time was a very important factor in their purchasing decisions. 

CPC does not believe that lead times would be a significant constraint on the ability of purchasers

to buy from China. It indicated that the shipping time of 3 to 4 weeks is well within the normal horizon

of purchase forecasting and planning and that once a supply relationship is established a purchaser could

easily place routine orders to ensure a stable supply of barium chloride. CPC also indicated that barium

chloride consumption does not depend on a “just-in-time inventory system,” but is a commodity product

that can be purchased well in advance of its intended date of use.20

Five of eight responding purchasers indicated that they never make purchasing decisions based on

the producer of the barium chloride and all seven responding purchasers indicated that their customers

never based their purchasing decisions on the producer. Of the three purchasers that at least sometimes

make purchasing decisions based on the producer of barium chloride, one purchaser responded

“sometimes,” one responded “usually,” and one responded “always.” Five of seven responding

purchasers indicated that they never make purchasing decisions based on the country of origin of the

barium chloride that they purchase and all six responding purchasers indicated that their customers never

based their purchasing decisions on the country of origin. 

Two of eight responding purchasers indicated that either they or their customers at least

sometimes specifically order barium chloride from one country in particular over other possible sources

of supply. *** indicated that it purchases product from India because it is of comparable quality that has

been qualified at a lower price. *** indicated that it prefers barium chloride from a supplier in the United

States, as the material has consistently been of good quality, low moisture content, and well-packaged.

Only one of seven purchasers indicated that certain grades, forms, or types of barium chloride

were available from a single source.
II-10

Comparisons of Domestic Products, Subject Imports, and Nonsubject Imports

The only responding U.S. producer, two of three responding importers, and none of five

responding purchasers reported that barium chloride produced in the United States and imported from

China are always interchangeable (table II-4). One importer and one purchaser reported that barium

chloride produced in the United States and imported from China are frequently interchangeable and the

remaining four purchasers reported that they are sometimes interchangeable. One purchaser, ***,

indicated that barium chloride produced in the United States is only sometimes interchangeable with

product imported from China because of moisture and particle size and another purchaser, ***, indicated

that barium chloride imported from China had higher moisture.

As indicated in table II-5, the only responding producer and both responding importers indicated

that differences other than price between barium chloride produced in the United States and imported

from China were never a significant factor in their firms’ sales of the products. Importer *** indicated

that it could find sources similar to its product for a similar price in nearly every country.

Purchasers were also asked to compare barium chloride produced in the United States and China

on the basis of different purchasing factors (table II-6). The U.S. product was ranked superior by all four

responding purchasers with regard to delivery time, and by three out of four purchasers in terms of

availability and delivery terms. For minimum quantity requirements and technical support, the U.S.

product was ranked by two of four purchasers as superior and one purchaser as comparable. The U.S.-

produced product was ranked inferior by two of four purchasers and comparable by the remaining two

purchasers for having a lower price. At least three of four purchasers ranked the U.S. and Chinese

produced barium chloride comparable for all other characteristics provided in the question.

The only responding U.S. producer and at least one-half of responding importers reported that

barium chloride produced in the United States and imported from nonsubject countries are always

interchangeable. All responding purchasers indicated that barium chloride produced in the United States

and imported from nonsubject countries are sometimes interchangeable. The only responding producer

and at least one-half of responding importers indicated that differences other than price between barium

chloride produced in the United States and imported from nonsubject countries were “never” a significant

factor in their firm’s sales of the products. All of these statements are also true for comparison between

imports from all reported sources. Chinese product was ranked as superior to Indian product by at least

one-half of purchasers in terms of delivery time and inferior by a majority of purchasers in terms of

minimum quantity requirements, product consistency, product range, quality exceeding industry

standards, and technical support (see table II-7).

Six of seven purchasers indicated that U.S.-produced barium chloride always meets minimum

quality specifications for their use and their customers’ uses. One purchaser indicated that U.S.-produced

barium chloride usually meets minimum quality standards. Two of four responding purchasers indicated

that Chinese-produced barium chloride sometimes meets minimum quality specifications for their use and

their customers’ uses, while one purchaser responded “always” and another responded “sometimes.” 

One purchaser indicated that imports of Indian-produced barium chloride usually meet minimum quality

specifications, one purchaser indicated that imports of Italian-produced barium chloride always meets

minimum quality specifications, and one purchaser indicated that imports of South American-produced

barium chloride rarely or never meets minimum quality specifications.
II-11

Table II-4

Barium chloride: Perceived degree of interchangeability of products produced in the United States

and other countries1

Country comparison

Number of U.S.

producers reporting

Number of U.S.

importers

reporting

Number of U.S.

purchasers

reporting

 A F S N A F SN A F S N

U.S. vs. China 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 4 0

U.S. vs. India 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0

U.S. vs. Nonsubject 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

China vs. India 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

China vs. Other 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

India vs. Other 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

 1 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if barium chloride produced in the United States and in

other countries is used interchangeably.

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table II-5

Barium chloride: Differences other than price between products from different sources1

Country comparison

Number of U.S. producers

reporting

Number of U.S. importers

reporting

A F S N A F S N

U.S. vs. China 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2

U.S. vs. India 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2

U.S. vs. Nonsubject 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

China vs. India 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

China vs. Other 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

India vs. Other 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

 1

 Producers and importers were asked if differences other than price between barium chloride produced in the

United States and in other countries are a significant factor in their firms’ sales of barium chloride.

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
II-12

Table II-6

Barium chloride: Purchasers’ comparisons of domestic and imported products

Factor

U.S. vs. China U.S. vs. India U.S. vs. 

South America

S C I S C I S C I 

 Availability 3 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0

 Delivery terms 3 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0

 Delivery time 4 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0

 Discounts offered 0 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 1

 Extension of credit 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 1 0

 Lower price 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 1

 Lower transport costs 0 4 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

 Min quantity requirements 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0

 Packaging 1 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 0

 Product consistency 1 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 0

 Product range 1 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 0

 Quality exceeds industry standards 1 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 0

 Quality meets industry standards 1 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 0

 Reliability of supply 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 0

 Technical support 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0

Note.–S = domestic product superior, C = domestic product comparable, I = domestic product inferior.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
II-13

Table II-7

Barium chloride: Purchasers’ comparisons of subject and nonsubject products

Factor

China vs.

Germany

China

vs. India

S C I S C I 

 Availability 1 0 0 0 1 1

 Delivery terms 0 1 0 0 3 0

 Delivery time 1 0 0 2 0 1

 Discounts offered 0 1 0 0 3 0

 Extension of credit 0 1 0 0 3 0

 Lower price 0 1 0 1 2 0

 Lower transport costs 1 0 0 1 2 0

 Min quantity requirements 0 1 0 0 1 2

 Packaging 0 1 0 1 2 0

 Product consistency 0 1 0 1 0 2

 Product range 0 1 0 0 1 2

 Quality exceeds industry standards 0 1 0 1 0 2

 Quality meets industry standards 0 1 0 0 3 0

 Reliability of supply 0 1 0 0 2 1

 Technical support 0 1 0 0 1 2

Note.–S = Chinese product superior, C = Chinese product comparable, I = Chinese product inferior.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 21 A supply function is not defined in the case of a non-competitive market.

 22 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject

imports and the domestic like product to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switch

from the U.S. product to the subject imports (or vice versa) when prices change.

II-14

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

U.S. Supply Elasticity21

The domestic supply elasticity for barium chloride measures the sensitivity of the quantity

supplied by U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of barium chloride. This elasticity

depends upon several factors including the level of excess capacity, the availability of alternate markets

for U.S.-produced barium chloride, inventory levels, and the producers’ ability to shift to the manufacture

of other products. The earlier analysis of these factors indicated that the U.S. industry has flexibility in

adjusting supply in response to price change. Therefore, this elasticity is likely to range between 5 and

10. 

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for barium chloride measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity

demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of barium chloride. This estimate depends on factors

discussed earlier such as the existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products, as

well as the component share of barium chloride in the final cost of end-use products in which it is used. 

Because of a lack of substitutes and the low to moderate share of the cost of final end-use products, it is

likely that the aggregate demand for barium chloride is moderately inelastic, with values ranging between

-0.25 and -0.75.

The elasticity range of -0.25 to -0.75 implies that quantity demanded falls by 0.25 to 0.75 percent

for every one percent increase in price. The quantity of apparent U.S. consumption fell by *** percent

between 2004 and 2009, while the AUV of apparent U.S. consumption increased by *** percent implying

that the quantity decreased by an average of *** percent for every one percent increase in the AUV. The

volume of U.S. apparent consumption decreasing by a greater amount than the amount explained by the

aggregate demand elasticity suggests that demand decreased between 2004 and 2009. The decrease in

demand is particularly evident between 2008 and 2009, when the quantity of apparent U.S. consumption

fell by *** percent and the AUV of apparent U.S. consumption increased by *** percent. This implies

that the quantity decreased by an average of *** percent for every one percent increase in the AUV,

which is much higher than the 0.25 to 0.75 percent explained by the U.S. demand elasticity range.

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported barium chloride.22 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as

quality and conditions of sale (availability, delivery, etc.). Based on available information indicating that

the domestic and imported products from China can frequently be used interchangeably, the elasticity of

substitution between U.S.-produced barium chloride and imported barium chloride is likely to be in the

range of 3 to 5.
PART III: CONDITION OF THE U.S. INDUSTRY

OVERVIEW

Background

Since the Commission’s 1984 investigation concerning barium chloride from China, the U.S.

industry has not experienced major structural changes. During the original investigation, CPC was the

only substantial producer of barium chloride, and today remains the only confirmed commercial producer

of barium chloride. As detailed in Part I of this report, three firms were identified in the first and second

five-year reviews as producing small amounts of barium chloride either for internal consumption or for

laboratory use only. 

In the current review, the Commission issued U.S. producer questionnaires to six firms identified

in the original investigation, first and second five-year reviews, or identified by independent Staff

research as possible barium chloride producers in the United States.1

 Two firms confirmed that they are

producers of barium chloride in the United States.2

 These two firms, Barium & Chemicals3 and CPC, are

believed to account for virtually all production of barium chloride in 2009. 

Changes Experienced in Operations

U.S. barium chloride producers were asked to indicate whether their firm had experienced any

plant openings, relocations, expansions, acquisitions, consolidations, closures, prolonged shutdowns or

curtailment of production because of shortages of materials or other reasons including revision of labor

agreements; or any other change in the character of their operations or organization relating to the

production of barium chloride since 1984. *** reported changes in their U.S. operations since 1984. 

Anticipated Changes in Existing Operations

The Commission requested that domestic producers provide a copy of their business plans or

other internal documents that describe, discuss, or analyze expected future market conditions for barium

chloride. *** submitted copies of their business plans or indicated that it anticipates any changes in the

character of its operations or organization relating to the production of barium chloride in the future.

