U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4184 September 2010

Washington, DC 20436

Chlorinated Isocyanurates from 

China and Spain

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Karen Laney

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Keysha Martinez, Investigator (Acting) 

Bridget Carr, Investigative Intern 

Robert Randall, Industry Analyst 

Elizabeth Duall, Attorney 

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator

Special assistance from

Steven Hudgens, Senior Statistician 
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4184 September 2010

Chlorinated Isocyanurates from 

China and Spain

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Review)

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Separate and Dissenting Views of Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

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

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

The original investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Commerce’s original determinations and subsequent review determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Commerce’s final results of expedited five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

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

producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Related Commission investigations and reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

U.S. tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Domestic like product and domestic industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

The industry in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

Related party issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

U.S. imports and apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-20

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-20

Leading nonsubject sources of imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-24

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-25

Antidumping actions outside the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-29

The world market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-29

The subject industry in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-30

The subject industry in Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-32

Appendix

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

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

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

published and therefore has been identified by the use of ***.

i

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Review)

CHLORINATED ISOCYANURATES FROM CHINA AND SPAIN

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject five-year reviews, 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 orders on chlorinated isocyanurates

from China and Spain would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.2

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these reviews on May 3, 2010 (75 F.R. 23303) and determined on

August 6, 2010 that it would conduct expedited reviews (75 F.R. 51113, August 18, 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)).

 2

 Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson determines that revocation of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated

isocyanurates from Spain would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry

in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

1

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in these five-year reviews, we determine, under section 751(c) of the Tariff

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

isocyanurates (“chlorinated isos”) from China and Spain would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.1

I. BACKGROUND

On May 14, 2004, Clearon Corporation (“Clearon”) and Occidental Chemical Corporation

(“OxyChem”) filed petitions alleging that imports of chlorinated isos from China and Spain were being

sold at less than fair value in the U.S. market and that a domestic industry was injured. Clearon and

OxyChem are domestic integrated producers of chlorinated isos.2

 In June 2005, the Commission

unanimously determined that the U.S. industry producing chlorinated isos3

 was materially injured by

reason of subject imports from China and Spain.4

 On June 25, 2005, the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) issued antidumping duty orders on subject imports from China and Spain.5

The Commission gave notice that it had instituted the instant reviews on May 3, 2010.6 Clearon

and OxyChem jointly filed the sole response to the notice of institution.7

 On August 6, 2010, the

Commission determined that, for both of the reviews, the domestic interested party group response was

adequate and the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. In the absence of an

adequate respondent interested party group response or any other circumstances warranting full reviews,

the Commission determined to conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.8

On September 8, 2010, Clearon and OxyChem filed final comments pursuant to 19 C.F.R.

§ 207.62(d).9

 No respondent interested party has provided any information or arguments to the

Commission in these reviews. Accordingly, for our determinations, we rely as appropriate on the facts

 1 Commissioner Pearson finds that the revocation of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isos 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. He finds, however, that the revocation of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated

isos from Spain would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the

United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. Except as otherwise noted, he joins the discussion and analysis

in sections I, II, III, V.A., and V.B and provides the remainder of his analysis in separate and dissenting views. See

Separate and Dissenting Views of Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson.

 2

 Integrated producers manufacture chlorinated isos directly from raw materials (i.e., cyanuric acid, caustic soda,

and chlorine gas).

 3

 In the original investigations, all six Commissioners defined the domestic like product as all chlorinated isos,

coextensive with Commerce’s scope.

 4

 In the original investigations, all six Commissioners cumulatively assessed the volume and effect of the subject

imports.

 5

 Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China, 70 Fed.

Reg. 36561 (June 25, 2005); Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain: Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 70 Fed.

Reg. 36562 (June 25, 2005).

 6

 75 Fed. Reg. 23303 (May 3, 2010).

 7

 See Response of Clearon Corporation and Occidental Chemical Corporation to the Notice of Institution of a

Five-Year Sunset Review (June 2, 2010) (“Clearon and OxyChem Response to Notice of Institution”).

 8

 See, Explanation of Commission Determinations on Adequacy, reprinted in Chlorinated Isocyanurates from

China and Spain – Confidential Report (“CR”)/Public Report (“PR”) at App. B; 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3).

 9

 See Final Comments of Clearon Corporation and Occidental Chemical Corporation in Five-Year Sunset Review

(Sept. 8, 2010) (“Clearon and OxyChem Final Comments”).

3
available on the record, which consist of information collected in these five-year reviews (including

information submitted by domestic producers, purchaser responses, and publicly available information)

and information from the original investigations.

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

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

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”10 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.”11 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to examine 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.12

In its expedited review determinations, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as follows:

The products covered by the orders are chlorinated isocyanurates, which are derivatives

of cyanuric acid, described as chlorinated s-triazine triones. There are three primary

chemical compositions of chlorinated isos: (1) trichloroisocyanuric acid (Cl3(NCO)3),

(2) sodium dichloroisocyanurate (dihydrate) (NaCl2(NCO)3 (2H2O), and (3) sodium

dichloroisocyanurate (anhydrous) (NaCl2(NCO)3). Chlorinated isos are available in

powder, granular, and tableted forms. The orders cover all chlorinated isos.13

The scope definition used by Commerce in its expedited sunset review determinations is

unchanged from the original determinations. In the original investigations, the Commission found a

single domestic like product coextensive with the scope definition.

The record in these expedited reviews provides no basis to call into question the Commission’s

previous definition of the domestic like product. In their response to the notice of institution, Clearon and

OxyChem also concurred with the domestic like product definition adopted by the Commission in the

original investigations.14 Accordingly, we continue to define the domestic like product as chlorinated

isos coextensive with the scope definition.

 10 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 11 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).

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

USITC Pub. 3831 (Dec. 2005) at 8-9; Crawfish Tail Meat From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Review), USITC Pub.

3614 (Jul. 2003) at 4; Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Review), USITC Pub.

3577 (Feb. 2003) at 4.

 13 Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain and the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited

Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 75 Fed. Reg. 49464 (Aug. 13, 2010).

 14 Clearon and OxyChem Response to Notice of Institution at 26.

4
III. 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

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”15 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. 

At the time of the Commission’s original investigations, three domestic producers accounted for

all of U.S. integrated production of chlorinated isos from 2002 to 2004: Clearon, OxyChem, and BioLab,

Inc. (“BioLab”).16 In 2009, Clearon, OxyChem, and BioLab were still the only known domestic

integrated producers, accounting for an estimated *** percent, *** percent, and *** percent of U.S.

production, respectively.17 The parent company of BioLab reportedly is in bankruptcy proceedings.18

In the original investigations, the Commission considered whether tableters of chlorinated isos

engaged in sufficient production-related activities to qualify as domestic producers.19 After applying the

traditional six-factor analysis, the Commissioners were evenly divided with respect to the definition of the

domestic industry, with three Commissioners (Vice Chairman Okun and Commissioners Lane and

Pearson) finding that tableters did not engage in sufficient production-related activity to qualify as

domestic producers and three Commissioners (Chairman Koplan and Commissioners Miller and Hillman)

finding that they did.20 

In these reviews, none of the tableters responded to the Commission’s notice of institution. No

new evidence has been placed on the record of this proceeding with respect to whether tableters should be

included in the definition of the domestic industry.21 While the capital investment necessary for tableting

is not insubstantial, it is much less than that required for production of granular chlorinated isos and the

value added by the tableting and repackaging process reported by most producers during the original

 15 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.

 16 CR at I-20; PR at I-15. In 2004, Clearon accounted for *** percent of total reported U.S. production of

chlorinated isos, OxyChem accounted for *** percent and BioLab, a non-petitioning company, accounted for ***

percent of domestic production. CR/PR at Table I-7. The Commission also collected data in the original

investigations for six U.S. tableters (i.e., firms that purchase domestically produced and/or imported granular

chlorinated isos and form these into tablets). The tableters and their shares of tableting operations were as follows:

Alden Leeds (*** percent), Aqua Tri (*** percent), LPM (*** percent), N. Jonas & Co., Inc. (“N. Jonas”) (***

percent), Stellar Manufacturing Co. (“Stellar”) (*** percent), and Cadillac Chemical Corp. (“Cadillac”) (no

information available). CR at I-20; PR at I-15. 

 17 Clearon and OxyChem Response to Notice of Institution at 19-20; Clearon and OxyChem Response to Notice

of Institution at 24; CR/PR at Table I-7.

 18 Clearon and OxyChem Response to Notice of Institution at 9.

 19 Tableters are firms that purchase domestically produced and/or imported granular chlorinated isos and form

these into tablets. CR at I-20; PR at I-15.

 20 Chlorinated Isocyanurates from China and Spain, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Final), USITC Pub. 3782

(June 2005) (“USITC Pub. 3782”) at 10-14.

 21 Clearon and OxyChem requested that the Commission conduct expedited reviews, but also argued that the

Commission should revisit the issue of whether non-integrated producers of chlorinated isos (e.g., tableters) should

be included in the definition of the domestic industry and mistakenly contended that the definition of the domestic

industry would be “most appropriately addressed through the collection of relevant information in the Commission’s

questionnaires.” Clearon and OxyChem Response to Notice of Institution at 26. The Commission, however, issues

such questionnaires only during a full five-year review. 

5
investigations is in the range of *** percent to *** percent.22 Moreover, only a moderate degree of

technical expertise is necessary to conduct tableting and repackaging operations, which does not compare

with that required by the upstream process.23 In addition, producers of granular chlorinated isos

employed *** times as many personnel as tableters and tableters reported significant employment of

personnel that were not directly involved in tableting production, but instead were involved in support or

repackaging positions.24 Based on the record, the Commission finds in these reviews that the tableters do

not engage in sufficient production-related activity to qualify as domestic producers.25 26

In the original investigations, the Commission considered whether appropriate circumstances

existed to exclude any producer of the domestic like product from the domestic industry as a related

party.27 The domestic integrated producer BioLab imported a *** of subject merchandise during the

period examined and, thus, was a related party.28 The Commission concluded that BioLab’s interests

rested primarily in domestic production rather than importation and that it did not appear to have

substantially benefitted from its *** of subject imports (e.g., *** percent in 2004).29 Additionally, the

Commission found that BioLab’s financial performance was *** and, therefore, would not skew the

domestic industry data set.30 Therefore, the Commission determined that appropriate circumstances did

not exist to exclude BioLab from the domestic industry as a related party. BioLab was not identified as a

current U.S. importer of chlorinated isos31 and there is no new information on the record of these reviews

regarding the related party issue as it pertains to BioLab. Absent information identifying BioLab as a

related party, we do not treat it as such. Even if BioLab were a related party, the record does not contain

evidence indicating that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude BioLab from the domestic industry.32

 22 Confidential Views at 17-18, 20.

 23 Confidential Views at 18, 20.

 24 Confidential Views at 20.

 25 Commissioner Aranoff notes that the issue was close in the original determination and that no new factual

information is available in these expedited reviews. Given that the only two participating parties in these reviews

opposed the inclusion of tableters in the domestic industry, Commissioner Aranoff excludes the tableters for

purposes of these reviews. She would give full consideration to any new facts and arguments presented on this issue

in any future proceeding. 

 26 Commissioners Williamson and Pinkert find that tableters qualify as domestic producers. Their analysis is

based on information from the original investigations, as no new information regarding tableters is on the record in

these expedited reviews. They find that, although there is variability in the reported capital investment necessary for

tableting, the capital investment necessary for tableting generally is significant. They find that the value added by

tableting, which appears to be in the range of *** to *** percent, is significant. They find that a moderate level of

technical expertise is required for tableting due to the heavy machinery and hazardous materials involved and that

tableters employ a significant number of personnel in their tableting operations. Commissioners Williamson and

Pinkert therefore conclude that tableters engage in sufficient production-related activity to be included in the

domestic industry.

 27 USITC Pub. 3782 at 15.

 28 19 U.S.C. §1677(4)(B).

 29 Confidential Views at 24.

 30 Confidential Views at 24.

 31 Clearon and OxyChem Response to Notice of Institution at 20-21.

 32 Because Commissioners Williamson and Pinkert found that tableters engage in sufficient production-related

activity to qualify as domestic producers, they also consider whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude

tableters Alden Leeds, Aqua Tri, Cadillac, and N. Jonas from the domestic industry as related parties. These

companies were identified as importers of subject merchandise by Clearon and OxyChem in these reviews. Clearon

and OxyChem Response to Notice of Institution at 20-22. The Commission did not receive any new information

(continued...)

6
Accordingly, we define the domestic industry as all of the domestic integrated producers of

chlorinated isos, namely Clearon, OxyChem, and BioLab, and do not include those companies that only

tablet and repackage chlorinated isos in the domestic industry.

IV. CUMULATION

A. Original Investigations

In the original investigations, the Commission cumulated subject imports from China and Spain

for purposes of its affirmative material injury determinations because the petitions were filed on the same

day and because the Commission found a reasonable overlap of competition among subject imports from

the various sources and between subject imports and the domestic like product.33

B. Legal Standard

With respect to five-year reviews, section 752(a) of the Act provides as follows:

the Commission may cumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports of the subject

merchandise from all countries with respect to which reviews under section 1675(b) or

(c) of this title were initiated on the same day, if such imports would be likely to compete

with each other and with domestic like products in the United States market. The

Commission shall not cumulatively assess the volume and effects of imports of the

subject merchandise in a case in which it determines that such imports are likely to have

no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.34

Cumulation therefore is discretionary in five-year reviews, unlike original investigations, which

are governed by section 771(7)(G)(I) of the Act.35 The Commission may exercise its discretion to

cumulate, however, only if the reviews are initiated on the same day, the Commission determines that the

subject imports are likely to compete with each other and the domestic like product in the U.S. market,

and imports from each such subject country are not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the

 32 (...continued)

from the tableters in these reviews, and there is no new information on the record. Based on the very limited

information on the record about the two importing companies (Alden Leeds and Cadillac), and considering their

prior low levels of importation, they find no basis for excluding them from the domestic industry. With respect to

the companies that did not ***, based on the very limited information on the record regarding whether these

companies exercised control over the importers, they find no basis for excluding them from the domestic industry. 

Clearon and OxyChem also identified Haviland as a U.S. importer of subject merchandise. Clearon and OxyChem

Response to Notice of Institution at 20-22; CR at I-26; PR at I-19. In the original investigations, Haviland did not

submit a producer questionnaire, but it is unclear whether the company may have tableting facilities in the United

States. See Orig. Investigations CR/PR at Table III-1, n.5. Because the Commission has no information regarding

Haviland, Commissioners Williamson and Pinkert find no basis for excluding it from the domestic industry.

 33 USITC Pub. 3782 at 20.

 34 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 35 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i); see also, e.g., Nucor Corp. v. United States, 601 F.3d 1291, 1293, App. No. 2009-

1234, Slip Op. at 7-8 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2010) (Commission may reasonably consider likely differing conditions of

competition in deciding whether to cumulate subject imports in five-year reviews); Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v.

United States, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1370, 1378 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (recognizing the wide latitude the Commission has

in selecting the types of factors it considers relevant in deciding whether to exercise discretion to cumulate subject

imports in five-year reviews); Nucor Corp. v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1337-38 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008).

7
domestic industry in the event of revocation. Our focus in five-year reviews is not only on present

conditions of competition, but also on likely conditions of competition in the reasonably foreseeable

future.