 1 U.S. producer questionnaires were issued to the firms identified in the original investigation and first and second

five-year reviews as producing small amounts of high purity barium chloride for internal consumption, as well as

those firms identified as manufacturers of barium chloride in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Toxicological Profile for Barium and Barium Compounds (Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry, August 2007), table 5-3, “Current U.S. Manufacturers of Barium Metal and Selected Barium

Compounds” (derived from SRI 2006; SRI reports production of chemicals produced in commercial quantities),

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp24-c5.pdf.

 2

 Three firms (***) indicated that they had not produced barium chloride during the period for which data were

collected. One firm (***) did not respond to the producer questionnaire. *** and *** submitted purchaser

questionnaires, and *** submitted an importer questionnaire.

 3

 Barium & Chemicals identified itself as a ***. Staff telephone interview with *** and ***. Barium &

Chemicals provided partial data on capacity, production, and shipments; it was unable to provide inventory,

employment, financial or pricing data for the six-year period requested by the Commission. 

III-1
U.S. PRODUCERS’ CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

The Commission requested information on barium chloride capacity and production from barium

chloride producers. U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization data for barium

chloride are presented in table III-1. Total reported barium chloride capacity remained the same for the

period for which data was collected. U.S. production of barium chloride fluctuated up and down each

year from 2004 to 2008 and was *** lower (by *** percent) in 2009 than in 2008. CPC indicated that

***.4

 Capacity utilization likewise fluctuated up and down between 2004 and 2008 and was ***

percentage points lower in 2009 than in 2008. 

Table III-1

Barium chloride: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

The Commission asked domestic producers to report constraints on their capacity to produce

barium chloride. Barium & Chemicals reported ***. CPC reported that ***.

Both U.S. barium chloride producers reported that they are *** to produce products other than

barium chloride utilizing the same equipment or labor.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS

As detailed in table III-2 the quantity of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of barium chloride

fluctuated downward by *** percent between 2004 and 2009, with the largest decline occurring between

2008 and 2009. The value of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of barium chloride also fluctuated

downward by *** percent between 2004 and 2009. CPC stated that commercial shipments decreased

substantially in 2009 due to prevailing economic conditions and decreased demand for molecular sieves.5

U.S. commercial shipments accounted for the majority of total shipments in each year for which data was

gathered; however, export shipments increased during the period for which data were gathered, up ***

percent from 2004 to 2009, despite a *** decline after 2007. CPC identified its principal exports markets

as ***. CPC attributed its increase in exports ***.6

 

Table III-2

Barium chloride: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

 4 CPC’s response to Staff questions, March 17, 2010.

 5

 CPC’s response to Staff questions, March 17, 2010. Presented publicly with permission from CPC.

 6

 CPC’s response to Commission’s Questions, April 26, 2010, p. 13.

III-2
U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Table III-3, which presents end-of-period inventories for barium chloride, shows that inventories

increased irregularly by *** percent between 2004 and 2009. CPC indicated it ***.7

 CPC also states that

barium chloride can be purchased in advance of the intended date of use and stored indefinitely, and that

barium chloride consumption does not run on a “just-in-time” inventory system.8

 In the original

investigation, the ratios of inventories to total shipments *** than those reported for the period for which

data were collected in the current review.9

Table III-3

Barium chloride: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

*** imported barium chloride from *** during the period for which data was gathered. ***

purchased ***. U.S. producers’ imports and purchases of barium chloride are presented in table III-4.

Table III-4

Barium chloride: U.S. producers’ imports and purchases, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Data provided by U.S. producers on the number of production and related workers (“PRWs”)

engaged in the production of barium chloride, the total hours worked by such workers, and wages paid to

such PRWs during the period for which data were collected in this review are presented in table III-5. 

Employment, in terms of both PRWs and hours worked, increased between 2004 and 2005 (both by

approximately *** percent). Employment *** between 2005 and 2009.

Hourly wages were relatively flat between 2004 and 2009, while total wages paid increased

slightly over the same period. PRW productivity fluctuated between 2004 and 2008, then declined by

*** percent in 2009. Productivity declined, in part, due to CPC’s decision ***.10 Lower productivity

resulted in higher unit labor costs, which jumped by *** percent in 2009 after remaining relatively stable

between 2004 and 2008. 

Table III-5

Barium chloride: U.S. producers’ employment-related data, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

 7 CPC’s response to Staff questions, March 25, 2010.

 8

 CPC’s response to Commission’s Questions, April 26, 2010, p. 2.

 9

 The ratios of inventories to total shipments in the original investigation were: *** percent in 1981; *** percent

in 1982; and *** percent in 1983. Original staff report, p. A-15.

 10 E-mail from ***, March 17, 2010.

III-3
FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. PRODUCER CPC

Background

The financial results presented in this section of the report reflect the operations of CPC. The

company, whose fiscal year ends October 31,11 is estimated to account for virtually all of the domestic

production of barium chloride from 2004 to 2009. As noted earlier in this report, a second domestic

producer, Barium & Chemicals, submitted an incomplete questionnaire response. An official at Barium

& Chemicals confirmed that the company produced *** of high purity barium chloride.12 Given the ***

production (*** pounds or less every period, including *** in 2009) and the fact that the company was

not ***, its data are not included.

CPC, primarily a producer of barium compounds, but which also produces other chemical

compounds, produces barium chloride at its facility in Cartersville, GA. As described earlier in this

report, barium chloride is produced by (1) mining barite ore, (2) combining the ore with petroleum coke,

(3) reducing the mixture in a rotary kiln, (4) leaching, (5) chloride reaction, (6) crystallization, (7), drying,

and (8) packaging. All of CPC’s barium compounds follow steps *** above at the front end of the

production process, and all of the compounds follow steps *** at the back end of the process. The splitoff point for barium chloride is the *** step, ***. As barium compounds *** of CPC’s total production

(approximately *** in 2009),13 *** of the costs associated with the production of barium chloride are

common to, and therefore spread among, a *** production base. In fact, CPC estimated that *** percent

of its CPC production costs are the same as its production costs for other barium compounds.14 

CPC *** from its *** throughout most of the period during which data was collected, but by

2009 the amount had *** percent.15 Barite ore and hydrochloric acid *** accounted for approximately

*** percent of CPC’s raw materials costs in 2009, with the remaining *** percent largely consisting of

petroleum coke.16

CPC had total annual sales in the *** range during the years leading up to 2009. In 2009, the

effects of the recession reduced its sales to approximately ***.17 Thus, CPC’s sales of barium chloride

accounted for approximately *** percent of its total sales in recent years.

CPC internally consumed between *** and *** percent of its barium chloride every period to

produce barium metaborate. The average unit sales values of the internally consumed product were ***

the product sold commercially.

Operations on Barium Chloride

CPC’s income-and-loss data for its operations on barium chloride are presented in table III-6. In

sum, the financial results of CPC’s barium chloride operations improved from 2004 to 2007, decreased in

2008, and then sharply decreased in 2009. Comparing 2009 to 2004, sales quantities were *** percent

lower, and, while unit sales values were *** percent higher, unit operating costs were *** percent higher;

as a result, the company’s ***.

 11 This accounts for the differences between CPC’s sales quantity and value data and its shipment quantity and

value data.

 12 Staff telephone interview with ***, March 1, 2010.

 13 CPC’s U.S. producer questionnaire, question III-5.

 14 E-mail from ***, March 15, 2010.

 15 Ibid.

 16 Ibid.

 17 Staff telephone interview with ***, March 11, 2010.

III-4
Table III-6

Barium chloride: Results of CPC’s operations, 2004-09 

*******

Sales quantities and average unit sales values *** by approximately *** from 2004 to 2007,

resulting in a *** percent *** in net sales value. Increases in average unit operating costs were more

moderate, resulting in increases in all measures and all levels of profitability – the absolute values of

gross profits, net income, and cash flows ***, while the absolute value of operating income ***; the gross

profit and operating margins *** percentage points, and the average unit value of gross and operating

profits increased by $***, respectively.

CPC reported *** in 2008. Sales quantities ***, and while average unit sales values ***, costs,

particularly ***,18 *** even more. CPC attributed the *** to the effects of the economic recession, which

began to impact sales in the second half of the year.19

The situation worsened in 2009, as sales quantities and values both decreased by approximately

*** percent, and CPC reported ***. While CPC was able to respond to the decrease in sales volume by

reducing the absolute level of its ***, it was not able to reduce the level of its *** costs. CPC explained

that it chose not to ***.20

Variance Analysis

The variance analysis showing the effects of prices and volume on CPC’s sales of barium

chloride, and of costs and volume on its total cost, is presented in table III-7. The analysis agrees with the

previous discussion about the relationship between CPC’s revenues and its costs. Specifically, the

summary at the bottom of the table indicates that the *** in operating profits from 2004 to 2009 was

largely the result of the *** net cost/expense variance (unit costs *** from 2004 to 2009) that was ***

than the *** price variance (unit prices *** from 2004 to 2009). Of particular note are the large ***

variance associated with *** in 2008 and *** in 2009, and the negative cost variances for *** (whose

unit cost *** from 2004 to 2009) almost every period.

Table III-7

Barium chloride: Variance analysis on CPC’s operations, 2004-09

*******

 18 CPC attributed most of this cost increase to the large price increases for natural gas (natural gas is used to heat

CPC’s kilns). On a per-unit value, the cost of natural gas increased from $*** per pound of barium chloride in 2007

to $*** in 2008. E-mails from ***, March 17, 2010 and March 23, 2010.

 19 Staff telephone interview with ***, March 11, 2010. This is generally corroborated by the pricing data in part

V of this report, where CPC reported *** the second half of 2008 and the first half of 2009.

 20 Ibid. See also CPC’s response to Commission’s Questions, April 26, 2010, p. 20, in which the company

indicated the number of employees in its current workforce *** it reported for 2009 in its questionnaire response.

III-5
Capital Expenditures and Research and Development Expenses

CPC’s capital expenditures and research and development (“R&D”) expenses are shown in table

III-8. *** of the capital expenditures were *** of barium chloride. Rather, the reported expenditures ***

production. Generally, the expenditures were related to CPC’s ***.21

Table III-8

Barium chloride: Capital expenditures and research and development expenses of CPC, 2004-09

*******

Assets and Return on Investment

Data on CPC’s total assets and their return on investment (“ROI”) are presented in table III-9. 

The value of CPC’s current assets, particularly ***, ***, while the original cost of its property, plant, and

equipment *** and the book value of PP&E ***. 

Table III-9

Barium chloride: CPC’s total assets and return on investment, fiscal years 2004-09

*******

 21 Staff telephone interview with ***, March 11, 2010.

III-6
PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS AND THE FOREIGN INDUSTRY

U.S. IMPORTS

Overview

The Commission sent questionnaires to 11 firms believed to have imported barium chloride

between 2004 and 2009, as well as to all six firms initially believed to be U.S. producers. Eight firms

provided data and information in response to the questionnaires, while five firms indicated that they had

not imported barium chloride during the period for which data were collected.1

 U.S. import data are

based on official Commerce statistics for barium chloride.2

 Firms responding to the Commission’s

questionnaire accounted for more than 75 percent of imports of barium chloride from China and more

than 95 percent of imports from all other sources during 2004-09. 

Imports from Subject and Nonsubject Countries

Data on U.S. imports of barium chloride from China and all other sources during 2004-09 are

presented in table IV-I. Figure IV-1 presents the quantity of imports of barium chloride from China and

from all other countries from 1981 to 2009. Imports of barium chloride from China decreased from

211,000 pounds in 2004 to 43,000 pounds in 2007, or by 80 percent.3

 There were no imports of barium

chloride from China during 2008 or 2009. ***. 

The quantity of nonsubject imports increased by 1,253 percent from 2004 to 2009. The majority

of nonsubject imports are from India,4

 the source of more than 99 percent of nonsubject imports in 2009. 

Imports from India increased by over 5,000 percent from 2004 to 2009, increasing in small volumes from

2004 to 2007, and then increasing rapidly in 2008 and 2009. One importer, ***, stated that it imports

from India because of the duty imposed on the Chinese product. Another importer, ***, indicated that it

imports only *** grade barium chloride from India because of its reliability of supply, quality and cost. 

CPC attributed the sharp increase in nonsubject imports to ***.5

 *** stated it began purchasing from

India in 2006 due to more favorable pricing.6

The unit values of barium chloride imports from all other sources were higher than the unit values

of barium chloride imports from China, by $1.03 in 2004, $2.74 in 2005, $0.58 in 2006, and $0.43 in

2007.

 1 Four firms did not respond to the Commission’s questionnaire.

 2

 Since January 1, 2002, the subject merchandise has been classified under HTS subheading 2827.39.45, a

category that covers only barium chloride. From 1989 through 2001, barium chloride was classified under HTS

subheading 2827.38.00. Prior to 1989, barium chloride was classified under item 417.70 of the Tariff Schedules of

the United States.

 3

 The primary ports of entry for U.S. imports of barium chloride from China since 2004 have been Los Angeles,

CA; San Francisco, CA; and Cleveland, OH.

 4

 The primary ports of entry for U.S. imports of barium chloride from India since 2004 (but primarily in 2008 and

2009) have been Savannah, GA; Mobile, AL; New York, NY; and Los Angeles, CA.

 5

 CPC’s response to Commission’s Questions, April 26, 2010, p. 11.

 6

 *** imports from India accounted for *** percent of all nonsubject imports in 2009.

IV-1
Table IV-1

Barium chloride: U.S. imports, by sources, 2004-09

Source

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

China 211 174 132 43 0 0

Other sources 76 34 83 69 563 1,028

Total 287 208 215 112 563 1,028

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

China 45 42 29 9 0 0

Other sources 94 101 67 44 319 567

Total 140 143 96 53 319 567

Unit value (per pound)

China $0.21 $0.24 $0.22 $0.21 (2

) (2)

Other sources 1.24 2.98 0.80 0.64 $0.57 $0.55

Total 0.49 0.69 0.45 0.47 0.57 0.55

Share of quantity (percent)

China 73.5 83.7 61.4 38.3 0.0 0.0

Other sources 26.5 16.3 38.6 61.7 100.0 100.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

China 32.4 29.4 30.6 16.7 0.0 0.0

Other sources 67.6 70.6 69.4 83.3 100.0 100.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Landed, duty-paid.

 2

 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

IV-2
Figure IV-1

Barium chloride: U.S. imports, by sources, 1981-2009

Note.–Since January 1, 2002, barium chloride has been classified under HTS subheading 2827.39.45. From 1989

through 2001, barium chloride was classified under HTS subheading 2827.38.00. Prior to 1989, barium chloride was

classified under item 417.70 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

U.S. IMPORTERS’ IMPORTS SUBSEQUENT TO DECEMBER 31, 2009

The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the

importation of barium chloride from China for delivery after December 31, 2009. ***.

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Table IV-2 presents data for inventories of U.S. imports of barium chloride from China and all

other sources held in the United States. ***.

Table IV-2

Barium chloride: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

IV-3
THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

Overview

At the time of the Commission’s original investigation, SINOCHEM accounted for all known

exports of barium chloride to the United States.7

 SINOCHEM reported that the annual capacity to

produce barium chloride in China at that time was *** pounds, that exports of barium chloride from

China accounted for between *** and *** percent of Chinese production, and that exports to the United

States increased from *** percent of total exports in 1981 to *** percent in 1983.8

In the first five-year review, no foreign producers responded to the Commission’s notice of

institution. In response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the first five-year review, CPC

reported the three Chinese firms identified in the original investigation and an additional seven Chinese

plants that it claimed produced and exported barium chloride. The Commission estimated the Chinese

capacity to produce barium chloride to be at least *** pounds during the first review.9

In the second five-year review, no foreign producers responded to the Commission’s notice of

institution. In response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the second five-year review, CPC

reported that it believed the three Chinese firms identified in the original investigation continue to have

substantial production capacity. CPC also identified eight additional Chinese plants that were believed to

produce barium chloride for export. The Commission reported in its second five-year review that the

capacity in China to produce barium chloride was at least *** pounds.10

In the current review, no foreign producer of barium chloride in China responded to the

Commission’s notice of institution. Sixteen potential producers of barium chloride in China were

identified from CPC’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution and through independent staff

research. Foreign producer/exporter questionnaires were successfully issued to 11 potential barium

chloride producers in China;11 however, no producer of barium chloride in China responded to the

Commission’s questionnaire.

Table VI-3 presents data on China’s exports of barium chloride. China’s total exports of barium

chloride increased by 33 percent from 2004 to 2007. Total exports then declined by 37 percent from

2007 to 2009. China exports most of its barium chloride to Japan, which accounted for 44 percent of total

exports in 2009, followed by Korea (13 percent), Belgium (5 percent),12 and Pakistan (4 percent).

 7 According to SINOCHEM, barium chloride was produced for export to the United States at three plants in

China: ***. Original Staff Report of September 17, 1984, pp. A-3 and A-8.

 8 Original Staff Report of September 17, 1984, p. A-21.

 9

 Second Review Staff Report, June 3, 2004, p. I-14.

 10 Ibid., p. I-15.

 11 The Commission attempted to fax and email questionnaires to five additional firms; the questionnaires,

however, were returned as undeliverable.

 12 The European Union issued an antidumping duty order on imports of barium chloride from China in 1989. The

order expired in 1996. Summary of Bulletin EU3-1996. http://europa.eu/bulletin/en/9603/p104027.htm., retrieved

March 17, 2010.

IV-4
Table IV-3

Barium chloride: China’s exports, by country, 2004-09

Source

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

 Japan 33,791 30,978 39,102 47,111 51,284 27,669

 Korea 8,601 9,133 11,852 9,847 10,084 7,901

 Belgium 5,844 8,962 10,223 10,602 4,539 3,325

 Pakistan 399 220 534 681 428 2,751

 Netherlands 2,119 2,169 2,535 4,004 3,756 2,740

 Saudi Arabia 3,483 2,500 1,543 3,236 1,448 2,284

 Brazil 455 894 1,634 2,410 2,497 1,984

 Taiwan 1,875 930 2,404 2,904 2,604 1,858

 Thailand 2,905 3,342 3,629 2,815 379 1,750

 Canada 2,593 1,861 2,071 2,557 1,931 1,674

 Vietnam 1,390 1,022 1,430 610 277 1,528

 Russia 11 0 73 191 1,400 1,498

 Poland 694 1,290 981 1,261 890 1,049

 United States 255 220 132 726 0 0

 All others 10,411 13,662 8,501 10,671 7,136 4,968

 Total 74,826 77,183 86,645 99,624 88,652 62,980

Value ($1,000)

 Japan 4,965 5,395 6,262 8,684 12,384 6,509

 Korea 1,031 1,335 1,654 1,668 2,214 1,621

 Belgium 646 1,227 1,424 1,345 823 548

 Netherlands 329 359 426 656 790 470

 Brazil 73 155 297 438 642 421

 Pakistan 37 27 67 81 79 408

 Saudi Arabia 271 298 186 394 283 358

 Canada 238 259 309 376 407 289

 Taiwan 195 123 313 368 498 288

 Russia 1 0 12 31 291 265

 Thailand 243 386 429 327 60 261

 Vietnam 124 126 175 73 56 221

 Poland 72 163 136 150 174 171

 United States 26 26 16 134 0 0

 All others 1,114 1,750 1,099 1,407 1,320 841

 Total 9,365 11,629 12,805 16,131 20,022 12,672

Table continued on next page.

IV-5
Table IV-3--Continued

Barium chloride: China’s exports, by country, 2004-09

Source

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Unit value (dollars per pound)

 Japan $0.15 0.17 0.16 0.18 0.24 0.24

 Korea 0.12 0.15 0.14 0.17 0.22 0.21

 Belgium 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.18 0.16

 Netherlands 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.21 0.17

 Brazil 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.26 0.21

 Pakistan 0.09 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.18 0.15

 Saudi Arabia 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.20 0.16

 Canada 0.09 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.17

 Taiwan 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.19 0.16

 Russia 0.13 - 0.17 0.16 0.21 0.18

 Thailand 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.15

 Vietnam 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.20 0.14

 Poland 0.10 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.20 0.16

 United States 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.18 - -

 All others 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.18 0.17

 Average 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.23 0.20

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas, HS 28273920 “Barium Chleride” (sic).

Barium Chemical Producers in China

China is the *** producer of barium chemicals in the world, accounting for approximately ***

percent of global output.13 CPC estimates that current capacity for barium chloride production in China is

137,700 metric tons (approximately 300 million pounds) per year.14 The following companies were

identified by CPC and through independent Staff research as the top producers of barium chloride in

China, having a total capacity for barium chloride of 122,000 metric tons (269.0 million pounds) per year.

 13 ***.