The statutory threshold for cumulation is satisfied in these reviews, because the reviews were

initiated on the same day: May 3, 2010.36 We consider three issues in deciding whether to exercise our

discretion to cumulate the subject imports: (1) whether imports from any of the subject countries are

precluded from cumulation because they are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic

industry; (2) whether there is a likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition among imports of

chlorinated isos from the subject countries and the domestic like product; and (3) other considerations,

such as whether there are similarities and differences in the likely conditions of competition under which

subject imports are likely to compete in the U.S. market.37 38 Clearon and OxyChem argue that the

Commission should cumulate imports from China and Spain in these reviews.39

C. No Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact

The statute precludes cumulation if the Commission finds that subject imports from a country are

likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.40 Neither the statute nor the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) provides

specific guidance on what factors the Commission is to consider in determining that imports “are likely to

have no discernible adverse impact” on the domestic industry.41 With respect to this provision, the

Commission generally considers the likely volume of subject imports and the likely impact of those

imports on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time if the orders are revoked.

Based on the record, we do not find that subject imports from either China or Spain are likely to

have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation of the antidumping

 36 See 75 Fed. Reg. 23303 (May 3, 2010).

 37 Chairman Okun notes that while she considers the same issues discussed in this section in determining whether

to exercise her discretion to cumulate the subject imports, her analytical framework begins with whether imports

from the subject countries are likely to face similar conditions of competition. For those subject imports which are

likely to compete under similar conditions of competition, she next proceeds to consider whether there is a likelihood

of a reasonable overlap of competition whereby those imports are likely to compete with each other and with the

domestic like product. Finally, if based on that analysis she intends to exercise her discretion to cumulate one or

more subject countries, she analyzes whether she is precluded from cumulating such imports because the imports

from one or more subject countries, assessed individually, are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the

domestic industry. See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova,

Poland, and Ukraine, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-873 to 875, 877 to 880, and 882 (Review), USITC Pub. 3933 (Jul. 2007)

(Separate and Dissenting Views of Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun Regarding

Cumulation). Accord Nucor Corp. v. United States, 605 F. Supp.2d 1361, 1372 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009); Nucor Corp.

v. United States, 594 F. Supp.2d 1320, 1345-47 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008), aff’d, Slip Op. 2009-1234 (Fed Cir. Apr. 7,

2010).

 38 As explained below, Commissioners Lane and Pinkert apply a different analytical framework in determining

whether other considerations justify declining to exercise their discretion to cumulate the subject imports.

 39 Clearon and OxyChem Response to Notice of Institution at 5-7; Clearon and OxyChem Final Comments at 2-3. 

Clearon and OxyChem assert that the facts underlying the Commission’s decision in the original investigations

remain the same such that the statutory requirements for cumulation are satisfied and therefore urge the Commission

to exercise its discretion and determine that it is appropriate to cumulate subject imports from China and Spain in

these reviews. Clearon and OxyChem Response to Notice of Institution at 7; Clearon and OxyChem Final

Comments at 3.

 40 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 41 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I at 887 (1994).

8
duty orders. Our analysis for subject imports from each country takes into account the nature of the

product and the behavior of subject imports in the original investigations. In the original investigations,

the Commission found that subject imports and the domestic like product were fungible.42 The record in

these reviews also indicates that imports of subject chlorinated isos from China and Spain into the U.S.

market continued throughout the review period,43 despite the existence of the antidumping duty orders.

China. In the original investigations, the Commission found (based on importer questionnaire

responses) that the volume of subject imports of all chlorinated isos from China increased from *** short

tons in 2002, to *** short tons in 2003 and *** short tons in 2004.44 According to official U.S. import

statistics, U.S. imports of chlorinated isos from China were 45 short tons in 2005, 6,713 short tons in

2006, 6,425 short tons in 2007, 5,373 short tons in 2008, and 10,797 short tons in 2009.45 These imports’

share of apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent in 2002, *** percent in 2003, and *** percent in

2004.46 In 2009, their share was *** percent.47 The record in the original investigations demonstrated

that Chinese producers of granular chlorinated isos and tableted chlorinated isos produced and exported

substantial volumes of granular and tableted chlorinated isos to the United States during the period

examined.48 

 42 USITC Pub. 3782 at 19-20.

 43 CR/PR at Table I-9.

 44 USITC Pub. 3782 at Table IV-2.

 45 CR/PR at Table I-9. Although quantity data from PIERS submitted by domestic interested parties indicates that

the official U.S. import statistics for the single HTS statistical reporting number that is not a basket category (i.e., the

“clean” reporting number) may be understated, see CR at I-28; PR at I-20-I-21, our findings place primary emphasis

on data reported in the official U.S. import statistics, as such data constitute a consistent statistical series. We are

mindful in our analysis, however, that additional volumes of chlorinated isos may enter the United States under

separate, mixed use statistical reporting numbers and might be reflected in reporting by PIERS. 

 46 CR/PR at Table I-11; Orig. Investigations CR/PR at Table C-1 (revised).

 47 CR at I-34; PR at I-25; CR/PR at Table I-11. Because BioLab, which accounted for an estimated *** percent

of total 2009 U.S. production, did not provide data in these reviews, this figure is overstated. CR at I-23 and I-34,

PR at I-17 and I-26. We make our finding, however, based on the data that is available on the record.

 48 The Commission sent questionnaires to 22 known Chinese producers; it received questionnaire responses from

Changzhou Clean Chemical Co., Ltd.; Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co., Ltd.; Nanning Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.; and

Sinochem Hebei Import and Export Corp. Orig. Investigations CR at VII-1. For all granular chlorinated isos, total

reported Chinese capacity was *** short tons in 2002, *** short tons in 2003, and *** short tons in 2004; the

reported capacity utilization rate was *** percent in 2002, *** percent in 2003, and *** percent in 2004. CR/PR at

Table I-14; Orig. Investigations CR/PR at Table VII-1 (revised). For all Chinese tableted chlorinated isos, total

reported capacity was *** short tons in 2002, 2003, and 2004; the reported capacity utilization rate was *** percent

in 2002, *** percent in 2003, and *** percent in 2004. CR/PR at Table I-15; Orig. Investigations CR/PR at Table

VII-2 (revised). Total reported production of all Chinese granular chlorinated isos was *** short tons in 2002, ***

short tons in 2003, and *** short tons in 2004. CR/PR at Table I-14; Orig. Investigations CR/PR at Table VII-1. 

Total reported production of all Chinese tableted chlorinated isos was *** short tons in 2002, *** short tons in 2003,

and *** short tons in 2004. CR/PR at Table I-15; Orig. Investigations CR/PR at Table VII-2 (revised). Reported

exports of granulated chlorinated isos from China to the United States increased from *** short tons in 2002 to ***

short tons in 2003 before decreasing somewhat to *** short tons in 2004. CR/PR at Table I-14. Reported exports of

tableted chlorinated isos from China to the United States increased from *** short tons in 2002 to *** short tons in

2003 and *** short tons in 2004. CR/PR at Table I-15; Orig. Investigations CR/PR at Table VII-2.

9
The Commission found in the original investigations that price was an important factor in

purchasing decisions.49 Price comparisons showed a prevalence of underselling of the domestic product

by subject imports from China.50

Although the record in these expedited reviews contains very limited current information about

the Chinese industry, that information does not indicate that subject imports from China would likely

have no discernible adverse impact.51 Therefore, in light of the quantities of subject imports from China

during the original investigations, the volume of subject imports from China during the period of review,

the export orientation of the Chinese industry, the significant Chinese production capacity and excess

capacity, the substitutability of subject imports and the domestic like product, the importance of price in

purchasing decisions, and the underselling by subject imports from China during the original

investigations, we do not find that subject imports from China would likely have no discernible adverse

impact on the domestic industry if the orders were revoked.

Spain. In the original investigations, the volume of subject imports of all chlorinated isos from

Spain increased overall during the period examined, increasing from *** short tons in 2002 to *** short

tons in 2003, before declining to *** short tons in 2004.52 According to official U.S. import statistics,

U.S. imports of chlorinated isos from Spain were 1,152 short tons in 2005, 2,050 short tons in 2006,

1,146 short tons in 2007, 4,627 short tons in 2008, and 2,149 short tons in 2009.53 The share of apparent

U.S. consumption accounted for by subject imports from Spain increased from *** percent in 2002 to ***

percent in 2003, before decreasing to *** percent in 2004.54 In 2009, U.S. imports from Spain held a ***

percent share of apparent U.S. consumption.55 

In the original investigations, there were two known Spanish producers of chlorinated isos.56 The

Commission received a questionnaire response from the only company in Spain that exported to the

United States, Aragonesas Delsa S.A. (“Aragonesas”).57 Although the record in the original

investigations demonstrated that Aragonesas was operating at a relatively *** level of capacity utilization

during the period examined, the record also shows that it produced and exported significant volumes of

granular chlorinated isos to the United States during this period.58 

 49 Orig. Investigations CR at II-13.

 50 Orig. Investigations CR at V-10 and Tables V-1 to V-7; USITC Pub. 3782 at 27. The Commission collected

pricing data (sales price data and purchaser price data) on three granular products and three tableted products. Orig.

Investigations CR at V-8 to V-9; USITC Pub. 3782 at 26.

 51 Information from *** indicated that there are at least 22 producers of chlorinated isos in China. CR at I-41; PR

at I-30.

 52 Orig. Investigations CR/PR at Table IV-2.

 53 CR/PR at Table I-9. As noted above, we place primary emphasis on official U.S. import statistics. 

 54 Orig. Investigations CR/PR at Table C-1.

 55 CR at I-34; PR at I-25-I-26; CR/PR at Table I-11. As noted above, because of the lack of data for BioLab, the

2009 market share is overstated. CR at I-23 and I-34; PR at I-17 and I-26. 

 56 Orig. Investigations CR at VII-10. 

 57 Orig. Investigations CR at VII-10. 

 58 Aragonesas’ capacity for all granular chlorinated isos was *** short tons in 2002, *** short tons in 2003, and

*** short tons in 2004, and its capacity utilization rate was *** percent in 2002, *** percent in 2003, and ***

percent in 2004. CR/PR at Table I-17; Orig. Investigations CR/PR at Table VII-3 (revised). Aragonesas has ***

during the period examined. CR/PR at Table I-18, n.2; Orig. Investigations CR/PR at Table VII-4, n.2. Aragonesas’

production of all granular chlorinated isos was *** short tons in 2002, *** short tons in 2003, and *** short tons in

2004. CR/PR at Table I-17; Orig. Investigations CR/PR at Table VII-3. Reported exports of granular chlorinated

(continued...)

10
In the original investigations, the Commission found that price was an important factor in

purchasing decisions.59 Price comparisons showed mostly underselling of domestic like product by

subject imports from Spain.

Although the record in these expedited reviews contains very limited current information about

the industry in Spain, it contains no information indicating that subject imports from Spain would likely

have no discernible adverse impact.60 Therefore, in light of the appreciable quantities of subject imports

from Spain during the original investigations, the volume of subject imports from Spain during the period

of review, the export orientation of the Spanish industry, the substitutability of subject imports and the

domestic like product, the importance of price in purchasing decisions, and evidence of underselling by

subject imports from Spain during the original investigations, we do not find that subject imports from

Spain would likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the orders were

revoked.

D. Likelihood of a Reasonable Overlap of Competition

The Commission generally has considered four factors intended to provide a framework for

determining whether the imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.61 Only a

“reasonable overlap” of competition is required.62 In five-year reviews, the relevant inquiry is whether

there likely would be competition even if none currently exists because the subject imports are absent

from the U.S. market.63 We observe that the record of these expedited reviews contains very little new

information about either the subject industries or the characteristics of the subject imports that have been

present in the U.S. market since the period examined in the original investigations. Consequently, most

of the information available is from the original investigations.

 58 (...continued)

isos from Spain to the United States were *** short tons in 2002, *** short tons in 2003, and *** short tons in 2004. 

CR/PR at Table I-17; Orig. Investigations CR/PR at Table VII-4. Reported exports of tableted chlorinated isos from

Spain to the United States were *** short tons in 2002, *** short tons in 2003, and *** short tons in 2004. CR/PR

at Table I-17; Orig. Investigations CR/PR at Table VII-4.

 59 Orig. Investigations CR at II-13.

 60 Information from *** indicates that the two Spanish producers export *** of their production. CR at I-47; PR

at I-32.

 61 The four factors generally considered by the Commission in assessing whether imports compete with each

other and with the domestic like product are as follows: (1) the degree of fungibility between the imports from

different countries and between imports and the domestic like product, including consideration of specific customer

requirements and other quality related questions; (2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographical

markets of imports from different countries and the domestic like product; (3) the existence of common or similar

channels of distribution for imports from different countries and the domestic like product; and (4) whether the

imports are simultaneously present in the market. See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50

(Ct. Int’l Trade 1989).

 62 See Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 916 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Wieland Werke, 718 F. Supp.

at 52 (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”); United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 

673, 685 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We note, however, that there have been

investigations where the Commission has found an insufficient overlap in competition and has declined to cumulate

subject imports. See, e.g., Live Cattle From Canada and Mexico, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-386 and 731-TA-812 to 813

(Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3155 (Feb. 1999) at 15, aff’d sub nom, Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Foundation v.

United States, 74 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1999); Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the

Republic of Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-761 to 762 (Final), USITC Pub. 3098 (Apr. 1998) at 13-15.

 63 See generally Chefline Corp. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1314 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002).

11
Fungibility.

64 In the original investigations, the Commission found that a majority of producers,

importers, and purchasers reported that chlorinated isos from the United States, China, and Spain were

always or frequently interchangeable, although some importers and purchasers reported that subject

imports from China were of a lower quality.65

Geographic Overlap. In the original investigations, the Commission found that domestic

integrated producers, several tableters, and several large importers reported that they sold their products to

national markets.66

Channels of Distribution. In the original investigations, the Commission found that, although

there were some differences, the channels of distribution between subject imports from China, subject

imports from Spain, and the domestic product overlapped.67

Simultaneous Presence in Market. In the original investigations, the Commission found that

subject imports from China and Spain and the domestic product were simultaneously present in the U.S.

market throughout the period examined.68

Conclusion. The record in these expedited reviews does not contain any new information

concerning likely reasonable overlap of competition that would contradict the Commission’s findings in

the original investigations or that suggests that circumstances in the U.S. market have changed.69

Therefore, we find that the determinations made by the Commission in the original investigations

concerning fungibility, geographic overlap, channels of distribution, and simultaneous presence in the

market are also applicable in these five-year reviews. Consequently, we find a likely reasonable overlap

of competition among the domestic like product and imports from China and Spain, and between subject

imports from China and Spain.

 64 Commissioner Lane notes that, with respect to fungibility, her analysis does not require such similarity of

products that a perfectly symmetrical fungibility is required and that this factor would be better described as an

analysis of whether subject imports from each country and the domestic like product could be substituted for each

other. See Separate Views of Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane, Certain Lightweight Thermal Paper from China,

Germany, and Korea, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-451 and 731-TA-1126-1128 (Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3964 (Nov. 2007) at 32-

33.

 65 USITC Pub. 3782 at 19-20.

 66 USITC Pub. 3782 at 20.

 67 USITC Pub. 3782 at 20.

 68 USITC Pub. 3782 at 20.

 69 See, e.g., CR at I-27; PR at I-20.

12
E. Other Considerations70

In determining whether to exercise our discretion to cumulate the subject imports, we assess

whether the subject imports from each group of subject countries for which we have found there is a

likely reasonable overlap of competition are likely to compete under similar or different conditions in the

U.S. market in the event of revocation.71 The record in these expedited reviews contains very little

current information about the industries in China and Spain. Based on the available information,

however, we find that subject imports from both China and Spain remained in the U.S. market during the

period of review even after the imposition of the orders, both China and Spain have significant capacity to

produce chlorinated isos, and the chlorinated isos industries in both China and Spain are export-oriented. 

Therefore, we find that, although there are some distinctions, there are sufficient similarities in the

volume, price, and capacity to produce subject merchandise in China and Spain such that we find no

significant differences in likely conditions of competition among imports from these countries in the U.S.

market.

Accordingly, we have decided to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from China

and Spain in these reviews.

V. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS ARE REVOKED72

A. Legal Standards

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.”73 The SAA states that “under the likelihood

standard, the Commission will engage in a counterfactual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the

 70 Commissioners Lane and Pinkert explain their analysis of other considerations as follows. Where, in a fiveyear review, they do not find that the subject imports would be likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the

domestic industry if the orders were revoked, and find that such imports would be likely to compete with each other

and with the domestic like product in the U.S. market, they cumulate such imports unless there is a condition or

propensity – not merely a trend – that is likely to persist for a reasonably foreseeable time and that significantly

limits competition such that cumulation is not warranted. They note, as is pointed out in the text, the paucity of

record information about the industries in China and Spain. Consequently, they find that there is no condition or

propensity warranting non-cumulation with respect to subject imports from China and Spain, and they have

cumulated them in these reviews.

 71 See, e.g., Nucor Corp. v. United States, 601 F.3d 1291, 1293, App. No. 2009-1234, Slip Op. at 7-8 (Fed. Cir.

Apr. 7, 2010) (Commission may reasonably consider likely differing conditions of competition in deciding whether

to cumulate subject imports in five-year reviews); Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 475 F. Supp. 2d at 1378 (recognizing

the wide latitude the Commission has in selecting the type of factors it considers relevant in deciding whether to

exercise discretion to cumulate subject imports in five-year reviews); Nucor Corp., 569 F. Supp. 2d at 1337-38.

 72 Commissioners Williamson and Pinkert note that, in contrast to the majority, they have included tableters in the

domestic industry in addition to the integrated producers. However, few tableters provided usable financial and

employment data in the original investigations, and none provided any data for these reviews. Thus, the data and

trends for the two differently defined domestic industries do not vary to any significant degree. As the conclusions

they draw from the record are therefore the same as the majority’s, Commissioners Williamson and Pinkert join the

remainder of these views.

 73 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

13
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.”74 Thus, the

likelihood standard is prospective in nature.75 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.76 77 78

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.”79 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.”80

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.”81 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.

 74 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.

 75 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 77 For a complete statement of Chairman 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).

 78 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy, Inv.

No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004), she does not concur with the U.S. Court of

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

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

addresses this issue.

 79 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 80 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.

 81 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

14
§ 1675(a)(4).82 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.83

No respondent interested parties participated in these expedited reviews. The record, therefore,

contains limited new information based on published sources with respect to the chlorinated isos

industries in China and Spain during the period of review and similarly limited information on the U.S.

chlorinated isos market during the period of review. Accordingly, for our determinations, we rely as

appropriate on the facts available from the original investigations and the limited new information on the

record in these reviews.84 85

B. Conditions of Competition and Business Cycle

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

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

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”86 We find the following conditions

of competition relevant to our determinations.

1. Demand 

The Commission found in the original investigations that demand, as measured by the volume of

apparent U.S. consumption, increased in every year of the period examined, from 125,166 short tons in

2002 to 127,912 short tons in 2003 and 148,251 short tons in 2004.87 The Commission found that most of

the demand for chlorinated isos was generated by pool sanitization and that demand for chlorinated isos

 82 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). There have been no duty absorption findings on the subject merchandise covered by

the orders. CR at I-5; PR at I-4.

 83 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily

dispositive. SAA at 886.

 84 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a

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

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

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

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

Commerce. 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i). See Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 2001) (“[T]he ITC correctly responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification

procedures for the evidence before it, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of a

Commission investigation.”).

 85 Chairman 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

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.

 86 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 87 USITC Pub. 3782 at 21.

15
was seasonal, peaking in the spring and summer months.88 The Commission noted that the U.S. market

for chlorinated isos was the largest market in the world and that, while U.S. demand generally tracked

overall economic activity, market participants reported that it was dependent on new home construction,

installation of new pools, and weather conditions.89

The quantity of apparent U.S. consumption in 2009 (*** short tons) was lower than at any time

during the original investigations, but was higher in terms of value when compared to 2004.90 Clearon

and OxyChem report that there was slow growth in demand in the U.S. market due to the decline in the

U.S. housing market and the weak economy, which resulted in slow growth in the number of new

swimming pools.91

2. Supply

In the original investigations, the Commission found that the U.S. market was supplied by three

large, integrated domestic producers, several tableters, distributors, importers, and a variety of retailers.92

The Commission noted that market participants often had dual roles and overlapping customers. The

Commission also noted that the three large, integrated U.S. producers (Clearon, OxyChem, and BioLab)

manufactured granular chlorinated isos and subsequently tableted the product or contracted to have it

tableted. The Commission found that tableters tableted and packaged granular chlorinated isos and sold

them to distributors and retailers, and that tableters sold to large and small specialty retail stores, as well

as mass merchandisers.93 It also found that the domestic integrated producers had some of the same

distributor, retail, and mass market customers as the tableters, thereby competing downstream with

companies that they supplied with granular product.94 The Commission noted that several tableters relied

primarily on subject merchandise for their raw materials, although some of them also bought nonsubject

imports or domestically-produced chlorinated isos.95 

The Commission found that changes in the application of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) to chlorinated isos were another important condition of competition that

affected the supply of chlorinated isos in the U.S. market.96 Specifically, the Commission noted that

FIFRA required in-depth studies to determine the environmental safety of the product and that any firm

that wished to obtain a license to sell chlorinated isos in the United States had to file an application with

the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). Because performing these studies individually was timeconsuming and costly, individual producers were permitted to rely on studies that had been done in 1986

by an Ad Hoc Committee comprised of the three domestic integrated producers, several nonsubject

suppliers of chlorinated isos to the U.S. market, and Spanish producer Aragonesas. The Ad Hoc

Committee charged a $400,000 fee to non-member applicants for the use of the studies. In 2001, the

fifteen-year time period during which the Ad Hoc Committee could charge this fee expired; thus, starting

in 2001, importers of subject imports could use the research to obtain U.S. licenses without paying the

 88 USITC Pub. 3782 at 22.

 89 USITC Pub. 3782 at 22.

 90 CR at I-34; PR at I-26; CR/PR at Table I-11. We note that with the inclusion of estimated data for BioLab, as

well as imports identified by PIERS, the level of apparent U.S. consumption, specifically *** short tons in 2009, still

was lower than any year in the original investigations. CR at I-34; PR at I-26.

 91 Clearon and OxyChem Response to Notice of Institution at 25.

 92 USITC Pub. 3782 at 22.

 93 USITC Pub. 3782 at 23.

 94 USITC Pub. 3782 at 22-23.

 95 USITC Pub. 3782 at 23.

 96 USITC Pub. 3782 at 23.

16
fee.97 The changes made it significantly less costly for U.S. importers to obtain the required EPA

registration and easier for importers to sell subject imports of chlorinated isos in the United States.98

Clearon and OxyChem assert that, since the original investigations, there has been an increase in

import supply from China and nonsubject countries such as Japan and Vietnam.99 Other information in

the record confirms that there have been increasing imports of chlorinated isocyanurates from Japan and

Vietnam, particularly in 2008 and 2009.100

3. Other Conditions 

In the original investigations, the Commission noted that a majority of producers, importers, and

purchasers reported that chlorinated isos from the United States, China, and Spain were always or

frequently interchangeable and that the majority of purchasers reported that the quality of the domestic

like product and the subject imports were comparable with respect to meeting minimum quality

standards.101 The Commission also noted that purchasers reported that price is second only by a small

margin to quality as a factor in purchasing chlorinated isos and that prices often are affected by current

market conditions, even if the chlorinated isos are sold by contract.102

Nothing on the record of these expedited reviews indicates that the Commission should

reconsider its finding regarding substitutability or that the importance of price in purchasing decisions has

declined since the time of the original investigations.

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

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

under review were 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.103 In doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four

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

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

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

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

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

products.104

In the original investigations, the Commission found that cumulated subject imports increased

from *** short tons in 2002 to *** short tons in 2003 and *** short tons in 2004.105 The Commission

found that the increase in the absolute volume of subject imports over the period examined was

 97 USITC Pub. 3782 at 23-24.

 98 USITC Pub. 3782 at 23-24.

 99 Clearon and OxyChem Response to Notice of Institution at 25. 

 100 CR/PR at Table I-9.

 101 USITC Pub. 3782 at 24. The Commission noted, however, that several purchasers and importers reported that

the domestic product was superior to subject imports from China in exceeding industry quality standards. USITC

Pub. 3782 at 24.

 102 USITC Pub. 3782 at 24.

 103 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 104 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A)-(D).

 105 Confidential Views at 36.

17
significant, noting that nonsubject import volume increased by only approximately *** short tons

overall.106

The Commission found that the increase in the volume of subject imports relative to consumption

was significant, noting that subject import market share increased dramatically between 2002 and 2004,

with the largest increase occurring in 2003. U.S. shipments of cumulated subject imports from China and

Spain accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2002, *** percent in 2003, and ***

percent in 2004.107 The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption fell from *** percent in

2002 to *** percent in 2003 and fell further in 2004 to *** percent.108 The Commission noted that the

share of the U.S. market supplied by domestic producers declined steadily and significantly by ***

percentage points from 2002 to 2004, while the share supplied by subject imports increased by ***

percentage points and the share held by nonsubject imports increased by *** percentage points.109 The

Commission also found that the increase in subject import volume was significant relative to production,

with the ratio of subject imports to domestic production increasing from *** percent in 2002 to ***

percent in 2003 and *** percent in 2004.110

The Commission found that the significant increase in subject import volume prevented the

domestic industry from benefitting from the large increase in apparent U.S. consumption over the period

examined, particularly in 2004 when apparent U.S. consumption increased by 15.9 percent, but the

domestic industry increased production only by 2.3 percent.111

The Commission concluded that the volume of subject imports thus increased substantially over

the period examined, both in absolute terms and relative to consumption and production in the United

States, and subject imports prevented U.S. producers from benefitting from increases in demand measured

by apparent U.S. consumption. Accordingly, the Commission found the volume of subject imports, and

the increase in that volume, to be significant.

No respondent interested parties participated in these expedited reviews. The record, therefore,

contains no new information with respect to capacity and production of chlorinated isos in China and

Spain during the period of review. Data received in the original investigations demonstrate that the

combined industries in China and Spain have the capacity to produce and did produce significant volumes

of chlorinated isos.112 There is no evidence that the sizes of the foreign industries have declined since the

original investigations. 

 106 Confidential Views at 37.

 107 CR/PR at Table I-11.

 108 CR/PR at Table I-11.

 109 Confidential Views at 35. U.S. producers’ trade data in the original investigations consisted of data on

granular chlorinated isos provided by Clearon, OxyChem, and BioLab. See Orig. Investigations CR/PR at Table C-1

(revised).

 110 Confidential Views at 37.

 111 Confidential Views at 37-38.

 112 For granular chlorinated isos, the combined capacity of China and Spain was *** short tons in 2002, *** short

tons in 2003, and *** short tons in 2004; combined production was *** short tons in 2002, *** short tons in 2003,

and *** short tons in 2004; and the combined capacity utilization rate was *** percent in 2002, *** percent in 2003,

and *** percent in 2004. Orig. Investigations CR/PR at Table VII-5 (revised). For tableted chlorinated isos, the

combined capacity of China and Spain was *** short tons in 2002, *** short tons in 2003, and *** short tons in

2004; combined production was *** short tons in 2002, *** short tons in 2003, and *** short tons in 2004; and the

combined capacity utilization rate was *** percent in 2002, *** percent in 2003, and *** percent in 2004. Orig.

Investigations CR/PR at Table VII-6 (revised). As noted above, the data for China were from only four producers

(out of a likely total of 22 or more) and data from Spain were from Aragonesas, one of two producers. Aragonesas

has *** during the period examined. CR/PR at Table I-18, n.2; Orig. Investigations CR/PR at Table VII-4, n.2.

18
As noted above, the record in the original investigations also demonstrated that subject producers

in China and Spain were export-oriented and exported large volumes of chlorinated isos to the United

States.113

The record in these reviews also indicates that cumulated subject imports were present in the U.S.

market throughout the review period, and increased overall from 2005 to 2009 despite the discipline of

the orders.114 According to official U.S. import statistics, cumulated subject imports increased overall

from 1,197 short tons in 2005 to 12,947 short tons in 2009.115 Moreover, as noted above, the market

share of U.S. shipments of imports from China and Spain was *** percent in 2009, a level that is *** the

market share of cumulated subject imports from China and Spain in 2004 (*** percent).116 Thus, subject

imports were substantial and increasing both before the imposition of the orders and in recent years,

supporting the conclusion that the volume of subject imports will increase in the imminent future if the

orders were revoked.117

Based on the evidence from the original investigations regarding volume and market share of

subject imports, substantial production capacity in China and Spain, the export orientation of the

industries in China and Spain, as well as the continued presence and recent increase in the volume of

imports from China and Spain in the U.S. market after imposition of the orders, we find that subject

producers have the ability and the incentive to increase their exports to the United States significantly if

the orders were revoked. Therefore, we find that the likely volume of subject imports, both in absolute

terms and relative to production and consumption in the United States, would likely be significant within

the reasonably foreseeable future if the order were revoked.

D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the antidumping duty orders under

review were 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.118

In the original investigations, the Commission began its analysis of pricing by noting that subject

imports and the domestic like product generally were highly interchangeable, price was a very important

factor in purchasing decisions, and prices for chlorinated isos responded quickly to changes in market

 113 Exports to the United States of granular chlorinated isos on a cumulated basis from China and Spain were ***

percent of total shipments in 2002, *** percent in 2003, and *** percent in 2004. Orig. Investigations CR/PR at

Table VII-5 (revised).

 114 CR/PR at Table I-9.

 115 CR/PR at Table I-9. See also CR at I-28; PR at I-20-I-21, showing a substantial increase in imports according

to PIERS.

 116 CR/PR at Table I-11. See also CR at I-34-I-35; PR at I-25-I-26 (data based on maximum volumes indicate a

similar subject import market share of *** percent). In 2009, the domestic integrated producers’ share of apparent

U.S. consumption was *** percent. CR/PR at Table I-11.

 117 We also note that Spanish producers appear to face significant competition from Chinese producers in Spain’s

traditional export markets in Europe. See Clearon and OxyChem Response to Notice of Institution at 12; Clearon

and OxyChem Final Comments at 5-6. ***.

 118 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.

19
conditions.119 The Commission found that, in the aggregate, pricing data showed underselling in

77.7 percent of the available comparisons.120 The Commission also noted that confirmed lost sales and

lost revenues allegations, as well as purchaser questionnaire responses, indicated that subject imports

from China were lower-priced than the domestic like product.121 The Commission concluded that the

underselling by subject imports was significant, particularly in light of the large influx of subject import

volumes beginning in 2003 and the high degree of interchangeability between subject imports and the

domestic like product.122

The Commission, relying on declining reported weighted-average sales prices and purchaser

prices, also found that the increasing volume of subject imports at prices that consistently undersold the

domestic like product depressed domestic prices to a significant degree.123 Moreover, the Commission

also found evidence that subject imports suppressed domestic prices over the period examined to a

significant degree.124 The Commission found that the domestic industry experienced a cost/price squeeze

as downward pressure on prices exerted by increasing volumes of lower-priced subject imports prevented

domestic producers from raising prices as demand and raw material costs increased.125

There is no new product-specific pricing information on the record of these expedited reviews. 

As explained above, Chinese and Spanish producers likely would increase their exports to the United

States significantly in the reasonably foreseeable future if the orders were revoked. Moreover, the

Commission found in the original investigations that price was an important consideration in purchasing

decisions, and there is no evidence on the record indicating that price will not continue to be an important

factor for purchasers. Consequently, we find that subject imports would be likely to undersell the

domestic like product in order to gain market share as they successfully did during the period examined in

the original investigations. Therefore, we conclude that, if the orders were revoked, subject imports from

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

product, and that those imports are likely to enter the United States at prices that would have a depressing

and/or suppressing effect on prices for the domestic like product.