 14 CPC’s response to the Notice of Institution, July 31, 2009, p. 4.

IV-6
Qingdao Redstar Chemical Group

Qingdao Redstar Chemical Group is ***. In 2006, the company’s annual capacity for barium

carbonate was *** tons. Qingdao Redstar also produces ***. Its annual capacity for barium chloride was

*** tons in 2006.15 According to Qingdao Redstar’s website, the company has an annual barium salts 

production capacity of 150,000 metric tons and exports about 30 different products to over 20 countries.16

Hebei Xinji Chemical Group

Hebei Xinji Chemical Group is the ***. In 2006, its annual barium salts capacity was over ***

tons, while its annual capacity for barium chloride was *** tons. Hebei Xinji produces ***.17

Shandong Xinke

Shandong Xinke was founded in 1985 and, according to its website, is the largest manufacturer of

barium salts in China. It produces 80,000 tons per year of dihydrate barium chloride, 1,000 tons per year

of anhydrous barium chloride; and 2,000 tons per year of high purity barium chloride. Shandong Xinke is

an import and export licensed company, and 90 percent of its products are sold to over 20 countries,

including the European Union, United States, Canada, Japan and Korea.18 

Other Chinese Barium Chemical Producers

***.19 

GLOBAL MARKET

Supply

There is limited information available with respect to the global barium chloride industry. 

Annual world barite production, by country, is presented in table IV-4. World barite production increased

by 5 percent from 2004 to 2008, but then dropped by 32 percent in 2009. China is the largest barite

producer, accounting for 55 percent of world production in 2009. Other significant barite producers

include India at 15 percent and the United States at 7 percent in 2009.20

 15 ***.

 16 Qingdao Redstar Chemical Group, http://www.redstarchem.com/prce/info.asp, retrieved March 10, 2010.

 17 ***.

 18 Shandong Xinke Environmental Chemistry Co., Ltd., http://www.xinkechem.com, retrieved March 9, 2010.

 19 ***.

 20 2008 Minerals Yearbook Barite. U.S. Geological Survey, January 2010. 

IV-7
Table IV-4

Barite: World production, by country, 2004-09

Source

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20091

Quantity (1,000 metric tons)

China1 3,900 4,200 4,400 4,400 4,600 3,000

India1 1,100 1,200 950 1,000 1,100 800

United States2 532 489 589 455 648 380

Morocco3 313 335 506 485 500 350

Iran4 276 231 230 240 240 180

All others 1,549 1,315 1,245 1,130 962 790

 Total 7,670 7,770 7,920 7,710 8,050 5,500

1

 Estimated.

2

 Sold or used by producers.

3

 Estimate of marketable production data based on export data. 4

 Data are for fiscal year beginning March 21 of the year stated.

Source: USGS 2008 Minerals Yearbook Barite and USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2010, p. 25.

Demand

According to The Economics of Barytes, 2006, barites (broadly defined) are used primarily as an

additive to oil well drilling mud in the oil and natural gas exploration industry. The density of barite

helps drilling mud flow down to the deepest part of the well while the relative softness of barite acts as a

lubricant for the drilling bit.21 Since 2004, higher oil and gas prices, and increased drilling activity, have

resulted in the barites market rising sharply. Barium compounds are used in such diverse applications as

leaded gasoline production and in manufacturing cathode ray tubes (CRTs) for television and computer

monitor display glass.22 Demand for CRT television is declining rapidly in the West; however, CRT

televisions are still a much cheaper alternative, and are the favored choice in India and China, where most

CRT production is now based.23 

As discussed in Part I, during the original investigation, barium chloride was used primarily as a

raw material in the production of leaded gasoline within and outside the United States. Leaded gasoline

was phased out in the United States in the early 1980s, but was still widely used in other countries. 

Today, only nine countries use leaded gasoline.24

 21 CPC’s response to Commission’s Questions, April 26, 2010, p. 9.

 22 The latter application is primarily for barium carbonate.

 23 The Economics of Barytes. Roskill Information Services, 2006. Summarized by Global Information, Inc., at

http://www.the-infoshop.com/report/ros37716-baryte.html, retrieved March 9, 2010.

 24 Those countries are Afghanistan, Algeria, Bosnia, Egypt, Iraq, Myanmar, North Korea, Serbia, and Yemen. 

China phased out the used of leaded gasoline in 2001 and India phased out its use in 2000. Leaded Petrol Phase-out:

Global Status March 2010, http://www.unep.org/pcfv/PDF/MapWorldLead-March2010.pdf, retrieved March 25,

2010, and Asia-Pacific Lead Matrix, http://www.unep.org/pcfv/PDF/APLeadMatrix-Oct09.pdf, retrieved March 25,

2010.

IV-8
Barium chloride producers, importers, and purchasers were asked whether demand outside the

United States for barium chloride has changed since 1984. The only responding U.S. producer and one of

three responding importers indicated that demand had increased. *** stated that worldwide demand for

barium chloride has increased due to increased worldwide demand for molecular sieves. *** stated that

while demand for barium chloride within the United States has decreased since 1984, demand has

increased outside of the United States because the petrochemical market is moving off-shore. The

remaining two responding importers indicated that demand outside the U.S. had not changed since 1984. 

The only responding purchaser indicated that it had fluctuated.

One of two responding importers indicated that it expected future demand for barium chloride

outside the United States to increase. Importer *** indicated that principal factors affecting future

demand will be the movement of the petrochemical market offshore and that if petrochemical sites are

built overseas, barium chloride will be manufactured closer to these sites. One responding purchaser

indicated that it expected demand outside the United States to remain unchanged in the future.

Prices

No Chinese producer responded to the foreign producers’ questionnaire to provide information

about prices of barium chloride in other markets. However, CPC was able to provide information

regarding the delivered price for barium chloride from China to *** which, at $*** per pound, CPC

characterized as *** prevailing U.S. prices.25 In addition, average unit values for exports of barium

chloride to various markets are available from the Global Trade Atlas. During 2009, average unit values

for Chinese exports to markets other than the United States ranged from $0.14 to $0.24 per pound (see

table IV-3). Average unit values for Chinese exports to Japan, China’s largest export market, increased

from $0.15 per pound in 2004 to $0.24 per pound in 2009. 

 25 CPC’s response to Commission’s Questions, April 26, 2010, p. 8 (calculated from a reported price of $*** per

metric ton).

IV-9

 1

 E-mail from ***, March 17, 2010.

 2

 Ibid.

 3

 CPC indicates that since the principal use for barite ore is as an additive to oil and well drilling mud, as oil and

gas exploration has increased in response to higher crude oil prices, demand for barite has similarly increased. 

CPC's response to Commission's Questions, April 26, 2010, p. 9. 

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICING

Raw Material Costs

Raw materials and inputs constitute an important part of the final cost of barium chloride. Raw

material costs accounted for approximately *** percent of the total cost of goods sold for U.S. producers

during 2009, while the input natural gas accounted for *** percent of the total cost of goods sold.1

 Raw

material costs of barium chloride increased from an average of $*** per pound in 2004 to $*** per pound

in 2009. Barite ore and hydrochloric acid are the primary components of raw material costs, each

accounting for approximately *** percent of raw material costs.2

 

Prices for barite ore and hydrochloric acid increased between 2004 and 2009 while the price of

natural gas fluctuated and declined overall. The annual average price of barite ore increased from $35.10 

per metric ton in 2004 to $52.00 per metric ton in 2009, or by about 48 percent (see table V-1). The

midyear Gulf Coast list price for a grade of hydrochloric acid used by producers of barium chloride

increased by *** percent between 2004 and 2009, with the price increasing by *** percent between 2004

and 2007 and by *** percent between 2007 and 2009. The annual average industrial price for natural gas

fluctuated between 2004 and 2009, rising sharply in 2005 and 2008, then collapsing in 2009 to 19 percent

below its 2004 level.3

Table V-1

U.S. natural gas, electricity, iron ore, and blast furnace coke prices, 2004-09

Item 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Barite ore1

 (per metric ton) $35.10 $35.90 $40.00 $45.30 $47.60 $52.00

Hydrochloric acid (per metric ton)2 *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. natural gas industrial price3 6.53 8.56 7.87 7.68 9.67 5.27

 1 f.o.b. mine.

 2

 ***. Prices are Gulf Coast list prices taken on or near July 1 of each year.

 3

 Price to industrial users in dollars per thousand cubic feet.

Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov, official statistics of the U.S. Department

of Energy, http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/barite/mcs-2009-barit.pdf,

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/barite/mcs-2010-barit.pdf, and ***.

U.S. producer CPC indicated that barite ore costs have risen *** over the past three to four years

and natural gas pricing has been cyclical, reaching highs during the time of Hurricane Katrina and spiking

again in 2008. Two responding importers, however, indicated that changes in raw material costs have not

had an impact on their prices since 1984. 
 4

 Also, one importer responded “0 percent-fob border” and another responded “varies widely.”

V-2

U. S. Inland Transportation Costs

The U.S.-inland transportation costs of barium chloride, as a share of the total delivered price,

vary from firm to firm. One of the U.S. producers (***) estimated that the costs make up *** percent of

the delivered price while the other producer (***) estimated they make up *** percent of the delivered

price. Among importers of barium chloride that provided useable estimates, the costs ranged from 5 to 11

percent of the delivered price.4

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

Both responding producers and all six responding importers reported that prices are at least

sometimes negotiated on a transaction-by-transaction basis. *** also reported using set price lists. Both

U.S. producers and two of six responding importers (***) typically quote on an f.o.b. basis and the

remaining four importers generally quote delivered prices. The shipping point for the importers’ f.o.b.

quotes included ***. 

Sales Terms and Discounts

Both U.S. producers and two of six responding importers (***) reported offering quantity

discounts, while the other four importers reported offering no discounts. One U.S. producer (***)

indicated that discounts are not typically offered and when they are offered it is on an account by account

basis and dependent upon factors such as overall volume, history with the customer, and competitive

factors.

All five responding importers reported making all of their sales on a spot basis, while the two

responding U.S. producers reported making only *** percent of their sales on a spot basis. U.S. producer

*** reported making the remaining *** percent of its sales with short term contracts of about 30 days

while U.S. producer *** reported making *** percent of it sales on short term contracts of 30 days and

the remaining *** percent of its sales on long term contracts of one year. The short term contracts fix

both price and quantity and the price cannot be renegotiated. The long term contracts fix only price and

can be renegotiated. Producer *** has meet or release provisions on ***, while producer *** does not

have a meet or release provision on ***.

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers to provide quarterly data for the total

quantity and f.o.b. value of barium chloride shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S. market during

January 2004-December 2009. Pricing data were requested for the following products. 

Product 1.--Crystalline barium chloride

Product 2.--Anhydrous barium chloride

One U.S. producer of barium chloride and two importers of barium chloride from China provided

useable price data for at least some quarters. U.S. producer CPC’s sales of the products accounted for

*** percent of total U.S. producers’ commercial shipment in 2009. Pricing data reported by the two
V-3

importers accounted for *** percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from China in 2007, the most

recent year for which data was reported.

Price Trends 

Quarterly weighted-average f.o.b. prices are shown in tables V-2 and V-3 and in figure V-1. U.S.

producer CPC’s prices for both products increased during most of 2004 to 2009. Prices for U.S.-

produced product 1 and 2 increased by *** and *** percent, respectively, between the first quarter of

2004 and the first quarter of 2009. The prices of U.S.-produced product 1 and product 2 increased a

further *** and *** percent, respectively, between the first quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter of

2009.

Table V-2

Barium chloride: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product

1, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-3

Barium chloride: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic product 2, by quarters,

January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-1

Barium chloride: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product,

by quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Price Comparisons

For sales of product 1, subject imports from China were priced lower than the U.S.-produced

product in four of six instances, with a simple average margin of underselling of *** percent. In two

instances, prices of subject imports from China were higher, with a simple average margin of overselling

of *** percent. Margins of underselling ranged from *** percent to *** percent, and margins of

overselling ranged from *** percent to *** percent. Underselling margins from the original investigation

are summarized in table V-4. Two of three responding purchasers indicated that since 1984 the price of

U.S.-produced barium chloride has changed relative to the price of barium chloride imported from China. 

One of these two purchasers indicated that the price of U.S.-produced barium chloride is relatively lower. 

In addition, one purchaser indicated that the prices have changed by the same amount since 1984.
V-4

Table V-4

Barium chloride: Instances and ranges of margins of under/overselling from the original

investigation

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Original investigation:1 14 8.7 to 32.3 0 -

 1 Price data for the original investigation were for the period January 1982 to December 1984.

Source: Staff report from the original investigation (September 17, 1984).
APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES AND THE COMMISSION'S 

STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY 

A-1

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, 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 31757 

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. 09–5–195, 

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. 

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 number of tables 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 number of tables 

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 

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. E9–15646 Filed 7–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–149 (Third 

Review)] 

Barium Chloride From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on barium chloride 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 barium 

chloride 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), as most recently 

amended at 74 FR 2847 (January 16, 

2009). 

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 

31758 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 

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 October 17, 1984, the 

Department of Commerce issued an 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

barium chloride from China (49 FR 

40635). Following first five-year reviews 

by Commerce and the Commission, 

effective March 10, 1999, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

barium chloride from China (64 FR 

42654, August 5, 1999). Following 

second five-year reviews by Commerce 

and the Commission, effective August 5, 

2004, Commerce issued a continuation 

of the antidumping duty order on 

imports of barium chloride from China 

(69 FR 47405). The Commission is now 

conducting a third 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 defined 

the Domestic Like Product as crystalline 

and anhydrous barium chloride, 

excluding high purity barium chloride. 

In its expedited first and second fiveyear review determinations, the 

Commission found one Domestic Like 

Product coextensive with Commerce’s 

scope: all forms of barium chloride, 

including crystalline, anhydrous, and 

high purity. For purposes of this notice, 

you should consider the Domestic Like 

Product to be all forms of barium 

chloride, including crystalline, 

anhydrous, and high purity. 

(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 producers of crystalline and 

anhydrous barium chloride, excluding 

producers of high purity barium 

chloride. In its expedited first and 

second five-year review determinations, 

the Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry as all domestic producers of 

barium chloride. For purposes of this 

notice, you should consider the 

Domestic Industry to be all domestic 

producers of barium chloride. 

(5) 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 31759 

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 

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) and name, telephone number, 

fax number, and E-mail 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 after 

2003. 

(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) 

31760 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. 09–5–196, 

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. 

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 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 after 2003, 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. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–15641 Filed 7–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–130 (Third 

Review)] 

Chloropicrin From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on chloropicrin 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 chloropicrin 

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), as most recently 

amended at 74 FR 2847 (January 16, 

2009). 

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 March 22, 1984, the 

Department of Commerce issued an 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

chloropicrin from China (49 FR 10691). 

Following first five-year reviews by 

Commerce and the Commission, 

effective April 14, 1999, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

chloropicrin from China (64 FR 42655, 

August 15, 1999). Following second 

five-year reviews by Commerce and the 

Commission, effective August 23, 2004, 

Commerce issued a continuation of the 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

chloropicrin from China (69 FR 51811). 

The Commission is now conducting a 

third 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 and its expedited first 

and second five-year review 

determinations, the Commission 

defined the Domestic Like Product as 

chloropicrin. 

(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 

and its expedited first and second fiveyear review determinations, the 

Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry as all U.S. producers of 

chloropicrin. 

(5) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Notices 54069 

1Commissioners Irving A. Williamson and Dean 

A. Pinkert found that no other circumstances 

warranted conducting a full review and voted for 

an expedited review. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with a full 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on sorbitol from France would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule 

for the review will be established and 

announced at a later date. 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: October 5, 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: On 

October 5, 2009, the Commission 

determined that it should proceed to a 

full review in the subject five-year 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act. The Commission found that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (74 

FR 31762, July 2, 2009) was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response was inadequate. The 

Commission also found that other 

circumstances warranted conducting a 

full review.1 A record of the 

Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements will be available from the 

Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 14, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–25249 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1043–1045 

(Review)] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

China, Malaysia, and Thailand 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determination to conduct full five-year 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty orders on polyethylene retail 

carrier bags from China, Malaysia, and 

Thailand. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with full 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on polyethylene retail carrier 

bags from China, Malaysia, and 

Thailand would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. A schedule for the reviews will be 

established and announced at a later 

date. For further information concerning 

the conduct of these reviews 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: October 5, 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 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 5, 2009, the Commission 

determined that it should proceed to 

full reviews in the subject five-year 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act. The Commission found that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (74 

FR 31750, July 2, 2009) was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response with respect to Malaysia 

was adequate and decided to conduct a 

full review with respect to the 

antidumping duty order concerning 

polyethylene retail carrier bags from 

Malaysia. The Commission found that 

the respondent interested party group 

responses with respect to China and 

Thailand were inadequate. However, the 

Commission determined to conduct full 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty orders on polyethylene retail 

carrier bags from China and Thailand to 

promote administrative efficiency in 

light of its decision to conduct a full 

review with respect to the antidumping 

duty order concerning polyethylene 

retail carrier bags from Malaysia. A 

record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements will be available from the 

Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: October 14, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–25248 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–149 (Third 

Review)] 

Barium Chloride From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determination to conduct a full five-year 

review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on barium chloride from 

China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with a full 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
54070 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Notices 

1Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane, Irving A. 

Williamson, and Dean A. Pinkert found that no 

other circumstances warranted conducting a full 

review and voted for an expedited review. 

order on barium chloride from China 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of material injury within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. A 

schedule for the review will be 

established and announced at a later 

date. 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: October 5, 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: On 

October 5, 2009, the Commission 

determined that it should proceed to a 

full review in the subject five-year 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act. The Commission found that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (74 

FR 31757, July 2, 2009) was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response was inadequate. The 

Commission also found that other 

circumstances warranted conducting a 

full review.1 A record of the 

Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements will be available from the 

Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 14, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–25246 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–394–A & 399– 

A (Second Review) (Remand)] 

Ball Bearings From Japan and the 

United Kingdom 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of remand proceedings. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. International Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) hereby 

gives notice of its second remand 

proceedings with respect to its 

affirmative determinations in the fiveyear reviews of the antidumping orders 

on ball bearings from Japan and the 

United Kingdom. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

this proceeding 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, subpart A (19 CFR 

part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: October 14, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James McClure, Office of Investigations, 

telephone 202–205–3191, or David 

Goldfine, Office of General Counsel, 

telephone 202–708–5452, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—In June 2006, the 

Commission unanimously determined 

that revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on ball bearings from France, 

Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United 

Kingdom would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to an industry in the United 

States within a reasonable foreseeable 

time. The Commission’s determinations 

for Japan and the United Kingdom were 

appealed to the Court of International 

Trade (the ‘‘Court’’). On September 9, 

2008, the Court issued a decision 

remanding the matter to the 

Commission for further proceedings. 

NSK v. United States, Slip Op. 08–95 

(Ct. Int’l Trade, Sept. 9, 2008) (NSK I). 

In its opinion, the Court issued an order 

instructing the Commission to (1) 

‘‘[C]onduct a Bratsk analysis of nonsubject imports as outlined in this 

opinion;’’(2) ‘‘reassess supply 

conditions within the domestic 

industry,’’ i.e., the industry’s 

restructuring efforts during the period of 

review, and (3) ‘‘reexamine its findings 

with regard to likely impact and its 

decision to cumulate imports from the 

United Kingdom in light of changes in 

its determinations that may result as a 

consequence of the foregoing remand 

instructions.’’ 

On October 8, 2008, in accordance 

with the Court’s order, the Commission 

initiated remand proceedings in the 

above-captioned reviews. The notice of 

initiation for the remand proceeding 

was published in the Federal Register at 

73 FR 63217 (Oct. 20, 2008). The 

Commission re-opened its record to 

obtain information to conduct a Bratsk 

analysis of non-subject imports as 

outlined in the Court’s opinion. The 

Commission also permitted parties to 

file comments pertaining to the specific 

issues that are the subject of the Court’s 

remand instructions and to comment on 

the new information obtained on 

remand. Id. 

On October 9, 2008, the Commission 

filed a motion for reconsideration with 

the Court. In the motion, the 

Commission requested that the Court 

reconsider its decision in light of the 

Federal Circuit’s decision, Mittal Steel 

Point Lisas Limited v. United States, 

Court No. 2007–1552 (September 18, 

2008) (Mittal). In its motion, the 

Commission also requested that the CIT 

issue a stay of the remand proceeding 

pending the Court’s disposition of the 

Commission’s motion for 

reconsideration. Defendant-Intervenor 

The Timken Company (‘‘Timken’’) filed 

a similar motion for reconsideration and 

a motion to stay the remand proceeding. 

On October 29, 2008, the CIT granted 

the requests of the Commission and 

Timken to stay the Commission’s 

remand proceeding pending its 

reconsideration of the Commission’s 

and Timken’s motions for 

reconsideration. Accordingly, the 

Commission stayed its remand 

proceeding on November 17, 2008 

pending the Court’s ruling on the 

motions for reconsideration. On 

December 29, 2008, the Court denied 

the motions for reconsideration by the 

Commission and Timken. NSK Corp. et 

al. v. United States, Slip Op. 08–145 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
55814 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Notices 

1 120 days from October 31, 2009, is February 28, 

2010, which is a Sunday. However, Department 

practice dictates that where a deadline falls on a 

weekend, the appropriate deadline is the next 

business day. See Notice of Clarification: 

Application of ‘‘Next Business Day’’ Rule for 

Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant 

to the Act, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). 