 119 USITC Pub. 3782 at 26.

 120 USITC Pub. 3782 at 27.

 121 USITC Pub. 3782 at 28.

 122 USITC Pub. 3782 at 31. In the original investigations, the Commissioners that excluded tableters from the

domestic industry analyzed the underselling data of the domestic like product produced by the domestic integrated

producers and found that the data were not materially different from the underselling data that included the data

provided by tableters. USITC Pub. 3782 at 27, n.221.

 123 USITC Pub. 3782 at 28-29.

 124 USITC Pub. 3782 at 29.

 125 USITC Pub. 3782 at 30.

20
E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports126

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

under review were 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.127 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.128 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 orders at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to

material injury if the orders were revoked.

In the original investigations, the Commission found that, despite a substantial increase in

demand during the period examined, the domestic industry’s production was relatively level, the domestic

industry’s capacity increased slightly, and the domestic industry’s capacity utilization rate fell slightly.129

Specifically, during the original investigations, the U.S. integrated producers’ capacity utilization rate was

81.2 percent in 2002, 78.5 percent in 2003, and 79.9 percent in 2004.130 

The Commission found that the domestic industry’s share of the U.S. market fell steadily from

2002 to 2004 and that most of the loss was to subject imports.131 The domestic industry’s end-of-periodinventories increased from 2002 to 2003, before falling below 2002 levels in 2004.132

 126 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; see also 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 its expedited sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders, Commerce concluded that revocation of the

antidumping duty orders on chlorinated isos from China and Spain would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of

dumping at margins determined in its original determinations. With respect to the antidumping duty order on subject

imports from China, Commerce found likely margins of 75.78 percent for Jiheng, 285.63 percent for Nanning,

137.69 percent for the section A respondents, and 285.63 percent for all companies that did not receive a “firmspecific” rate. CR/PR at Table I-1. With respect to the antidumping duty order on subject imports from Spain,

Commerce found a dumping margin of 24.83 percent for Aragonesas and a country-wide rate of 24.83 percent for all

firms that did not receive a “firm-specific” rate. CR/PR at Table I-2

 127 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 128 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 129 USITC Pub. 3782 at 32.

 130 USITC Pub. 3782 at 32, n.253.

 131 USITC Pub. 3782 at 32.

 132 USITC Pub. 3782 at 32.

21
The Commission found that most of the domestic industry’s employment indicators deteriorated,

citing to the decrease in the average number of production-related workers and the hours worked.133 The

Commission noted that hourly wages increased irregularly over the period examined, while productivity

per short ton increased and unit labor costs decreased.134

The Commission found that the domestic industry lost revenue as its prices and sales values

declined, even though production and shipments measured in quantity were relatively stable and demand

increased.135 Although the quantity of net sales increased by *** percent from 2002 to 2004, the value of

net sales declined by *** percent.136 Domestic producer shipments increased by quantity, but fell by

value as costs increased and unit raw materials costs and total unit cost of goods sold (“COGS”) rose.137

Thus, the Commission found that the domestic industry experienced a cost/price squeeze during the

period examined, with the COGS to net sales ratio increasing from *** percent to *** percent, and prices

for the domestic like product declining.138

As a result of the trends in costs and prices, the Commission found that the domestic industry’s

financial indicators eroded substantially between 2002 and 2004.139 Specifically, gross profit declined by

*** percent, operating income fell from a positive operating income in 2002 to a negative operating

income in 2004, and the operating margin fell from *** percent in 2002 to *** percent in 2003, before

deteriorating to a negative operating margin of *** percent in 2004.140 The Commission noted that the

deterioration in the domestic industry’s financial performance in 2004 occurred at the same time as

apparent U.S. consumption rose by 15.9 percent.141 The Commission also found that the domestic

industry’s capital expenditures and research and development expenses declined.142 The Commission

attributed the deterioration in the condition of the domestic industry to significant increases in subject

import volume that took market share from the domestic industry and forced the domestic industry to cut

prices despite increasing costs.143

Based on the significant increases in the volume and market penetration of subject imports, the

significant adverse price effects caused by the subject imports, and the causal link between the subject

imports and the domestic industry’s declines in market share, employment, and operating performance,

the Commission concluded that subject imports had a significant adverse impact on the domestic

chlorinated isos industry.144

The limited and mixed evidence in these expedited reviews does not permit us to determine

whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to the continuation or recurrence of material injury if the

orders were revoked. The limited information collected with respect to indicators of the domestic

industry’s condition are only for 2009 and includes data from only two of the three domestic integrated

 133 USITC Pub. 3782 at 33.

 134 USITC Pub. 3782 at 33.

 135 USITC Pub. 3782 at 33.

 136 Confidential Views at 49, n.266. 

 137 USITC Pub. 3782 at 33.

 138 Confidential Views at 50, n.270. 

 139 USITC Pub. 3782 at 34.

 140 Confidential Views at 50, n.276. 

 141 USITC Pub. 3782 at 34.

 142 USITC Pub. 3782 at 34.

 143 USITC Pub. 3782 at 34.

 144 USITC Pub. 3782 at 35.

22
producers, Clearon and OxyChem.145 146 The producers’ reported combined capacity was *** short tons,

production was *** short tons, and the capacity utilization rate was *** percent which was *** than at

any point during the original investigations.147 Reported U.S. shipments were *** short tons with a value

of $*** and a unit value of $***.148 Reported net sales were $*** and the reported cost of goods sold was

$***.149 Reported gross profit was $*** and SG&A expenses were $***.150 The reported operating

income was $*** and the ratio of operating *** to net sales was *** percent.151 While many indicators

(i.e., ***) were lower in 2009 than in 2004, other indicators, such as ***, were higher. The value of such

comparisons, however, is limited by the fact that the data for 2004 includes data for the third major

integrated domestic producer, BioLab, while the data for 2009 includes data only for Clearon and

OxyChem. Generally, however, even when BioLab’s estimated production is taken into consideration,

volume indicators were lower in 2009 than in 2002 to 2004, while, as noted, unit values and operating

income were higher.152

Based on the information available in these reviews, including information from the record of the

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

the volume of subject imports. In addition, subject imports likely would significantly undersell the

domestic like product, resulting in significant depression and/or suppression of U.S. prices for the

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

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

Specifically, the domestic industry would likely lose market share to low-priced subject imports and

would likely obtain lower prices due to competition from subject imports, which would adversely affect

its production, shipments, sales, and revenue. These reductions would likely have an adverse impact on

the domestic industry.

Accordingly, we conclude that, if the orders on chlorinated isos from China and Spain were

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

within a reasonably foreseeable time.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on

chlorinated isos from China and Spain would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material

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

 145 Clearon and OxyChem are believed to account for *** percent of chlorinated isos production in 2009. CR/PR

at Table I-8, n.1. The parent company of the third domestic integrated producer, BioLab, which did not provide data

in these reviews, announced that it had filed bankruptcy proceedings in March 2010. CR at I-21-I-22; PR at I-16. 

 146 Commissioners Williamson and Pinkert note that no tableters responded to the Commission’s notice of

institution and the Commission did not receive any new information about tableters’ operations or performance

indicators for 2009.

 147 CR/PR at Table I-8.

 148 CR/PR at Table I-8.

 149 CR/PR at Table I-8.

 150 CR/PR at Table I-8.

 151 CR/PR at Table I-8.

 152 CR at I-25; PR at I-19.

23
 
SEPARATE AND DISSENTING VIEWS 

OF COMMISSIONER DANIEL R. PEARSON

I. INTRODUCTION

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

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

terminate a suspended investigation in a five-year review unless Commerce determines that dumping or a

countervailable subsidy would be likely to continue or recur and the U.S. International Trade Commission

(“Commission”) determines that material injury to a U.S. industry would be likely to continue or recur

within a reasonably foreseeable time.1

 Based on the record in these five-year reviews, I determine that

material injury is likely to continue or recur within a reasonably foreseeable time if the antidumping duty

order on subject imports of chlorinated isocyanurates (“chlorinated isos”) from China is revoked. I also

determine, however, that material injury is not likely to continue or recur within a reasonably foreseeable

time if the antidumping duty order on subject imports of chlorinated isos from Spain is revoked.

I join my colleagues’ discussion regarding domestic like product and domestic industry, and the

relevant conditions of competition in the U.S. market. I write separately to discuss the legal standard

governing five-year reviews, my approach to cumulation in these reviews, and my analysis of the

statutory factors.

II. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ORDERS ARE REVOKED

A. Legal Standard

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

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

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

Commission makes a determination that revocation of an order or termination of a suspended

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

foreseeable time.2

 The Statement of Administrative Action states that “under the likelihood standard, the

Commission will engage in a counter-factual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the reasonably

foreseeable future of an important change in the status quo – the revocation or termination of a

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

 Thus, the

likelihood standard is prospective in nature.4

 The 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

 1 19 U.S.C. § 1675(d)(2).

 2

 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 3

 Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at 883-84 (1994) (“SAA”). The SAA states

that “{t}he likelihood of injury standard applies regardless of the nature of the Commission’s original determination

(material injury, threat of material injury, or material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to

suspended investigations that were never completed.” SAA at 883.

 4

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

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

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

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

SAA at 884.

25
longer period of time.”5

 According to the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-tocase, but normally will exceed the ‘imminent’ time frame applicable in a threat of injury analysis in

antidumping and countervailing duty investigations.”6

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

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

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

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

is terminated.”7

 It directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury determinations, whether

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

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

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

§ 1675(a)(4).8

B. Conditions of Competition

In evaluating the impact of subject imports on the domestic industry if the orders are revoked, the

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

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”9

 In performing

my analysis under the statute, I have taken into account the conditions of competition in the U.S. market

for chlorinated isos noted by the Commission majority.

C. Cumulation

Section 752(a) of the Act provides that:

the Commission may cumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports of the subject

merchandise from all countries with respect to which reviews under section 1675(b) or

(c) of this title were initiated on the same day, if such imports would be likely to compete

with each other and with domestic like products in the United States market. The

Commission shall not cumulatively assess the volume and effects of imports of the

subject merchandise in a case in which it determines that such imports are likely to have

no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.10

 5 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 6

 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.

 7

 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 8

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

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

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

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

Confidential Staff Report (INV-HH-087, Sept. 2, 2010, (hereinafter “CR”)) at I-5, Public Staff Report (hereinafter

“PR”) at I-4.

 9

 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 10 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

26
Thus, cumulation is discretionary in five-year reviews. The Commission, however, may exercise

its discretion to cumulate only if the reviews are initiated on the same day and the Commission

determines that the subject imports are likely to compete with each other and the domestic like product in

the U.S. market. The statute precludes cumulation if the Commission finds that subject imports from a

country are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.11 I note that neither the

statute nor the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) SAA provides specific guidance on what

factors the Commission is to consider in determining that imports “are likely to have no discernible

adverse impact” on the domestic industry.12 With respect to this provision, the Commission generally

considers the likely volume of the subject imports and the likely impact of those imports on the domestic

industry within a reasonably foreseeable time if the orders are revoked.

In these reviews, the statutory requirement for cumulation that all reviews be initiated on the

same day is satisfied as Commerce initiated all the subject reviews on May 3, 2010. The Commission

generally has considered four factors intended to provide a framework for determining whether the

imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.13 Only a “reasonable overlap” of

competition is required.14 In five-year reviews, the relevant inquiry is whether there likely would be

competition even if none currently exists. Moreover, because of the prospective nature of five-year

reviews, I have examined not only the Commission’s traditional competition factors, but also other

significant conditions of competition that are likely to prevail if the orders under review are terminated. 

The Commission has considered factors in addition to its traditional competition factors in other contexts

where cumulation is discretionary.15

In deciding whether to exercise my discretion to cumulate in five-year reviews, my analysis

consists of three steps. First, I examine whether imports from the subject countries are likely to face

similar conditions of competition. Next, for those subject imports that are likely to compete under similar

conditions of competition, I proceed to consider whether there is a likelihood of a reasonable overlap of

competition whereby those imports are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like

product. Finally, if based on that analysis I intend to exercise my discretion to cumulate one or more

subject countries, I analyze whether I am precluded from cumulating such imports because the imports

from one or more subject countries, assessed individually, are likely to have no discernible adverse

impact on the domestic industry.16

 11 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 12 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I (1994).

 13 The four factors generally considered by the Commission in assessing whether imports compete with each

other and with the domestic like product are: (1) the degree of fungibility between the imports from different

countries and between imports and the domestic like product, including consideration of specific customer

requirements and other quality related questions; (2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographical

markets of imports from different countries and the domestic like product; (3) the existence of common or similar

channels of distribution for imports from different countries and the domestic like product; and (4) whether the

imports are simultaneously present in the market. See, e.g., Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. 898

(CIT), aff’d 859 F.2d 915 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 14 See Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 916 (CIT 1996); Wieland Werke, AG, 718 F. Supp. at

52 (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”); United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 

673, 685 (CIT 1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 

 15 See, e.g., Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. at 1172 (affirming Commission's determination not to

cumulate for purposes of threat analysis when pricing and volume trends among subject countries were not uniform

and import penetration was extremely low for most of the subject countries); Metallverken Nederland B.V. v. United

States, 728 F. Supp. 730, 741-42 (CIT 1989); Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States,

704 F. Supp. 1068, 1072 (CIT 1988).

 16 See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and

Ukraine, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-873 to 875, 877 to 880, and 882 (Review), USITC Pub. 3933 (Jul. 2007) (Separate and

(continued...)

27
In these reviews, my analysis concludes with the first step. Significant differences in the likely

conditions of competition with respect to the subject imports from Spain versus subject imports from

China lead me to decline to cumulate subject imports from both countries. Because I decline to cumulate

subject imports from China and Spain on the basis of differences in likely conditions of competition, I

find it unnecessary to evaluate the likelihood of reasonable overlap of competition and of no discernible

adverse impact with respect to subject imports from China and Spain.17

My conclusion concerning differing likely conditions of competition is based on information

from the original investigations; in particular, significant evidence of differing volume and price trends of

the subject imports. With regard to volume trends, at the beginning of the original period examined

(calendar years 2002 through 2004), total U.S. imports from China and from Spain were approximately

the same volume. Yet, during the period examined, imports from China increased extremely rapidly,

while imports from Spain also increased overall, but at a much more measured pace. By the end of the

period, imports from China were several times those from Spain.18 Similar trends are seen with regard to

market share. Chinese producers substantially increased their market share over the original period

examined, whereas the market share of Spanish producers barely budged, and actually declined between

2003 and 2004.19 I also find it significant that, since the imposition of the orders, imports from China

declined sharply at first, then rebounded, but never regained their peak 2004 level. By contrast, since

imposition of the orders, imports from Spain have fluctuated without any clear trend at levels generally

lower than those during the original period examined.20 In general, U.S. imports of chlorinated isos from

Spain have been far less volatile than those from China. Indeed, the Chinese producers, in contrast to

those in Spain, have clearly demonstrated the ability to surge into the U.S. market.

With regard to price trends, during the original investigations Chinese product undersold U.S.

product in 28 of 32 quarters (based on sales price comparisons), and Chinese prices declined.21 In

contrast, imports from Spain oversold in 5 out of 7 quarters where sales prices were compared. In

addition, there were no confirmed lost sales or lost revenue allegations for Spain, whereas there were a

significant number of confirmed allegations for China.22 Finally, average unit values (AUVs) for

chlorinated isos from Spain were higher than those for China in every period examined in the original

investigations.23 This pattern continued after imposition of the orders, and the unit values of imports from

 16 (...continued)

Dissenting Views of Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun Regarding Cumulation). 

Accord Nucor Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 09-16 at 23-25 (Ct. Int’l Trade Mar. 9, 2009); Nucor Corp. v. United

States, Slip Op. 08-141 at 39-43 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 23, 2008).