The applicant is also requesting 

approval of two ‘‘usage-driven’’ sites in 

Johnson County: Proposed Site 9 (6.64 

acres)—Bushnell Outdoor Products, 

9200 Cody, Overland Park; and, 

Proposed Site 10 (2.4 acres)—Bushnell 

Outdoor Products, 10716 West 78th 

Street, Shawnee. Proposed Site 9 is 

located within the Congleton Industrial 

Park and proposed Site 10 is located 

within the Nieman Business Park. 

In accordance with the Board’s 

regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ 

Staff is designated examiner to evaluate 

and analyze the facts and information 

presented in the application and case 

record and to report findings and 

recommendations to the Board. 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions (original 

and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the 

Board’s Executive Secretary at the 

address below. The closing period for 

their receipt is December 28, 2009. 

Rebuttal comments in response to 

material submitted during the foregoing 

period may be submitted during the 

subsequent 15-day period to January 12, 

2010. 

A copy of the application will be 

available for public inspection at the 

Office of the Executive Secretary, 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230–0002, and in the ‘‘Reading 

Room’’ section of the Board’s Web site, 

which is accessible via http:// 

www.trade.gov/ftz. For further 

information, contact Camille Evans at 

Camille.Evans@trade.gov or (202) 482– 

2350. 

Dated: October 22, 2009. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–26101 Filed 10–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–810] 

Stainless Steel Bar From India: 

Extension of Time Limit for the 

Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 29, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seth 

Isenberg, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–0588. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 24, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published a 

notice of initiation of an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on stainless steel bar from India 

covering the period February 1, 2008, 

through January 31, 2009. See Initiation 

of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Requests for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 

12310 (March 24, 2009). The 

preliminary results for this 

administrative review are currently due 

no later than October 31, 2009. 

Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary Results 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

requires the Department to issue the 

preliminary results of an administrative 

review within 245 days after the last day 

of the anniversary month of an 

antidumping duty order for which a 

review is requested and issue the final 

results within 120 days after the date on 

which the preliminary results are 

published. However, if it is not 

practicable to complete the review 

within the time period, section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 

Department to extend these deadlines to 

a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, 

respectively. 

Due to the complexity of the issues in 

this case, including issues regarding 

company affiliations, and the lengthy 

supplemental questionnaire responses 

pending, it is not practicable to 

complete the preliminary results of this 

review within the original time limit 

(i.e., October 31, 2009). Therefore, the 

Department is extending the time limit 

for completion of the preliminary 

results to no later than March 1, 2010,1

in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) 

of the Act. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: October 23, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–26110 Filed 10–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–007 

Barium Chloride From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of 

Expedited Third Sunset Review of 

Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 29, 2009. 

SUMMARY: On July 1, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) initiated a sunset review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

barium chloride from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). On the basis 

of a notice of intent to participate and 

an adequate substantive response from 

domestic interested parties, as well as a 

lack of response from respondent 

interested parties, the Department 

conducted an expedited (120-day) 

sunset review. As a result of the sunset 

review, the Department finds that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping. 

The dumping margins are identified in 

the Final Results of Review section of 

this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Blackledge or Howard Smith, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

Telephone: (202) 482–3518 or (202) 

482–5193, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 1, 2009, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

third sunset review of the antidumping 

duty order on barium chloride from the 

PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’). See Initiation of Five-year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 74 FR 31412 (July 1, 

2009). On July 6, 2009, the Department 

received a notice of intent to participate 

from Chemical Products Corporation 

(‘‘CPC’’), a domestic interested party, 

within the deadline specified in section 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 208 / Thursday, October 29, 2009 / Notices 55815 

1The scope reflects the HTSUS item number 

currently in effect. 

351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department’s 

regulations. CPC claimed interested 

party status under section 771(9)(C) of 

the Act as a domestic producer of 

barium chloride in the United States. 

On July 31, 2009, the Department 

received a substantive response from 

CPC within the deadline specified in 

section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the 

Department’s regulations. The 

Department did not receive a response 

from any respondent interested party to 

this proceeding. As a result, pursuant to 

section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 

section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations, the 

Department determined to conduct an 

expedited review of the order. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by the order 

is barium chloride, a chemical 

compound having the formulas BaCl2 or 

BaCl2–2H2O, currently classifiable 

under item number 2827.39.45.00 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’).1 Although 

the HTSUS item number is provided for 

convenience and for U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection purposes, the written 

description remains dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’ (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from John M. 

Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, to 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

which is dated concurrently with this 

notice, and hereby adopted by this 

notice. The issues discussed in the 

Decision Memorandum include the 

likelihood of continuation or recurrence 

of dumping and the magnitude of the 

margins likely to prevail if the order 

were revoked. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in this review and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum, which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit in room 1117 of 

the main Commerce building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

Pursuant to section 752(c) of the Act, 

we determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on barium 

chloride from the PRC would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping at the following weighted– 

average percentage margin: 

Exporter/Manufacturer Margin (percent) 

PRC–Wide .................... 155.50 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders 

(‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility 

concerning the return or destruction of 

proprietary information disclosed under 

APO in accordance with section 351.305 

of the Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: October 22, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–26109 Filed 10–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN: 0648–XS61 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce 

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council) is 

scheduling a public meeting of its 

Scientific and Statistical Committee on 

Thursday, November 12, 2009 to 

consider actions affecting New England 

fisheries in the exclusive economic zone 

(EEZ). Recommendations from this 

group will be brought to the full Council 

for formal consideration and action, if 

appropriate. 

DATES: This meeting will be held on 

Thursday, November 12, 2009 at 12 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

New England Fishery Management 

Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, 

Newburyport, MA 01950; telephone: 

(978) 465–0492; fax: (978) 465–3116. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

J. Howard, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council; 

telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Scientific and Statistical Committee 

(SSC) will hold a conference call for 

approximately one to two hours at 12 

noon on November 12, 2009 concerning 

Atlantic herring. At the request of the 

Council, the committee intends to 

revisit the size of the 40% buffer 

between the Overfishing Level and 

Acceptable Biological Catch to consider 

whether application of recent years 

retrospective difference of about 17% is 

sufficient to account for scientific 

uncertainly caused by retrospective 

patterns. A space will be made available 

in the Council office for members of the 

public who wish to listen to the SSC’s 

deliberations and/or offer comments. 

The SSC will report about its discussion 

at the November 17–19, 2009 Council 

meeting in Newport, RI. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before this group for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during this meeting. Action will 

be restricted to those issues specifically 

listed in this notice and any issues 

arising after publication of this notice 

that require emergency action under 

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, provided the public has been 

notified of the Council’s intent to take 

final action to address the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul 

J. Howard, Executive Director, at (978) 

465–0492, at least 5 days prior to the 

meeting date. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: October 26, 2009. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–26045 Filed 10–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN: 0648–XS62 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meetings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 228 / Monday, November 30, 2009 / Notices 62587 

Endangered Species 

The public is invited to comment on 

the following applications for a permit 

to conduct certain activities with 

endangered species. This notice is 

provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Submit your written data, comments, or 

requests for copies of the complete 

applications to the address shown in 

ADDRESSES. 

Applicant: Lemur Conservation 

Foundation, Myakka City, FL, PRT– 

231674 

The applicant requests a permit to 

import 6 captive-bred red collared 

lemurs (Eulemur collaris) from the 

Hamerton Zoo Park, England, for the 

purpose of enhancement of the survival 

of the species. 

Applicant: University of New Mexico, 

Museum of Southwestern Biology, 

Albuquerque, NM, PRT–084874 

The applicant requests the renewal of 

their permit for the export/re-export and 

re-import of non-living museum 

specimens and non-living herbarium 

specimens of endangered and 

threatened animals and plants species 

that were previously accessioned into 

the applicant’s collection for scientific 

research. This notification covers 

activities to be conducted by the 

applicant over a 5-year period. 

Applicant: University of California, Los 

Angeles/Center for Tropical Research, 

Los Angeles, CA, PRT–215520 

The applicant requests a permit to 

import biological samples from Baird’s 

tapir (Tapirus bairdii) from Centro de 

Investigacions en Ecosistemas de la 

Universidad Nacional Autonoma de 

Mexico, for the purpose of enhancement 

of the species through scientific 

research. This notification covers 

activities to be conducted by the 

applicant over a 5-year period. 

Applicant: National Zoological Park, 

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 

D.C., PRT–231151 

The applicant requests a permit to 

import one male and one female 

captive-born clouded leopards (Neofelis 

nebulosa) from Howletts Wild Animal 

Park, United Kingdom, for the purpose 

of enhancement of the survival of the 

species. 

Applicant: William J. Butler, Juntura, 

OR, PRT–232558 

The applicant requests a permit to 

import the sport-hunted trophy of one 

male bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus 

pygargus) culled from a captive herd 

maintained under the management 

program of the Republic of South Africa, 

for the purpose of enhancement of the 

survival of the species. 

Marine Mammals 

The public is invited to comment on 

the following applications for a permit 

to conduct certain activities with marine 

mammals. The applications were 

submitted to satisfy requirements of the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 

as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and 

the regulations governing marine 

mammals (50 CFR Part 18). Submit your 

written data, comments, or requests for 

copies of the complete applications or 

requests for a public hearing on these 

applications to the address shown in 

ADDRESSES. If you request a hearing, 

give specific reasons why a hearing 

would be appropriate. The holding of 

such a hearing is at the discretion of the 

Director. 

Applicant: Dr. Beth Shapiro, 

Pennsylvania State University, 

University Park, PA, PRT–220509 

The applicant requests a permit to 

import blood and tissue samples from 

polar bear (Ursus maritimus) each of the 

19 subpopulations for scientific research 

purposes. This notification covers 

activities to be conducted by the 

applicant over a 5-year period. 

Applicant: John Downer Productions 

LTD, Bristol, United Kingdom, PRT– 

229154 

The applicant requests a permit to 

photograph northern sea otters (Enhydra 

lutris kenyoni) in Alaska, from boats and 

using aerial devices, for commercial and 

educational purposes. This notification 

covers activities to be conducted by the 

applicant over a 1-year period. 

Applicant: Pontecorvo Productions 

LLC, Seattle, WA, PRT–230255 

The applicant requests a permit to 

photograph polar bear (Ursus 

maritimus) dens in Alaska for 

commercial and educational purposes. 

This notification covers activities to be 

conducted by the applicant over a 1- 

year period. 

Concurrent with publishing this 

notice in the Federal Register, we are 

forwarding copies of the above 

applications to the Marine Mammal 

Commission and the Committee of 

Scientific Advisors for their review 

Dated: November 20, 2009. 

Lisa J. Lierheimer, 

Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits, 

Division of Management Authority. 

[FR Doc. E9–28624 Filed 11–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–149 (Third 

Review)] 

Barium Chloride From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of a full five-year 

review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on barium chloride from 

China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of a full review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) 

(the Act) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on barium chloride from China 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of material injury within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. 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: November 16, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Sherman (202–205–3289), 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 October 5, 2009, 

the Commission determined that 

responses to its notice of institution of 

the subject five-year review were such 

that a full review pursuant to section 

751(c)(5) of the Act should proceed (74 

FR 54069, October 21, 2009). A record 

of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements are available from the Office 

of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

62588 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 228 / Monday, November 30, 2009 / Notices 

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 this review as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11 of the 

Commission’s rules, by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. A party that 

filed a notice of appearance following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the review need not file 

an additional notice of appearance. 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. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in this review available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the review, provided that the 

application is made by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the review. A party 

granted access to BPI following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the review need not 

reapply for such access. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Staff report.—The prehearing staff 

report in the review will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on March 26, 

2010, and a public version will be 

issued thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.64 of the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing.—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the review 

beginning at 9:30 a.m. on April 15, 

2010, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Requests to 

appear at the hearing should be filed in 

writing with the Secretary to the 

Commission on or before April 9, 2010. 

A nonparty who has testimony that may 

aid the Commission’s deliberations may 

request permission to present a short 

statement at the hearing. All parties and 

nonparties desiring to appear at the 

hearing and make oral presentations 

should attend a prehearing conference 

to be held at 9:30 a.m. on April 14, 

2010, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Oral testimony 

and written materials to be submitted at 

the public hearing are governed by 

sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, 

and 207.66 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Written submissions.—Each party to 

the review may submit a prehearing 

brief to the Commission. Prehearing 

briefs must conform with the provisions 

of section 207.65 of the Commission’s 

rules; the deadline for filing is April 6, 

2010. Parties may also file written 

testimony in connection with their 

presentation at the hearing, as provided 

in section 207.24 of the Commission’s 

rules, and posthearing briefs, which 

must conform with the provisions of 

section 207.67 of the Commission’s 

rules. The deadline for filing 

posthearing briefs is April 26, 2010; 

witness testimony must be filed no later 

than three days before the hearing. In 

addition, any person who has not 

entered an appearance as a party to the 

review may submit a written statement 

of information pertinent to the subject of 

the review on or before April 26, 2010. 

On May 19, 2010, the Commission will 

make available to parties all information 

on which they have not had an 

opportunity to comment. Parties may 

submit final comments on this 

information on or before May 21, 2010, 

but such final comments must not 

contain new factual information and 

must otherwise comply with section 

207.68 of the Commission’s rules. All 

written submissions must conform with 

the provisions of section 201.8 of the 

Commission’s rules; any submissions 

that contain BPI must also conform with 

the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, 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). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with 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 BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

Issued: November 23, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–28443 Filed 11–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–770–773 and 

775 (Second Review)] 

Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Italy, 

Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of full five-year 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty orders on stainless steel wire rod 

from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and 

Taiwan. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of full reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) 

(the Act) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on stainless steel wire rod from 

Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of material injury within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. For 

further information concerning the 

conduct of these reviews 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: November 16, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edward Petronzio (202–205–3176), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 20, 2010 / Notices 20625 

The plat representing the dependent 

resurvey of the Sectional Correction 

Line and a portion of the subdivisional 

lines and the subdivision of sections 23, 

24 and 26, Township 14 South, Range 

10 East, accepted March 17, 2010, and 

officially filed March 19, 2010, for 

Group 1055, Arizona. 

This plat was prepared at the request 

of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western 

Regional Office. 

The plat (2 sheets) representing the 

dependent resurvey of a portion of the 

west boundary of the San Carlos Indian 

Reservation, a portion of the Gila and 

Salt River Base Line through Range 16 

East (north boundary), a portion of the 

south boundary and the survey of south 

and east boundaries, and subdivisional 

lines (within the San Carlos Indian 

Reservation), Township 1 South, Range 

16 East, accepted August 12, 2009, and 

officially filed August 17, 2009, for 

Group 873, Arizona. 

This plat was prepared at the request 

of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western 

Regional Office. 

The plat representing the dependent 

resurvey of a portion of the Gila and Salt 

River Base Line through Ranges 16 and 

17 East (north boundary) and the survey 

of the south and east boundaries and the 

subdivisional lines, Township 1 South, 

Range 17 East, accepted October 28, 

2009, and officially filed October 30, 

2009, for Group 873, Arizona. 

This plat was prepared at the request 

of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western 

Regional Office. 

The plat representing the 

establishment of the southeast and 

northeast township corners and an 

electronic control monument, Township 

1 South, Range 18 East, accepted 

October 29, 2009, and officially filed 

October 30, 2009, for Group 873, 

Arizona. 

This plat was prepared at the request 

of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western 

Regional Office. 

The plat representing the corrective 

dependent resurvey of a portion of the 

east boundary of the San Carlos Indian 

Reservation, Township 4 South, Range 

22 East, accepted January 8, 2010, and 

officially filed January 13, 2010, for 

Group 554, Arizona. 

This plat was prepared at the request 

of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western 

Regional Office. 

A person or party who wishes to 

protest against any of these surveys 

must file a written protest with the 

Arizona State Director, Bureau of Land 

Management, stating that they wish to 

protest. 

A statement of reasons for a protest 

may be filed with the notice of protest 

to the State Director, or the statement of 

reasons must be filed with the State 

Director within thirty (30) days after the 

protest is filed. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

These plats are available for inspection 

in the Arizona State Office, Bureau of 

Land Management, One North Central 

Avenue, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 

85004–4427. 

Dated: April 13, 2010. 

Stephen K. Hansen, 

Chief Cadastral Surveyor of Arizona. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9046 Filed 4–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–32–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLCON01000 L07770000.XX0000] 

Notice of Public Meetings, Northwest 

Colorado Resource Advisory Council 

Meetings in 2010 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) Northwest 

Colorado Resource Advisory Council 

(RAC) will meet as indicated below. 

DATES: The Northwest Colorado RAC 

will meet on: 

1. May 13, 2010, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. 

2. August 19, 2010, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. 

3. December 2, 2010, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. 

Public comment periods regarding 

matters on the agenda will be held at 10 

a.m. and 2 p.m. each day. 

ADDRESSES: The locations for the 

meetings are: 

1. May 13, 2010, Rangely Town Hall, 

209 E. Main St., Rangely, CO. 

2. August 19, 2010, Wattenberg 

Center, 682 County Road 42, Walden, 

CO. 

3. December 2, 2010, Hampton Inn, 

205 Main St., Grand Junction, CO. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Boyd, Public Affairs Specialist, 

Colorado River Valley Field Office, 2300 

River Frontage Road, Silt, CO, (970) 

876–9008. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Northwest Colorado RAC advises the 

Secretary of the Interior, through the 

Bureau of Land Management, on a 

variety of public land issues in 

Colorado. 

Topics of discussion during 

Northwest Colorado RAC meetings may 

include the BLM National Sage Grouse 

Conservation Strategy, working group 

reports, sub-committee updates, 

recreation, fire management, land use 

planning, invasive species management, 

energy and minerals management, travel 

management, wilderness, wild horse 

herd management, land exchange 

proposals, cultural resource 

management, and other issues as 

appropriate. 

These meetings are open to the 

public. The public may present written 

comments to the RACs. Each formal 

RAC meeting will also have time, as 

identified above, allocated for hearing 

public comments. Depending on the 

number of persons wishing to comment 

and time available, the time for 

individual oral comments may be 

limited. Subcommittees under this RAC 

meet regarding the McInnis Canyon 

National Conservation Area, Resource 

Management Plan revisions for the 

Glenwood Springs, Kremmling, and 

Grand Junction field offices, and the 

White River Field Office Resource 

Management Plan Oil and Gas 

Amendment. Subcommittees report to 

the Northwest Colorado RAC at each 

council meeting. Subcommittee 

meetings are open to the public. 

More information is available at 

http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/ 

BLM_Resources/racs/nwrac.html. 

Dated: April 13, 2010. 

Anna Marie Burden, 

Acting State Director. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9023 Filed 4–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–149 (Third 

Review)] 

Barium Chloride From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Revised schedule for the subject 

review. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 9, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Sherman (202–205–3289), 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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
20626 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 20, 2010 / Notices 

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: On 

November 16, 2009, the Commission 

established a schedule for the conduct 

of this review (74 FR 62587, November 

30, 2010). 

Subsequently, counsel for domestic 

interested party filed a request to appear 

at the hearing or, in the alternative, for 

consideration of cancellation of the 

hearing. Counsel indicated a willingness 

to submit written testimony and 

responses to any questions by a date to 

be specified by the Commission in lieu 

of an actual hearing. To date, no other 

party has filed a request to appear at the 

hearing. Consequently, the public 

hearing in connection with the review, 

scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on April 

15, 2010, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building, is cancelled. 

The Commission has determined to 

accept the offer to submit written 

testimony in lieu of an oral public 

hearing presentation. Written testimony 

shall be filed with the Commission by 

the close of business on Thursday, April 

15, 2010. The party is expected to 

respond to the Commission’s written 

questions in its post-hearing brief, 

which is due to be filed on April 26, 

2010. Additional changes to the 

schedule are as follows: The final staff 

report in the review will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on May 10, 2010, 

and a public version will be issued 

thereafter; the Commission will make 

available to parties all information on 

which they have not had an opportunity 

to comment on May 17, 2010; and 

parties may submit final comments on 

this information on or before May 19, 

2010. 

For further information concerning 

this investigation see the Commission’s 

notice cited above and the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

Dated: Issued: April 9, 2010. 

By order of the Commission. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9030 Filed 4–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Importer of Controlled Substances; 

Notice of Registration 

Correction 

In notice document 2010–6412 

beginning on page 14186 in the issue of 

Wednesday, March 24, 2010, make the 

following correction: 

On page 14186, in the third column, 

in the table, the last cell, ‘‘III’’ should 

read ‘‘II’’. 

[FR Doc. C1–2010–6412 Filed X–XX–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Submission for OMB Review: 

Comment Request 

March 15, 2010. 

The Department of Labor (DOL) 

hereby announces the submission of the 

following public information collection 

request (ICR) to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). 

A copy of this ICR, with applicable 

supporting documentation; including 

among other things a description of the 

likely respondents, proposed frequency 

of response, and estimated total burden 

may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov 

Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain or by contacting 

Darrin King on 202–693–4129 (this is 

not a toll-free number)/e-mail: 

DOL_PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov. 

Interested parties are encouraged to 

send comments to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the 

Department of Labor—Employment and 

Training Administration (ETA), Office 

of Management and Budget, Room 

10235, Washington, DC 20503, 

Telephone: 202–395–7316/Fax: 202– 

395–5806 (these are not toll-free 

numbers), E-mail: 

OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov within 

30 days from the date of this publication 

in the Federal Register. In order to 

ensure the appropriate consideration, 

comments should reference the OMB 

Control Number (see below). 