 17 Cf. Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware from Korea, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-267 and 731-TA-304

(Review)(Remand), USITC Pub. 3485 (Jan. 2002) at 5 (declining to address criterion of no discernible adverse

impact in the absence of evidence of a reasonable overlap of competition).

 18 CR at I-29, PR at I-21, table I-9. Between 2002 and 2004, imports from China increased from *** short tons to

*** short tons, for an overall increase of *** short tons, whereas imports from Spain first increased from *** short

tons in 2002 to *** short tons in 2003, before declining to *** short tons in 2004, for an overall increase of ***

short tons.

 19 CR/PR at table I-11. The market share of Chinese imports increased from *** percent in 2002 to *** percent

in 2004. In contrast, the market share of imports from Spain first increased from *** percent in 2002 to *** percent

in 2003 before declining to *** percent in 2004, for an overall increase of just *** percentage points. 

 20 CR/PR at table I-9. Imports from China were only 45 short tons in 2005 (the year the order was imposed), then

rebounded to 6,713 short tons in 2006, declined slightly to 5,373 short tons by 2008, then rose sharply to 10,797

short tons in 2009. Imports from Spain declined to 1,152 short tons in 2005, then increased irregularly to 2,149 short

tons in 2009, peaking at 4,627 short tons in 2008.

 21 Original confidential staff report (“OCR”) at V-10, V-13-V-20, tables V-1-V-7.

 22 OCR at tables V-19 and V-20.

 23 CR/PR at table I-9.

28
Spain exceeded those for nonsubject imports as well as imports from China in all post-order years except

for 2007.24

A third factor leading me to conclude that subject imports will likely compete under different

conditions of competition if the orders are revoked is that exports from Spain to the United States have

been and continue to be largely granular forms of chlorinated isos, whereas a substantial share of exports

from China to the United States consist of chlorinated isos in tablet form. For example, in 2003 and

2004, the majority of such imports from China consisted of tablets, in contrast to Spain, where tablet

exports were minimal.25

Thus I find, with regard to subject imports, that the current and past conditions of competition are

sufficiently different between the two countries to override the fact that the products from each source

may be essentially fungible. In other words, the fact that the trends in volume between the two countries

were different during the original investigations suggests that, in the event of revocation, the volume of

imports from the two countries would respond differently and would have differing impacts on the

domestic industry. In addition, exporters in the subject countries also seem to sell at different price levels,

further limiting potential competition upon revocation. Accordingly, in light of these factors, I do not

exercise my discretion to cumulate subject imports from China with subject imports from Spain.

D. Revocation of the Antidumping Order on Imports from China Is Likely to Lead to a

Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury Within a Reasonably Foreseeable

Time

1. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

In the original investigations, the Commission cumulated imports from China and Spain. In these

reviews, I do not exercise my discretion, under 19 U.S.C. §1675a(a)(7), to cumulate imports from Spain

with imports from China, based on significant differences in the conditions of competition with respect to

the subject imports from both countries, owing to likely differing volume and price trends upon

revocation. As a result, in analyzing the likely volume of imports from China I have taken into account

the Commission’s previous volume findings, recognizing the difference represented by imports from

Spain.

In the original investigations, the Commission found that the volume and market share of subject

imports from China and Spain increased significantly over the period examined.26 The Commission did

not comment specifically on the trend in volume for China. The record of these reviews indicates,

however, that the volume of subject imports from China sharply increased from *** short tons in 2002 to

*** short tons in 2004.27

In these five-year reviews, because the Commission did not receive a response from any Chinese

producer, we have very little record information regarding the factors we must examine under 19 U.S.C.

1675a(a)(2) in determining whether increases in the volume of subject imports are likely in the event of

revocation of the order. Hence, based on my authority under 19 U.S.C. 1677e(a), I rely primarily on

information provided by domestic interested parties. The record indicates that, after imposition of the

order, import volumes from China first declined markedly, but in 2006 began to increase overall until

 24 Id.

 25 CR/PR at tables I-14, I-15, I-17, & I-18. In 2004, Chinese producers exported *** short tons of tableted

chlorinated isos, and *** short tons of the granular form. By contrast, in 2004 the Spanish producer Aragonesas

Delsa S.A. exported *** short tons of granular chlorinated isos, and only *** short tons of tableted chlorinated isos.

 26 Chlorinated Isocyanurates from China and Spain, USITC Pub. 3782 (Jun. 2005) at 25 (Views of the

Commission).

 27 CR/PR at table I-9.

29
reaching, by 2009, a level equivalent to the *** of the trend during the original investigation.28 Domestic

interested parties emphasize this trend, and argue that the Chinese industry exports almost its entire

production of chlorinated isos, as there is no significant domestic market. They also allege that Chinese

producers have continued to add new production capacity since the imposition of the orders, and that

existing unused capacity for chlorinated isos production in China is somewhere between *** and ***

metric tons.29

In these reviews, there is no information on the record concerning current Chinese capacity to

produce chlorinated isos, capacity utilization of facilities producing the subject product, or inventories. 

Under these circumstances, the Commission must look to patterns in these data during the original

investigations. During the original period examined, Chinese producers did not increase their capacity

unduly, but there was significant excess capacity of both the granular and tableted forms.30 Inventories

held in China were not particularly impressive, but there was a rapid run-up in inventories held by U.S.

importers.31 No information is available on the potential for product-shifting, although the Chinese

industry does face barriers to its chlorinated isos exports in the European Union.32 In addition, I find it

significant that imports from China have rapidly increased in recent years.33

In sum, based on the demonstrated ability of Chinese producers to increase rapidly imports into

the U.S. market, their continued presence in the market, the existence of excess capacity at the close of

the original period examined, and the past propensity of U.S. importers to increase markedly their

inventories of Chinese product, I conclude that it is likely that, in the event the order on chlorinated isos

from China is revoked, the likely volume of subject imports from China would be significant.

2. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In the original investigations, the Commission found that cumulated subject imports undersold

the domestic like product and had an adverse impact on prices in the domestic industry. With regard

specifically to China, for sales prices (the category of prices traditionally examined by the Commission),

Chinese product undersold in 28 of 32 comparisons.34

In these reviews, I can draw very few conclusions from the pricing data, as the Commission

received no information from Chinese producers of chlorinated isos. Domestic interested parties assert

that in the original investigations, the Commission found that price was a very important factor in

purchase decisions, and that this market characteristic has not changed. They also argue that although the

orders have had little effect on subject import volumes, at least with regard to China some producers

withdrew from the market after the orders were imposed and the firms that have taken their place have

been forced by the order to price more fairly, resulting in improved price levels. Even so, they contend

that, because of the intense competition in the chlorinated isos market, if the orders are revoked the

 28 CR/PR at table I-9.

 29 Domestic interested parties’ response to notice of institution (“domestic interested parties’ response”), Jun. 2,

2010, pp. 10-17.

 30 CR/PR at tables I-14, I-15. Excess capacity in 2004 was *** short tons for granulated chlorinated isos and ***

short tons for tableted chlorinated isos.

 31 Inventories of granular chlorinated isos held in China in 2004 were *** short tons, or *** percent of

preceding-period shipments, and inventories of tableted chlorinated isos held in China in 2004 were *** short tons,

or *** percent of preceding-period shipments. CR/PR at tables I-14 and I-15. Inventories of Chinese chlorinated

isos held by U.S. importers in 2004 were *** short tons, having increased sharply from *** in 2002 and *** short

tons in 2003. OCR at table VII-7.

 32 CR at I-39; PR at I-29.

 33 CR/PR at table I-9. Imports from China more than doubled from 5,373 short tons in 2008 to 10,797 short tons

in 2009.

 34 OCR at V-10.

30
foreign suppliers will have to price aggressively to gain market share, thus depressing and suppressing

prices.35

Evidence on the record of these reviews indicates that prices in the domestic market may

currently be higher than they were at the close of the original period examined.36 These price increases,

however, to the extent that they are occurring, are doing so under the discipline of the existing orders and

do not indicate what might happen to prices if the order on China were revoked. The record is also

unclear as to whether this product remains particularly price-sensitive. 

Nevertheless, given the likely significant volume of imports, the importance of price in the

chlorinated isos market during the original investigations, the general substitutability of subject imports

and the domestic like product, and the consistent and substantial underselling of imports from China in

the original investigation, resulting in some lost sales and lost revenues, I find a likelihood of significant

negative price effects from the subject imports. Consequently, I conclude that, if the order on chlorinated

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

significantly the domestic product and gain market share and would likely have significant depressing or

suppressing effects on the prices of the domestic like product.

3. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

In the original investigations, the Commission found that even though production and shipment

levels were fairly stable during the period examined, employment and financial indicators deteriorated as

a result of declining prices and sales. This deterioration occurred against the backdrop of increasing

demand for the subject product.37

In these reviews, the Commission has limited information on the condition of the U.S. industry. 

Domestic interested parties claim that the industry is currently vulnerable, due primarily to the fact that it

has lost market share and that its constituent producers are operating at low rates of capacity utilization. 

They also claim vulnerability based on continued high levels of subject imports, although they concede

that those imports have been sold at higher prices.38 Domestic interested parties provided data on their

current capacity, production, shipments, and selected financial indicators.39 Adjusted production and

shipment levels in 2009 were somewhat lower than in 2004. On the other hand, unit values, operating

income, and operating income margins were significantly higher in 2009 than in 2004. In particular,

operating income for Clearon and Oxychem in 2009 was *** percent of sales, compared with the *** that

the industry experienced in 2004.40

Accordingly, what little information there is on the condition of the domestic industry indicates

that, despite some loss in market share, the industry’s fortunes may have improved overall since the

original investigations. As domestic interested parties concede, pricing levels are higher and profitability

has improved measurably, as the industry *** in 2004. As discussed above, revocation of the

 35 Domestic interested parties’ response at 17-19.

 36 CR/PR at table I-8. The unit value of domestic producers’ U.S. shipments was $*** per short ton in 2009,

compared with $*** per short ton in 2004.

 37 USITC Pub. 3782 at 32-35. 

 38 Domestic interested parties’ response at 9-10, 19.

 39 Data were provided in these reviews by only two of the three U.S. firms that produced chlorinated isos during

the original investigations. These data are estimated to account for *** percent of chlorinated isos production in

2009. CR at I-23; PR at I-17.

 40 CR/PR at table I-8. U.S. production (adjusted to account for missing data from the non-responding producer)

was *** short tons in 2009, compared with *** short tons in 2004. The quantity (adjusted) of U.S. shipments was

*** short tons in 2009, compared with *** short tons in 2004. In contrast, the unit value of U.S. shipments was

$*** per short ton in 2009, compared with $*** per short ton in 2004, and operating income was $*** in 2009,

compared with *** in 2004. 

31
antidumping duty order on imports from China would be likely to lead to a significant increase in the

volume of subject imports that would undersell the domestic like product and significantly suppress or

depress U.S. prices. Although the record does not permit me to determine conclusively whether the

domestic industry is currently vulnerable, I find that these volume and price effects of the subject imports

from China would necessarily have a significant adverse impact on the production, shipments, sales,

market share, and revenues of the domestic industry. Accordingly, I conclude that, if the order on imports

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

domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

E. Revocation of the Antidumping Order on Imports from Spain Is Not Likely to Lead

to a Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury Within a Reasonably

Foreseeable Time

1. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

In the original investigations, the Commission cumulated imports from China and Spain. In these

reviews, I do not exercise my discretion, under 19 U.S.C. §1675a(a)(7), to cumulate imports from Spain

with imports from China, based on significant differences in the conditions of competition with respect to

the subject imports from both countries, in addition to likely differing volume and price trends upon

revocation. As a result, in analyzing the likely volume of imports from Spain I have taken into account

the Commission’s previous volume findings, recognizing the difference represented by imports from

China.

In the original investigations, the Commission found that the volume and market share of subject

imports from China and Spain increased significantly over the period examined.41 The Commission did

not comment specifically on the trend in volume for Spain. The record indicates, however, that the

volume of subject imports from Spain increased overall, but only moderately, from *** short tons in 2002

to *** short tons in 2004, which represented a decline from its 2003 level (*** short tons).42

In these five-year reviews, because the Commission did not receive a response from any

producers in Spain, we have very little record information regarding the factors we must examine under

19 U.S.C. 1675a(2) in determining whether increases in the volume of subject imports are likely in the

event of revocation of the order. Domestic interested parties argue that the Spanish producers are

extremely export-oriented and have substantial incentives to sell into the United States. They point to the

fact that Spanish producer Aragonesas opened a new factory during the original period examined. They

do not provide an estimate of Aragonesas’ excess capacity but note that Aragonesas stopped shipping

after its margin increased in the last administrative review, so they theorize that the firm must have some

excess capacity.43

Given that these are expedited reviews, there is little information on the record concerning the

statutory factors. In light of the paucity of information on the current record, I base my analysis, in line

with 19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)(1)(A), on information from the original investigations. During the original

investigations, there was evidence of some available capacity for granular chlorinated isos in Spain,

particularly during the end of the period, but such excess capacity just barely exceeded *** short tons.44

There were no third-country barriers facing the Spanish producers, and there is no evidence of any current

barriers.45 Inventories held in Spain were significant in comparison to preceding-period shipments, but

 41 USITC Pub. 3782 at 25.

 42 CR/PR at table I-9.

 43 Domestic interested parties’ response at 10-17.

 44 CR/PR at table I-17.

 45 OCR at VII-29.

32
inventories held in the United States were minimal.46 There is no information on product-shifting. In

addition, I find it particularly significant that imports from Spain did not increase rapidly during the

period examined – in fact, they declined in 2004 from their 2003 level.47 Hence, I conclude that, in the

event the order on imports from Spain is revoked, the likely volume of such imports will not be

significant.

2. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In the original investigations, the Commission found that in price comparisons involving sales

prices, products from Spain were priced below the comparable domestic products in only 2 of

7 quarters.48 The Commission was unable to confirm any lost sales or lost revenues allegations involving

Spain.49

In these reviews, I can draw very few conclusions from the pricing data, as the Commission

received no information from producers in Spain of chlorinated isos. Although, as noted above, the

record suggests that prices in the domestic market may currently be higher than before the order was

imposed, this tells us little about what might happen to prices if the order on Spain were revoked. As

with my analysis of likely volume effects, given the paucity of data on the record I rely mainly on

information from the original investigations. In that regard, I find it significant that there was no evidence

of confirmed lost sales or lost revenues to U.S. producers by reason of imports from Spain. Imports from

Spain predominantly oversold the domestic product during the original investigations in the types of price

comparisons traditionally analyzed by the Commission. Finally, average unit values of imports from

Spain were consistently higher than those of imports from China during the original period examined.50

Consequently, given the fact that a significant volume of imports from Spain is not likely to occur

upon revocation, combined with significantly different price trends exhibited by imports from Spain

during the original investigations, I do not find a likelihood of significant negative price effects from

subject imports from Spain in the event of revocation of the order. Consequently, I conclude that, if the

order on chlorinated isos from Spain were revoked, the volumes of subject imports from Spain would not

be likely to undersell significantly the domestic product or gain market share, nor would such imports be

likely to have significant depressing or suppressing effects on the prices of the domestic like product. 

3. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

In the original investigations, the Commission found that even though production and shipment

levels were fairly stable during the period examined, employment and financial indicators deteriorated as

a result of declining prices and sales. This deterioration occurred against the backdrop of increasing

demand for the subject product.51

As noted above in my discussion of the likely impact of subject imports from China, I conclude

that the industry's fortunes appear to have improved since the original period examined. Accordingly, in

light of my findings that revocation of the antidumping duty order on imports from Spain would not be

likely to lead to a significant increase in the volume of subject imports that would undersell the domestic

like product and significantly suppress or depress U.S. prices, I find that, if the order on imports from

Spain were revoked, such imports would not be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the

production, shipments, sales, market share, and revenues of the domestic industry. Hence, I conclude

 46 CR/PR at tables I-17 and I-18; OCR at table VII-7.

 47 CR/PR at table I-9.

 48 OCR at V-10. 

 49 OCR at tables V-19 and V-20.

 50 CR/PR at table I-9.

 51 USITC Pub. 3782 at 32-35. 

33
that, if the order on imports from Spain were revoked, subject imports would not be likely to have a

significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, I determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on 

chlorinated isos 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 also determine that revocation of the

antidumping duty order on chlorinated isos from Spain would not be likely to lead to continuation or

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

34
INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE REVIEWS

I-1

INTRODUCTION

On May 3, 2010, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the

Act”),1

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

instituted reviews to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on chlorinated

isocyanurates (“chlorinated isos”) from China and Spain would be likely to lead to a continuation or

recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.2 3

 On August 6, 2010, the

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

adequate4

 and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate.5 In the absence of

respondent interested party responses and any other circumstances that would warrant the conduct of full

reviews, the Commission determined to conduct expedited reviews of the antidumping duty orders

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

 The Commission voted on these

reviews on September 20, 2010, and notified Commerce of its determinations on September 30, 2010. 

The following tabulation presents selected information relating to the schedule of these five-year

reviews.7

Effective date Action

Federal Register

citation

May 3, 2010 Commission’s institution of five-year reviews

75 FR 23303

May 3, 2010

May 3, 2010 Commerce’s initiation of five-year reviews

75 FR 23240

May 3, 2010

August 6, 2010 Commission’s determination to conduct expedited five-year reviews

75 FR 51113

August 18, 2010

August 13, 2010 Commerce’s final determinations in its expedited five-year reviews

75 FR 49464

August 13, 2010

September 20, 2010 Commission’s vote Not applicable

September 30, 2010 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce Not applicable

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

 2 Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China and Spain, 75 FR 23303, May 3, 2010. All interested parties were

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

notice of institution is presented in app. A.

 3

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

notice of initiation of five-year reviews of the subject antidumping duty orders concurrently with the Commission’s

notice of institution. Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 75 FR 23240, May 3, 2010.

 4

 The Commission received one submission from domestic producers Clearon Corp. (“Clearon”) and Occidental

Chemical Corp. (“OxyChem”) (collectively referred to herein as “domestic interested parties”) in response to its

notice of institution for the subject reviews. The domestic interested parties reported that together they accounted

for *** percent of total U.S. production of chlorinated isos in 2009. Response of domestic interested parties,

June 2, 2010, p. 24.

 5

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

 6 Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China and Spain, 75 FR 51113, August 18, 2010. The Commission’s notice of

the expedited reviews appears in app. A. The Commission’s statement on adequacy is presented in app. B.

 7

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

presented in app. A.

I-3
The Original Investigations

On May 14, 2004, a petition was filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an

industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of

chlorinated isocyanurates from China and Spain.8

 On May 10, 2005, Commerce made affirmative final

LTFV determinations9

 and, on June 17, 2005, the Commission completed its original investigations,

determining that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of

chlorinated isos from China and Spain.10

Commerce’s Original Determinations and Subsequent Review Determinations

Commerce’s original determinations were published on May 10, 2005,11 and the antidumping

duty orders concerning chlorinated isos from China and Spain were issued on June 25, 2005.12

Commerce has completed three administrative reviews regarding chlorinated isos from China and three

administrative reviews regarding chlorinated isos from Spain since the issuance of the antidumping duty

orders. Commerce is currently conducting its fourth administrative review of the subject merchandise

from China for the 2008-09 period and has published its preliminary results; however, the final results of

Commerce’s administrative review are not expected to be released until after the issuance of this report in

September 2010.13

Although there has been one new shipper review concerning the antidumping duty orders, and

two scope rulings, there have been no changed circumstances determinations and no duty absorption

findings.14 15

 8 The petition was filed by Clearon Corp. (“Clearon”) and Occidental Chemical Corp. (“OxyChem”). 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China and Spain: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Final), USITC

Publication 3782, June 2005, p. I-1. Here and throughout this report, data and other information from the original

investigations incorporate changes contained in Memorandum INV-CC-080, June 2, 2005, as well as staff

supplementary table I.

 9 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People’s

Republic of China, 70 FR 24502, May 10, 2005; Chlorinated Isocyanurates From Spain: Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 70 FR 24506, May 10, 2005.

 10 Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China and Spain, 70 FR 36205, June 22, 2005.

 11 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People’s

Republic of China, 70 FR 24502, May 10, 2005; Chlorinated Isocyanurates From Spain: Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 70 FR 24506, May 10, 2005.

 12 Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR

36561, June 25, 2005; Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain: Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 70 FR 36562,

June 25, 2005.

 13 Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 27302, May 14, 2010.

 14 In addition, a new shipper review was initiated in regards to chlorinated isos from Spain but was later rescinded

when the company withdrew its request. Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain: Notice of Rescission of

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 73 FR 45215, August 4, 2008.

 15 A third request for a scope ruling was initiated, but later terminated, by Enviro Tech Chemical regarding

whether powdered trichloroisocyanuric acid should be considered a separate like product. Notice of Scope Rulings,

71 FR 5646, February 2, 2006.

I-4
Commerce’s Final Results of Expedited Five-Year Reviews

Commerce published the final results of its reviews based on the facts available on

August 13, 2010. Commerce concluded that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on chlorinated

isos from China and Spain would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at margins

determined in its original determinations.16 Tables I-1 and I-2 present information relating to

Commerce’s final determinations, antidumping duty orders, administrative reviews, and new shipper

reviews for China and Spain, respectively.

Table I-1

Chlorinated isos from China: Commerce’s final determination, antidumping duty order,

administrative and new shipper reviews, and final results of expedited five-year review

Action Effective

date

Federal

Register

citation

Period of

investigation/

review

Antidumping duty margins

FirmspecificCountrywide1

Percent ad valorem

Final determination 05/10/2005 70 FR 24502

10/01/2003-

03/31/2004

Jiheng 75.78

Nanning 285.63

Sec. A2 137.69 285.63

Antidumping duty order 06/25/2005 70 FR 36561 --

Jiheng 75.78

Nanning 285.63

Sec. A2 137.69 285.13

Administrative review3 02/19/2008 73 FR 9091 

12/16/2004-

05/31/2006 Jiheng 20.10 285.63

Administrative review4 10/20/2008 73 FR 62249

06/01/2006-

05/31/2007

Jiheng 0.90

Nanning 54.86 285.63

Administrative review 12/14/2009 74 FR 66087

06/01/2007-

05/31/2008 Jiheng 20.16 285.63

New shipper review 12/28/2009 74 FR 68575

06/01/2008-

11/30/2008 Kangtai 20.54 --

Preliminary results of

administrative review 05/14/2010 75 FR 27302

06/01/2008-

05/31/2009 Jiheng 11.65 285.63

Final results of expedited

five-year review 08/13/2010 75 FR 49464 --

Jiheng 75.78

Nanning 285.63

Sec. A.2 137.69 285.63

 1 The country-wide rate applies to all companies that otherwise have not received a “firm-specific” rate.

 2

 Section A Respondents include Changzhou Clean Chemical Co., Ltd., Liaocheng Huaao Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.,

Sinochem Hebei Import & Export Corporation, and Sinochem Shanghai Import & Export Corporation.

 3

 The table reflects the results of the amendment to the original final results of the administrative review. The original final

results of the administrative review were published on January 2, 2008 (73 FR 159) and the duty margin for Jiheng was set at

18.44 percent.

 4

 The table reflects the results of the amendment to the original final results of the administrative review. The original final

results of the administrative review were published on September 10, 2008 (73 FR 52645) and the duty margins for Jiheng and

Nanning were set at 0.80 percent and 53.67 percent respectively. 

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

 16 Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain and the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited

Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 75 FR 49464, August 13, 2010.

I-5
Table I-2

Chlorinated isos from Spain: Commerce’s final determination, antidumping duty order,

administrative and new shipper reviews, and final results of expedited five-year review

Action Effective

date

Federal

Register

citation

Period of

investigation/

review

Antidumping duty margins

FirmspecificCountrywide1

Percent ad valorem

Final determination 05/10/2005 70 FR 24506

10/01/2003-

03/31/2004 Aragonesas 24.83 24.83

Antidumping duty

order 06/25/2005 70 FR 36562 -- Aragonesas 24.83 24.83

Administrative review 11/15/2007 72 FR 64194

12/20/2004-

05/31/2006 Aragonesas 2.35 24.83

Administrative review 12/30/2008 73 FR 79789

06/01/2006-

05/31/2007 Aragonesas 4.07 24.83

Administrative review 10/01/2009 74 FR 50744

06/01/2007-

05/31/2008 Aragonesas 28.04 24.83

Final results of

expedited five-year

review 08/13/2010 75 FR 49464 -- Aragonesas 24.83 24.83

 1 The country-wide rate applies to all companies that otherwise have not received a “firm-specific” rate.

Note.–An administrative review for the period 2008-09 was initiated on July 29, 2009. Aragonesas withdrew its request for

review on October 19, 2009 and Petitioners subsequently withdrew their request on October 27, 2009. Chlorinated

Isocyanurates from Spain: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 61114, November 23, 2009.

Note.--A new shipper review was initiated in regards to chlorinated isos from Spain but was later rescinded when the company

(INQUIDE) withdrew its request. Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper

Review, 73 FR 45215, August 4, 2008.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

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

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.17 Qualified U.S. producers of chlorinated isos have

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

CDSOA, relating to the orders covering the subject merchandise beginning in Federal fiscal year 2006.18

Certifications were filed with Customs by three claimants (BioLab, Clearon, and OxyChem) with respect

to chlorinated isos from China and Spain during 2006-09. No other CDSOA claims/disbursements were

made with respect to the subject merchandise prior to 2006.19 Tables I-3 and I-4 present CDSOA claims

and disbursements for Federal fiscal years 2006-09.

 17 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).

 18 19 CFR 159.64(g).

 19 Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports 2003-09,

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

I-6
Table I-3

Chlorinated isos from China: CDSOA claims and disbursements, Federal fiscal years

2006-091 2

Fiscal

year Claimant

Share of yearly

allocation Certification amount3 Amount disbursed

Percent Dollars

2006

BioLab (

4

) 58,072,073.00 (

4

)

Total (4

) 58,072,073.00 (

4

)

2007

BioLab 23.05 126,600,011.00 11,466.32

Clearon 31.03 170,394,933.00 15,432.88

OxyChem 45.92 252,166,206.05 22,839.00

Total 100.00 549,161,150.05 49,738.20

2008

BioLab 20.79 143,002,364.68 41,391.20

Clearon 31.41 216,026,405.12 62,527.58

OxyChem 47.80 328,810,049.06 95,172.15

Total 100.00 687,838,818.86 199,090.93

2009

Clearon (4

) 215,963,877.54 (

4

)

OxyChem (4

) 328,714,876.91 (

4

)

Total (4

) 544,678,754.45 (

4

)

 1 The Federal fiscal year is October 1-September 30.

 2

 No CDSOA claims and disbursements were made with respect to chlorinated isos from China prior to 2006.

 3

 Qualifying expenditures incurred by domestic producers since the issuance of an order.

 4

 No disbursement for this period.

Source: Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports 2003-09, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/.

Table I-4

Chlorinated isos from Spain: CDSOA claims and disbursements, Federal fiscal years 2006-091 2

Fiscal

year Claimant

Share of yearly

allocation Certification amount3 Amount disbursed

Percent Dollars

2006

BioLab (

4

) 58,072,073.00 (

4

)

Total (4

) 58,072,073.00 (

4

)

2007

BioLab (4

) 126,600,011.00 (

4

)

Clearon (4

) 170,394,933.00 (

4

)

OxyChem (4

) 252,166,206.05 (

4

)

Total (4

) 549,161,150.05 (

4

)

2008

BioLab 20.79 143,013,831.00 208,992.67

Clearon 31.41 216,041,838.00 315,711.84

OxyChem 47.80 328,832,888.06 480,538.58

Total 100.00 687,888,557.06 1,005,243.09

2009

Clearon 39.65 215,726,126.16 52,432.92

OxyChem 60.35 328,352,349.48 79,807.08

Total 100.00 544,078,475.64 132,240.00

Table continued on the following page.

I-7
Table I-4--Continued

Chlorinated isos from Spain: CDSOA claims and disbursements, Federal fiscal years 2006-091 2

 1 The Federal fiscal year is October 1-September 30.

 2

 No CDSOA claims and disbursements were made with respect to chlorinated isos from Spain prior to 2006.

 3

 Qualifying expenditures incurred by domestic producers since the issuance of an order.

 4

 No disbursement for this period.

Source: Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports 2003-09, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/.

Related Commission Investigations and Reviews

On June 3, 1983, Monsanto Industrial Chemicals filed a petition for investigation of Japanese

cyanuric acid and its chlorinated derivatives (“CA&CD”) (specifically from Shikoku Chemicals Corp,

Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd., and Nippon Soda Co., Ltd.), alleging that Japanese exporters were

selling CA&CD at LFTV, causing material injury to domestic producers. The Commission instituted its

final investigation effective November 18, 1983 following a preliminary determination by the Department

of Commerce that imports of the subject products from Japan were being sold in the United States at

LTFV. Commerce determined that CA&CD were being sold at LTFV, the Commission made an

affirmative determination in the investigation20 and Commerce subsequently issued the antidumping duty

order on April 27, 1984.21 In the absence of any review request or objection from the domestic interested

party, Commerce revoked the order in 1995.22

In its preliminary determination, the Commission found that cyanuric acid and its chlorinated

derivatives constituted two distinct like products. The Commission noted that although the chlorinated

derivatives are divided into two categories based on their chlorine content, this difference did not

significantly affect the end use.23 In the final phase of the investigation, the Commission revisited its like

product finding and determined that cyanuric acid, dichlor, and trichlor constituted a single like

product.24 25

 20 Cyanuric Acid and its Chlorinated Derivatives from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-136 (Final), USITC Publication

1513, April 1984, p. 1.

 21 Cyanuric Acid and Its Chlorinated Derivatives From Japan Used In the Swimming Pool Trade; Antidumping

Duty Orders, 49 FR 18148, April 27, 1984.

 22 Cyanuric Acid From Japan, Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order, 60 FR 28576, June 1, 1995.

 23 Cyanuric Acid and its Chlorinated Derivatives from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-136 (Preliminary), USITC

Publication 1407, July 1983, p. 5.

 24 Cyanuric Acid and its Chlorinated Derivatives from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-136 (Final), USITC Publication

1513, April 1984, p. 4. In the dissenting views, Commissioner Stern revised her like product definition. In the

preliminary phase of the investigation, Commissioner Stern found three separate like products--cyanuric acid,

dichloro isocyanurates, and trichloro isocyanuric acid. In the final phase of the investigation, she found one

domestic like product. Cyanuric Acid and its Chlorinated Derivatives from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-136 (Final),

USITC Publication 1513, April 1984, pp. 17-19.

 25 Commerce determined cyanuric acid, dichloroisocyanurates, and trichloroisocyanurates to be separate

categories of subject merchandise on the grounds that the chemical compositions of these products are distinct and

that cyanuric acid is used to produce the chlorinated derivatives. Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value; Cyanuric Acid and its Chlorinated Derivatives From Japan Used in the Swimming Pool Trade, 49 FR 7424,

February 29, 1984.

I-8
THE PRODUCT

Scope

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

The products covered by this order are chlorinated isocyanurates. Chlorinated

isocyanurates are derivatives of cyanuric acid, described as chlorinated s-triazine triones. 