The OMB is particularly interested in 

comments which: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Agency: Employment and Training 

Administration. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of a currently approved 

collection. 

Title of Collection: Financial and 

Program Reporting and Performance 

Standards System for Indian and Native 

American Programs Under Title I, 

Section 166 of the Workforce 

Investment Act (WIA). 

OMB Control Number: 1205–0422. 

Agency Form Number: ETA–9084 and 

ETA–9085. 

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal 

Governments; Private Sector Not-forprofit institutions; and Individuals or 

Households. 

Total Estimated Number of 

Respondents: 20,747. 

Total Estimated Annual Burden 

Hours: 90,262. 

Total Estimated Annual Costs Burden 

(does not include hour costs): $0. 

Description: OMB Control No. 1205– 

0422 contains two forms: ETA 9084 and 

9085. It also includes standard data 

elements for participants, the basis of 

the current performance standards 

system for the Workforce Investment 

Act of 1998 (WIA) Title I section 166 

grantees. The burden estimates for this 

collection include the Supplemental 

Youth Services Program and the 

Comprehensive Services Program 

authorized under section 166, as well as 

financial reporting requirements for 

both funds and the separate reporting 

for Recovery Act-funded youth 

programs. For additional information, 

see related notice published in the 

Federal Register on November 5, 2009 

(74 FR 57333). 

Darrin A. King, 

Departmental Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9049 Filed 4–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
1

 Commissioners Lane, Williamson, and Pinkert voted to conduct an expedited review, citing

both the lack of adequate respondent participation and their finding that the record in this adequacy phase

did not indicate sufficient changes in the conditions of competition since the original investigation and the

first and second five-year reviews to warrant conducting a full review.

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Barium Chloride from China

Inv. No. 731-TA-149 (Third Review) 

On October 5, 2009, the Commission determined that it should proceed to a full review in

the subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as amended

19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5)). 

The Commission received a single response to its notice of institution. The response,

which contained company-specific data, was filed on behalf of Chemical Products Corporation, a

domestic producer accounting for an overwhelming majority of domestic production of barium

chloride. The Commission found the individual response of the domestic producer adequate. 

The Commission also determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice

of institution was adequate. 

No responses were received from any respondent interested parties. Consequently, the

Commission determined that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. 

Notwithstanding the Commission’s determination that the respondent interested party

group response was inadequate, the Commission determined to conduct a full review in light of

information regarding possible changes in conditions of competition.1

 These include possible

changes in market conditions and an increase in non-subject imports of barium chloride since the

second five-year 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).

APPENDIX B

CPC’S REQUEST TO CANCEL THE COMMISSION’S HEARING

B-1

GIBSON DUNN 

Client Matter No,: C 15260-00005 

J. Christopher Wood 

Direct: 202.955.8595 

Fax: 202.530.9698 

CWood@gibsondunn.com 

April 6, 2010 

VIAEDIS 

The Honorable Marilyn R. Abbott 

Secretary 

U.S. International Trade Commission 

500 E Street SW 

Washington, D.C. 20436 

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 

1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.w. 

Washington, DC 20036-5306 

Tel 202.955.8500 

www.gibsondunn.com 

PUBLIC DOCUMENT 

Investigation No. 731-TA-149 

(3rd Sunset Review) 

Re:Barium Chloridefrom the People's Republic of China: Inv. No. 731-TA-149 (Third 

Sunset Review): Request to Appear at Hearing and Requestfor Consideration of 

Cancellation of Hearing 

Dear Secretary Abbott: 

On behalf of Chemical Products Corporation ("CPC"), a domestic producer of the 

subject merchandise in the above-referenced sunset review, we hereby file this request to 

appear at the hearing scheduled for April 15, 2010 in connection with this review. This 

request is timely filed pursuant to the Commission's scheduling notice of November 30, 

2009. Barium Chloride from China, 74 Fed. Reg. 62,587 (Nov. 30,2009). 

We further respectfully request that the Commission consider whether the scheduled 

hearing should be cancelled given considerations of cost and administrative efficiency. CPC 

recognizes that the hearing can provide an important opportunity for the Commission to 

achieve a fuller understanding of the facts and legal issues involved in the proceeding. In 

Brussels· Century City· Dallas' Denver· Dubai • London· Los Angeles' Munich· New York' Orange County 

Palo Alto' Paris' San Francisco· Sao Paulo· Singapore' Washington, D.C. 
GIBSON DUNN 

Marilyn R. Abbott 

Apri16,2010 

Page 2 

this sunset review, however, several circumstances noted below indicate that the benefits of a 

hearing would be limited and may not justify the burden of a hearing on the Commission and 

staff as well as on CPC. Accordingly, if the Commission is amenable, CPC would propose 

to submit written testimony and responses to any questions by a date to be specified by the 

Commission in lieu of an actual hearing. 

First, because respondent parties have declined to participate in any phase of this 

sunset review, it is unlikely that an oral hearing will elicit new information concerning the 

Chinese barium chloride industry or the likely effect and impact of future imports on the 

domestic industry. In fact, CPC likely will be the only attendee to appear at the hearing. 

While CPC is willing to participate fully in the hearing, we expect that our testimony would 

focus on the points that we have made previously through our substantive response, 

questionnaire response, and in our pre-hearing brief submitted to the Commission by 

separate cover today. Accordingly, a hearing is unlikely to raise any new factual or legal 

issues not previously presented to the Commission. 

Second, a public hearing is not likely to allow the Commission and CPC to fully 

discuss any questions that the Commission may have for CPC based on the information 

provided. Because CPC essentially is the only domestic producer of barium chloride, the 

Prehearing Report has necessarily redacted basic trade and financial data and industry trend 
GIBSON DUNN 

Marilyn R. Abbott 

April 6,2010 

Page 3 

data to avoid revealing business proprietary information of CPC. Thus, it is likely that CPC, 

in order to respond fully to questions from the Commission, would need to provide 

supplemental written responses in a confidential post-hearing submission, comparable to the 

written responses that it could provide to the Commission in lieu of a public hearing. 

Finally, given the state of CPC' s barium chloride operations and the difficult 

economic environment, CPC currently is operating under very severe constraints concerning 

business travel and other discretionary expenses. Cancellation of the hearing would provide 

a substantial benefit to CPC in terms of cost savings. 

We would like to emphasize that this request that the Commission consider 

cancelling the hearing scheduled for April 15 does not result from any lack of interest by 

CPC in continuing the order. CPC maintains an extremely strong interest in retaining the 

antidumping duty order on barium chloride from China and remains committed to 

cooperating with the Commission throughout this proceeding. Should the Commission 

choose to hold the oral hearing as scheduled on April 15, CPC will attend and participate 

fully. 

We appreciate the Commission's willingness to consider the possibility of cancelling 

the scheduled hearing and allowing CPC to submit written testimony and answers to 

questions at a date to be determined by the Commission. 
GIBSON DUNN 

Marilyn R. Abbott 

April 6, 2010 

Page 4 

Our finn, as counsel to CPC, is the only party listed the Public Certificate of Service 

list issued by the Commission in this review. Accordingly, we have not served this 

submission on any person or entity, nor have we included a Certificate of Service with this 

filing. 

Thank you for your attention to this filing. Please contact the undersigned if you 

have questions or need additional information. 

Sincerely, 

J. Christopher Wood 

Counsel to Chemical Products Corporation 

JCW/nex 

IO0844101JDOC 
APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-1

Table C-1

Barium chloride: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2004-09

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2004-09 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 174 132 43 0 0 -100.0 -17.3 -24.1 -67.5 -100.0 (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 42 29 9 0 0 -100.0 -7.0 -29.9 -69.9 -100.0 (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.21 $0.24 $0.22 $0.21 (2) (2) (2) 12.5 -7.8 -7.4 (2) (2)

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 34 83 69 563 1,028 1,252.9 -55.5 145.9 -16.9 714.5 82.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 101 67 44 319 567 501.0 6.9 -33.7 -33.8 619.6 77.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.24 $2.98 $0.80 $0.64 $0.57 $0.55 -55.6 140.2 -73.1 -20.3 -11.7 -2.5

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 208 215 112 563 1,028 258.6 -27.4 3.6 -48.0 402.2 82.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 143 96 53 319 567 306.4 2.4 -32.6 -44.8 499.6 77.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.49 $0.69 $0.45 $0.47 $0.57 $0.55 13.4 41.1 -35.0 6.1 19.4 -2.5

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not applicable.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding,

figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

 C-3

 * * * * * * *

 * * * * * * *

APPENDIX D

RESPONSES OF U.S. PRODUCERS, U.S. IMPORTERS, AND

U.S. PURCHASERS CONCERNING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF

REVOCATION

D-1

U.S. PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any changes in the character of their

operations or organizations relating to the production of barium chloride in the future if the

antidumping duty finding on barium chloride from China were to be revoked. (Question II-4). The

following are quotations from the responses of producers.

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe the significance of the existing antidumping

finding covering imports of barium chloride from China in terms of its effect on their firm’s

production capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues,

costs, profits, cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development expenditures, and asset

values. (Question II-15.) The following are quotations from the responses of producers.

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any anticipated changes in their production

capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues, costs, profits,

cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development expenditures, and asset values relating

to the production of barium chloride in the future if the antidumping duty finding on barium

chloride were revoked. (Question II-16.) The following are quotations from the responses of

producers.

* * * * * * *

D-3
U.S. IMPORTERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe any anticipated changes to the character of

their operations or organizations relating to the importation of barium chloride in the future.

(Question II-3.) The following are quotations from the responses of U.S. importers.

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe any anticipated changes to the character of

their operations or organizations relating to the importation of barium chloride in the future if the

antidumping duty order were to be revoked. (Question II-4.) The following are quotations from

the responses of U.S. importers.

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe the significance of the existing antidumping

duty order covering imports of barium chloride from China in terms of its effect on their imports,

U.S. shipments of imports, and inventories. (Question II-9). The following are quotations from the

responses of importers.

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe any anticipated changes in their imports,

U.S. shipments of imports, or inventories of barium chloride in the future if the existing

antidumping duty order was revoked. (Question II-10). The following are quotations from the

responses of importers.

* * * * * * *

U.S. PURCHASER COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

The Commission asked U. S. purchasers to comment on the likely effect of any revocation of the

antidumping duty order covering barium chloride from China. They were asked to discuss the

potential effects of revocation of the antidumping duty order in terms of (1) the future activities of

their firm and (2) the U.S. market as a whole. Their responses are as follows.

* * * * * * *

D-4