There are three primary chemical compositions of chlorinated isocyanurates: (1)

trichloroisocyanuric acid (“TCCA”) (Cl3(NCO)3), (2) sodium dichloroisocyanurate

(dihydrate) (NaCl2(NCO)3 X 2H2O), and (3) sodium dichloroisocyanurate (anhydrous)

(NaCl2(NCO)3). Chlorinated isocyanurates are available in powder, granular, and

tableted forms. This order covers all chlorinated isocyanurates.26 27

Commerce has considered two separate requests for scope rulings since the original antidumping duty

order date.28 The requestors, outcomes, and completion dates of Commerce’s scope rulings are listed in

table I-5.

Table I-5

Chlorinated isos: Commerce’s scope rulings

Requestor Scope ruling

Date of

completion

Federal Register

citation

BioLab, Inc.

Exclusion request denied. Chlorinated isos

originating in the People’s Republic of China, that

are packaged, tableted, blended with additives, or

otherwise further processed in Canada by Capo

Industries, Ltd. before entering the U.S., are within

the scope of the antidumping duty order. April 9, 2008

73 FR 49418

(Aug. 21, 2008)

BioLab, Inc.

Exclusion request granted. Chlorinated isos

produced in and exported from Vietnam by Tian

Hua (Vietnam) SPC Industries Ltd. are not included

in the scope of the antidumping order. March 23, 2009

74 FR 43681

(Aug. 27, 2009)

Note.–A third request for a scope ruling was initiated, but later terminated, by Enviro Tech Chemical regarding whether powdered

trichloroisocyanuric acid should be considered a separate like product. Notice of Scope Rulings, 71 FR 5646, February 2, 2006.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

 26 Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR

36561, June 24, 2005; Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain: Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 70 FR 36562,

June 25, 2005.

 27 Tariff treatment of this product is presented in the next section of this report. Although the HTS subheadings

are provided for convenience purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.

 28 A third request for a scope ruling was initiated, but later terminated, by Enviro Tech Chemical regarding

whether powdered trichloroisocyanuric acid should be considered a separate like product. Notice of Scope Rulings,

71 FR 5646, February 2, 2006.

I-9
U.S. Tariff Treatment

The subject merchandise is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS) in subheading 2933.69.60, and imports are reported under statistical reporting numbers

2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, and 2933.69.6050. The statistical reporting number 2933.69.6015 covers

sodium dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous and dihydrate forms) and trichloroisocyanuric acid while

statistical reporting numbers 2933.69.6021 and 2933.69.6050 represent basket categories that include

chlorinated isocyanurates and other compounds including an unfused triazine ring. Chlorinated

isocyanurates have a normal trade relations tariff rate of 3.5 percent ad valorem applicable to imports

from China and Spain.

Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry

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

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

determinations, the Commission defined the domestic like product29 as all chlorinated isocyanurates coextensive with Commerce’s scope, that is, all derivatives of cyanuric acid (primarily trichloroisocyanuric

acid, sodium dichloroisocyanurate (dihydrate), and sodium dichloroisocyanurate (anhydrous)) in powder,

granular, and tableted forms.30 In the original investigations, several interested parties sought to

distinguish various different forms of the product as separate from the scope of the investigations. 

Regarding potential distinctions between trichlor and dichlor, blended tablets and all other chlorinated

isos, and powdered chlorinated isos and other chlorinated isos, the Commission found in all cases that

there was no “clear dividing line” that would necessitate the classification of certain chlorinated isos into

separate domestic product categories.31

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

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

the total domestic production of the product. In the original investigations, the Commission defined the

domestic industry as all U.S. producers of the domestic like product, as defined above.32

In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to include in the

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

or sold in the domestic merchant market. In the original investigations, the Commission was evenly

divided as to whether to include companies that tablet and repackage chlorinated isos (referred to herein

as “tableters”) in the domestic industry.33 34

 29 The Commission’s six factor analysis includes an evaluation of (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2)

interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) customer and producer perceptions of the products; (5) common

manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees; and, where appropriate, (6) price.

 30 Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China and Spain: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Final), USITC

Publication 3782, June 2005, pp. 3-10.

 31 Ibid.

 32 Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China and Spain: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Final), USITC

Publication 3782, June 2005, pp. 10-18. Further information concerning related party issues is contained in the

section of this report entitled “Related Party Issues.”

 33 In the original investigations, Chairman Koplan and Commissioners Miller and Hillman included tableters as

part of the domestic industry. Although they recognized that the record was mixed on the issues of capital

investment necessary for tableting and value-added by tableting, these Commissioners emphasized that in general,

they found the capital investment necessary was significant and that the value-added was generally reported to be in

the range of *** to *** percent. They noted that there is a moderate level of technical expertise necessary to

(continued...)

I-10
In its notice of institution in these current five-year reviews, the Commission solicited comments

from interested parties regarding the appropriate domestic like product and domestic industry.35 The

domestic interested parties indicated that they do not disagree with the definition of the domestic like

product contained in the Commission’s notice of institution; however, they asserted that the Commission

should revisit the issue of whether non-integrated producers of chlorinated isocyanurates (e.g., tableters

and repackers) should be included in the definition of the domestic industry.36

Physical Characteristics and Uses37

Chlorinated isos are chemical compounds used primarily as sanitizing agents for swimming

pools, spas, and industrial water, and as disinfecting and bleaching agents for detergents, bleaches, and

cleansers. For actual application, these products are sold as a solid, usually in granular, tablet, or stick

form. The active ingredient for sanitizing purposes is chlorine. Trichlor and dichlor differ mainly in the

percentage of chlorine each has available for sanitizing and the rate of release of that chlorine in water. 

Trichlor, containing 90 percent available chlorine, has the highest chlorine content, but its chlorine is

released relatively slowly in water and therefore it is more widely used for water treatment applications. 

Dihydrate and anhydrous dichlor contain less available chlorine, 53 and 63 percent, respectively, but the

chlorine is released relatively quickly, making them more widely used in detergents, bleaches, and

cleansers and as “shock” treatments to instill chlorine quickly in swimming pools. Although trichlor and

dichlor generally perform the same function, one slower and one faster, one or the other is usually

specifically preferred for any one type of application. During the period examined in the original

 33 (...continued)

perform tableting operations due to heavy machinery and hazardous materials involved. Additionally, tableters

employ a significant number of personnel both in tableting operations and in support personnel (which causes them

to incur additional costs), and although some rely heavily on subject merchandise for their raw materials, others rely

on domestic materials or a mix of subject, nonsubject, and domestic raw materials. On balance, these

Commissioners included tableters in the domestic industry. Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China and Spain: 

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Final), USITC Publication 3782, June 2005, pp. 10-12.

 34 Vice Chairman Okun and Commissioners Lane and Pearson did not include tableters in the domestic industry

because they found that tableters do not engage in sufficient production-related activities. These Commissioners

also noted the variability in the reported capital necessary for tableting and value-added by tableting. They did not

find that the capital investment necessary for tableting to be significant in comparison to the capital investment

necessary to establish an integrated chlorinated isos operation, nor did they believe the value-added was highly

significant (most producers reported values in the range of *** percent to *** percent concerning the value-added). 

Despite the moderate level of expertise necessary for tableting, such expertise, they found, did not compare with that

necessary in the upstream processes. They also noted that the wage differential between production workers that

produce granular chlorinated isos versus tableting packaging workers is approximately *** and producers of

chlorinated isos employ *** times as many workers as tableters. These Commissioners also acknowledged that

some tableters rely heavily on subject merchandise for their raw materials, others rely on domestic materials or a mix

of subject, nonsubject, and domestic raw materials and that tableters employ additional personnel and incur

additional costs. However, considering all evidence put before the Commission, these Commissioners did not

believe that tableters engaged in sufficient production-related activity to qualify as domestic producers. Chlorinated

Isocyanurates From China and Spain: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Final), USITC Publication 3782,

June 2005, pp. 12-14.

 35 Chlorinated Isocyanurates from China and Spain: Notice of Institution, 75 FR 23303, May 3, 2010.

 36 Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, p. 26.

 37 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Chlorinated

Isocyanurates From China and Spain: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Final), USITC Publication 3782,

June 2005, p. I-4.

I-11
investigations, owing to the relatively larger market for water treatment applications (pool and spa

sanitation), trichlor accounted for the bulk of U.S. production and consumption and is generally priced

somewhat lower per pound than dichlor.

Some of the trichlor tablets produced in the United States and China contain active ingredients

other than chlorine that provide functions other than sanitizing, and are called “blended tablets.” The

ingredients in these tablets include aluminum sulfate, which acts as an algicide, and copper sulfate, which

acts as a water clarifier.

Manufacturing Process38

The raw materials for the production of both trichlor and dichlor are cyanuric acid, caustic soda,

and chlorine gas. Cyanuric acid, which U.S. chlorinated isos producers make and derive from urea, is

refined and purified and then neutralized with caustic soda to become sodium cyanurate, the basic

feedstock for both trichlor and dichlor. Both trichlor and dichlor are produced in the same kilns to mix

the cyanuric acid and caustic soda to form the sodium cyanurate feedstock, using the same equipment and

the same employees. The feedstock then goes through dedicated production lines to produce either

trichlor or dichlor. To produce trichlor, chlorine gas is introduced into the feedstock and carefully

controlled, resulting in a granular solid that is either packaged in 2,205-pound sacks or 300-pound drums

and sold as such, or further processed into tablets or sticks and packaged in 10-50-pound pails. The bulk

of trichlor is ultimately consumed as tablets.39 To produce dichlor, a smaller amount of chlorine gas is

introduced into the feedstock, resulting in an acid that is neutralized with caustic soda to produce the

dichlor salt. This product can be further dried at higher temperatures to produce the anhydrous forms. 

Most dichlor is sold and used in granular form and is packaged in sacks or drums. For the most part,

production is continuous, and the equipment and production workers used in production of chlorinated

isos are specific to that purpose.

Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions40

In considering the different forms of U.S.-produced chlorinated isos, the Commission found that

dichlor and trichlor overlap in their application in the swimming pool market and industrial cleanser

market, with preferences of usage based on solubility, acidity, and available chlorine levels. For example,

dichlor and trichlor can be substituted for one another to sanitize spas and pools, and as cleansers and

sanitizers for industrial uses. The Commission also found powdered chlorinated isos to have the same

chemistry, and to be used in the same applications, as granulated chlorinated isos, while noting that

producers and at least one customer differed in their perceptions of the powdered form as an intermediate

product. Finally, the Commission found trichlor tablets (blended and regular) to be interchangeable, as

both are used in pool sanitation.

 38 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Chlorinated

Isocyanurates From China and Spain: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Final), USITC Publication 3782,

June 2005, p. I-5.

 39 Tableted chlorinated isos are granular chlorinated isos (believed to be almost always trichlor) that have been

compacted or pressed into forms for convenience of the user. Tableted trichlor requires an additional process of

taking granular trichlor, sorting it, then tableting it into shapes, typically into 1-inch or 3-inch diameters.

Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China and Spain: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Final), USITC

Publication 3782, June 2005, p. I-9.

 40 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Chlorinated

Isocyanurates From China and Spain: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Final), USITC Publication 3782,

June 2005, pp. 6-10, 24, I-11-I-15, I-17-I-18.

I-12
With respect to U.S.-produced and imported chlorinated isos, the Commission noted that market

participants found such products to be always or frequently interchangeable; indeed, some indicated that

so long as the product was registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), it was always

interchangeable.41

Channels of Distribution42

According to data collected from questionnaires in the original investigations, swimming pool

and spa applications account for the great majority of the U.S. chlorinated isos market. Industrial

applications, e.g., industrial water treatment and use in cleansers, detergents, etc., account for most of the

remainder. For U.S. and foreign producers, the pool and spa segment of the market consists mostly of

(1) converting and repackaging distributors, which buy not only tablets and a stick form of the product

but also granular product that they convert to tablets and package for sale to commercial users, such as

hotels and public pools, and to retailers, such as pool retail stores, pool service companies, mass

merchants, and grocery and hardware stores; and (2) non-converting and repackaging distributors that sell

to the same types of commercial users and retailers. To supplement their needs, U.S. producers and

distributors may also buy product from each other. The industrial segment consists largely of

manufacturers of cleansers, bleaches, and detergents, and a few distributors that serve the market

independently.

According to data collected in the original investigations, the channels of distribution for

chlorinated isos varied for different suppliers during 2002 to 2004. In general, the largest shares of

product were to repackagers/tableters, distributors, and pool-related retailers, but specific shares of

quantity fluctuated from year to year, as shown in table I-6.

 41 In the United States, sanitizing agents such as trichlor and dichlor are statutorily controlled pesticides and must

be approved by the EPA for public use. Accordingly, any chlorinated isos destined for use in the pool and spa

market must be tested and approved prior to sale. The EPA testing and approval process, known as registration, is

specific to each producer's product and is obtained by the U.S. producer for its own production or by the importer for

the Chinese-produced product. The Spanish producer Aragonesas possesses the registration for the Spanish product. 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China and Spain: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Final), USITC

Publication 3782, June 2005, p. I-6.

 42 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Chlorinated

Isocyanurates From China and Spain: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Final), USITC Publication 3782,

June 2005, p. I-6.

I-13
Table I-6

Chlorinated isos: Reported channels of distribution for domestic product and subject imports sold

in the U.S. market (as a percent of total shipments), by year and by country, 2002-04

2002 2003 2004

Share of quantity (percent)

Domestic integrated producers:

 Shipments to repackagers/tableters 9.2 7.6 11.6

 Shipments to distributors 53.5 52.3 51.0

 Shipments to mass market retailers 14.2 15.7 14.9

 Shipments to pool-related retailers 17.5 18.8 16.7

 Shipments to the industrial market 5.6 5.3 4.4

 Shipments to other1 0.0 0.3 1.4

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

China:

 Shipments to repackagers/tableters 100.0 56.6 55.7

 Shipments to distributors 0.0 2.7 0.0

 Shipments to mass market retailers 0.0 34.6 41.7

 Shipments to pool-related retailers 0.0 1.3 0.7

 Shipments to the industrial market 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Shipments to other1 0.0 4.8 1.9

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Spain:

 Shipments to repackagers/tableters *** *** ***

 Shipments to distributors *** *** ***

 Shipments to mass market retailers *** *** ***

 Shipments to pool-related retailers *** *** ***

 Shipments to the industrial market *** *** ***

 Shipments to other1 *** *** ***

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

1

 Other includes sales to competing firms, both domestic and subject.

Source: Staff Report on Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China and Spain, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Final),

May 20, 2005 (INV-CC-069), table II-1.

I-14
Pricing43

In its Views, the Commission noted that domestic and imported chlorinated isos are generally

highly interchangeable, that price is a very important factor in purchasing decisions, and that prices for

chlorinated isos can respond quickly to price changes. Irrespective of their definition of the domestic

industry, Commissioners found underselling in more than three-quarters of the price comparisons.

The Commission found that data collected in the original investigations showed a ‘high

prevalence’ of underselling of the domestic product by the subject imports. It also noted that the rising

cost of inputs coupled with the increase in volume of products sold at less-than-fair-value created a

“cost/price squeeze” that prevented the domestic industry from adjusting to these changes and reduced

profit margins. The Commission found that price is a very important factor in purchasing decisions, and

prices for chlorinated isos respond quickly to changes in market conditions.

In their response to the notice of institution of the five-year reviews, the domestic interested

parties noted that the antidumping duty orders currently in place have had a “significant effect in arresting

what had become an ongoing, steep decline in prices to the extreme detriment of the domestic

industry...In the years following the entry of the antidumping duty orders, the domestic industry has

faced historically high prices for key material and energy inputs such as urea and natural gas. Had the

domestic industry been subject to these cost shocks in an environment in which import pricing was

unconstrained...the situation would have {been} extremely dire...Although import volumes have

remained high even after the order, U.S. prices have exhibited some recovery following the orders and

have not returned to pre-order levels.” This is consistent with comments by purchaser ***, which stated

that prices have been higher since 2005 and there has been less competition in the market.44

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Producers

U.S. industry data collected in the original investigations were based on the questionnaire

responses of three domestic producers that accounted for 100 percent of U.S. integrated production of

chlorinated isos during 2002 to 2004.45 The three U.S. producers that participated in the original

investigations and their shares of total domestic production during 2004 were as follows: Clearon (***

percent), OxyChem (*** percent), and BioLab (*** percent). In addition, the Commission collected data

for six U.S. tableters (firms that purchase domestically produced and/or imported granular chlorinated

isos and form these into tablets). Their shares of tableting operations were as follows: Alden Leeds (***

percent), Aqua Tri (*** percent), Cadillac (no information available), LPM (*** percent), N. Jonas (***

percent), and Stellar (*** percent).46

The domestic interested parties participating in this proceeding did not indicate in their response

to the Commission’s notice of institution that there have been any changes to the structure of the domestic

industry since the Commission’s original investigations. Rather, Clearon and Oxychem reported in their

response that there are currently three domestic producers of chlorinated isos: Clearon, OxyChem, and

 43 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Chlorinated

Isocyanurates From China and Spain: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Final), USITC Publication 3782,

June 2005, pp. 26-31.

 44 Purchaser survey response of ***.

 45 Staff Report on Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China and Spain, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083

(Final), May 20, 2005 (INV-CC-069), pp. III-1.

 46 Ibid.

I-15
BioLab.47 Details regarding each firm’s location(s) and company shares of 2004 and 2009 total domestic

production of chlorinated isos are presented in table I-7.

Table I-7

Chlorinated isos: U.S. integrated producers, locations, related companies, and company shares of

2004 and 2009 total domestic production

Firm Location Related Companies

Share of

2004 total

production

(percent)

Estimated

share of

2009 total

production

(percent)

Clearon Charleston, WV

Wholly owned by Israel Chemicals

Limited, Tel-Aviv, Israel *** ***

OxyChem

Sauget, IL

Luling, LA

Wholly owned subsidiary of Occidental

Petroleum Corp., Los Angeles, CA *** ***

BioLab1

Lake Charles, LA

Lawrenceville, GA

Wholly owned by Great Lakes Chemical

Corp., Indianapolis, IN *** ***2

 Total 100.0 100.0

 1 During the period of the original investigations, BioLab ***.

 2

 Estimate.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Staff Report on Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China and Spain, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Final),

May 20, 2005 (INV-CC-069), p. III-3, and table III-1; Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, p. 24.

BioLab

According to the domestic producers’ response to the notice of institution, BioLab, owned by

Great Lakes Chemical (now Chemtura), entered the business when it acquired the Lake Charles, LA

trichloroisocyanurate plant in 1995.48

At the time of the original investigations, BioLab produced *** granular trichlor and ***.

However, BioLab ***.

BioLab was in a position to announce broad price increases over a wide variety of pool and spa

products that included chlorinated isocyanurates in November 2005 and again in July 2008.49 However,

on March 18, 2010, Chemtura announced via its website that it had filed voluntary petitions for relief

under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Chemtura’s chairman explained that

Chemtura’s order volumes “have declined markedly in recent months due to the impact of the global

economic recession on {its} customers and the industries they serve.” The press release also noted that

Chemtura is working on completing a successful financial restructuring to become a stronger and more

profitable competitor in the specialty chemicals marketplace.50

 47 Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, pp. 19-20.

 48 ***.

 49 BioLab news release, November 9, 2005; Chemtura news release, June 6, 2008.

 50 Chemtura news release, March 18, 2010.

I-16
Clearon

According to the domestic producers’ response to the notice of institution, Clearon became a

domestic producer in 1994 with the purchase of the sodium dichloroisocyanurate plant and related

packaging operations in South Charleston, WV, from Olin, which was forced to find a buyer by the

Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) due to its dominance in the calcium hypochlorite business (a

competing swimming pool sanitizer). In 1995, Clearon started operation of a *** metric ton-per-year

trichloroisocyanurate plant in South Charleston. Clearon is a joint venture of Israel Chemicals and its

subsidiary, Dead Sea Bromine.51

At the time of the original investigations, Clearon produced granular trichlor, granular dichlor,

and tableted trichlor at its facility in South Charleston, WV, although Clearon’s trichlor production was

shut down for a prolonged period in 2004, ***. In addition, Clearon had two workforce reductions,

allegedly due to lower market prices and lower sales, from over *** employees to the current level of

***. It reported that ***.52

OxyChem

According to the domestic producers’ response to the notice of institution, Occidental Chemical

entered the chlorinated isos business in 1992 when it purchased Monsanto’s ACL® chlorinated isos

business. In 1997, it debottlenecked the dichlorinated isocyanurates capacity from *** metric tons per

year and boosted its trichlorinated isocyanuric acid capacity from *** metric tons per year.53

At the time of the original investigations, OxyChem produced granular trichlor and granular

dichlor at its facilities in Sauget, IL and Luling, LA. OxyChem ***.54

U.S. Producers’ Trade, Employment, and Financial Data

Table I-8 presents data reported by U.S. integrated producers of chlorinated isos in the

Commission’s original investigations and in response to its five-year review institution notice. Data

presented for the period examined in the final phase of the original investigations were provided by three

producers (Clearon, OxyChem, and BioLab) that were believed to represent all of U.S. integrated

production of chlorinated isos during January 2002-December 2004. Data presented for 2009 were

provided by Clearon and OxyChem (believed to represent *** percent of chlorinated isos production in

2004 and *** percent of chlorinated isos production during 2009), but not BioLab, which accounted for

*** percent of total U.S. production in 2004 and an estimated *** percent in 2009.

 51 ***.

 52 Staff Report on Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China and Spain, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083

(Final), May 20, 2005 (INV-CC-069), p. III-3.

 53 ***.

 54 Staff Report on Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China and Spain, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083

(Final), May 20, 2005 (INV-CC-069), p. III-3.

I-17
Table I-8

Chlorinated isos: U.S. integrated producers’ trade, employment, and financial data, 2002-04 and

20091

(Quantity=short tons; unit values and unit labor costs=$/short ton)

Item 2002 2003 2004 2009

Capacity1 150,850 152,000 152,720 ***

Production 122,518 119,272 122,061 ***

Capacity utilization (percent) 81.2 78.5 79.9 ***

U.S. shipments:

 Quantity 111,681 100,520 115,539 ***

 Value ($1,000) 192,040 161,033 159,223 ***

 Unit value $1,720 $1,602 $1,378 ***

Exports:

 Quantity 16,759 14,053 15,863 (2

)

 Value ($1,000) 22,068 19,067 22,045 (2

)

 Unit value $1,317 $1,357 $1,390 (2

)

Total shipments:

 Quantity 128,440 114,573 131,402 (2

)

 Value ($1,000) 214,108 180,100 181,268 (2

)

 Unit value $1,667 $1,572 $1,379 (2

)

End-of-period inventories 17,469 22,168 12,827 (2

)

Production and related workers

(number) *** *** *** (2

)

Hours worked (1,000 hours) *** *** *** (2

)

Wages paid ($1,000) *** *** *** (2

)

Hourly wages *** *** *** (2

)

Productivity3

 (tons/1,000 hours) *** *** *** (2)

Unit labor costs3 *** *** *** (2

)

Net sales ($1,000) *** *** *** ***

Cost of goods sold ($1,000) *** *** *** ***

Gross profit or (loss) ($1,000) *** *** *** ***

SG&A expenses ($1,000) *** *** *** ***

Operating income or (loss) ($1,000) *** *** *** ***

Operating income (loss)/sales

(percent) *** *** *** ***

 1 Data presented for 2002-04 were provided by three producers (Clearon, OxyChem, and BioLab). These three firms were

believed to have represented all of U.S. integrated production of chlorinated isos (in granular form and tablets) during the period for

which data were collected. Data presented for 2009 were provided by two producers (Clearon and OxyChem) that are believed to

represent *** percent of chlorinated isos production during 2009.

 2

 Not available.

 3

 Data as originally tabulated. Not derivable from data presented.

Note.–U.S. shipments of tableted chlorinated isos were not included in domestic producers’ U.S. shipments to prevent doublecounting domestic granular product transformed into tablets. Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China and Spain: Investigation Nos.

731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Final), USITC Publication 3782, June 2005, p. 22 n. 171.

Source: Supplementary table I; Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, p. 24.

I-18
As shown in table I-8, the domestic industry’s capacity increased during the period examined in

the original investigations. Production and capacity utilization decreased between 2002 and 2003 then

increased in 2004. U.S. shipment volume decreased by 10.0 percent from 2002 to 2003 then increased by

14.9 percent from 2003 to 2004. Unit values of U.S. shipments decreased from 2002 to 2004 by

19.9 percent. Production workers and their hours worked decreased throughout the period. Hourly wages

increased by *** percent from 2002 to 2004. The operating income margin decreased throughout the

period examined from *** percent in 2002 to a loss of *** percent in 2004. Total net sales decreased

from 2002 to 2003 then recovered in 2004. Gross profit and operating income decreased throughout the

period.

During the period examined in these five-year reviews, production capacity, production volume,

capacity utilization, U.S. shipment quantity, value, unit value, net sales, cost of goods sold, gross profit,

SG&A expenses, and operating income for calendar/fiscal year 2009 are the only industry indicators

available. Staff notes that BioLab, a major producer in the original investigations, did not respond to the

Commission’s notice of institution in these five-year reviews. Even taking into consideration BioLab’s

estimated production, however, volume indicators were lower in 2009 than in 2002-04, although unit

values and operating income were higher.55

Related Party Issues56

Chairman Koplan and Commissioners Miller and Hillman included tableters (firms that convert

purchased granulated chlorinated isocyanurates into tablets) in the domestic industry, although only

Chairman Koplan found that appropriate circumstances existed to exclude tableters *** and *** from the

domestic industry as related parties. On the other hand, Vice Chairman Okun and Commissioners Lane

and Pearson concluded that tableters did not engage in sufficient production-related activity to qualify as

domestic producers and included only domestic integrated producers Clearon, OxyChem, and BioLab in

the domestic industry. Integrated producers of chlorinated isocyanurates produce granular and/or

powdered chlorinated isocyanurates from raw materials of cyanuric acid, caustic soda, and chlorine gas,

and also convert the granular chlorinated isocyanurates into tablets. During the original investigations,

OxyChem's conversion into tablets took place under a toll arrangement with tableter Stellar.57

Domestic interested parties Clearon and OxyChem did not identify themselves as related

producers in their supplemental response to the notice of institution.58 With respect to BioLab, the

domestic interested parties were silent as to related party considerations, but did not identify the company

as an importer of the subject merchandise. With respect to tableters, to the extent that they might be

considered part of the domestic industry, domestic interested parties Clearon and OxyChem identified the

following as U.S. importers of the subject merchandise: Alden Leeds, Aqui Tri, Cadillac, N. Jonas, and

Haviland.59

 55 Assuming BioLab accounted for *** percent of both U.S. production and U.S. shipments, the aggregate 2009

volumes for these measures would have been *** short tons and *** short tons, respectively.

 56 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Chlorinated

Isocyanurates From China and Spain: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Final), USITC Publication 3782,

June 2005, pp. I-5-I-6.

 57 Confidential Views of the Commission, pp. 20-26.

 58 Response to Commission's Letter Regarding Domestic Producers' Substantive Response, July 2, 2010, p. 3.

 59 Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, pp. 20-22.

I-19
U.S. IMPORTS AND APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

In the original investigations, subject imports from China and Spain were eligible for cumulation. 

The Commission examined whether there was a reasonable overlap of competition between subject

imports from China and Spain, as well as between subject imports from the two countries and the

domestic like product. Based on its analysis, the Commission found that there was a reasonable overlap

of competition between subject imports from China and Spain and the domestic like product. The

Commission thus cumulatively assessed the volume and effects of the subject imports from China and

Spain in the final-phase of the original investigations.60

In response to the Commission's notice of institution, the domestic interested parties indicated

that the factors examined in the original investigations regarding cumulation remained substantially

unchanged.61 Based on official import statistics, U.S. imports of chlorinated isos from China and Spain

have been present in the United States during 2005-09, entering in 39 and 48 months, respectively, of this

60-month period. U.S. imports from China were largely through New York and Los Angeles, while those

from Spain were largely through New York, Savannah, and Houston.

U.S. Imports

During the original investigations, the Commission sent questionnaires to 30 firms identified as

possible importers in the petition and by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Twelve firms provided

requested trade data to the Commission, while twelve of the remaining eighteen firms responded that they

did not import chlorinated isos during the period for which data were collected or that they imported a

product other than chlorinated isos under the same HTS classification. The twelve firms that provided

usable data included virtually all known large importers of chlorinated isos from China and Spain, but

coverage was less complete for imports from countries other than China and Spain. Subject imports made

by Shikoku International Corporation and Arch Chemicals Inc. (***) accounted for *** percent of

reported imports during 2002-04. ***, Alden Leeds Inc. and Wego Chemical and Mineral Corp.,

accounted for *** percent and *** percent, respectively, of total reported imports during 2002-04. Arch

Chemicals imported *** quantity of imports from China during this period, Alden Leeds imported the

*** subject product from Spain, and Shikoku imported the *** subject product from nonsubject

countries. Other companies providing import data were ***.62

In their response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this review, the domestic interested

parties listed the following thirteen companies that they believe to be importers of subject merchandise

from China: Alden Leeds Inc., Aqua Tri, Arch Chemical, Inc., Cadillac Chemical Group, Haviland

Consumer Products, Inc., MLS Technology, Inc., N. Jonas & Co., Inc., Qualco, Inc., RBF International

Ltd., Ryte Products, SCP Pool Corp., Special Materials Company, and Wego Chemical and Mineral

Corp.63 The domestic interested parties also submitted PIERS import data for 2005-09.64 These data are

markedly higher than official U.S. import statistics for HTS statistical reporting number 2933.69.6015,

potentially indicating that U.S. import data presented in this report may be understated. Staff did not

include statistical reporting numbers 2933.69.6021 or 2933.69.6050 in the data set as they represent

 60 Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China and Spain: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Final), USITC

Publication 3782, June 2005, pp. 18-20.

 61 Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, p. 7.

 62 Staff Report on Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China and Spain, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083

(Final), May 20, 2005 (INV-CC-069), pp. IV-2-IV-3.

 63 Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, pp. 21.

 64 Ibid., exh. 1.

I-20
basket categories which include merchandise not subject to these reviews. PIERS import data did not

align even with the inclusion of the basket categories, which was *** as much in comparison.

The following tabulation presents the PIERS import data (in short tons) for China, Spain, and all

other included countries65 for 2005-09.

* * * * * * *

Chlorinated isos import data for annual periods 2002-09 are presented in table I-9. The quantity

of the subject imports increased from 2002 to 2004 and then dropped noticeably in 2005. Quantity

increased in 2006 and fluctuated between 2007 and 2008, until increasing (for China, although not Spain)

again in 2009. Quantity reached its peak in 2004 and fell to its lowest level in 2005. The unit value of

the subject imports fluctuated throughout the entire period of data collected, with no clear trend being

shown. Subject imports from China fell by *** percent from *** short tons in 2004 to 45 short tons in

2005, before increasing to 6,713 short tons in 2006. Subject imports from Spain fell by *** percent from

*** short tons in 2004 to 1,152 short tons in 2005, before increasing to 2,050 short tons in 2006.

Leading Nonsubject Sources of Imports

During the period examined by the Commission in the final phase of the original investigations

(2002-04), the total quantity of imports of chlorinated isos from all nonsubject sources increased from

*** short tons in 2002 to *** short tons in 2004. During the period for which data were collected in these

reviews, imports of chlorinated isos entered the United States from a variety of sources. Japan was the

single largest nonsubject source of imports between 2008 and 2009, accounting for between 14.3 percent

and 25.1 percent of imported chlorinated isos in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Vietnam was second,

accounting for 6.6 percent of imported chlorinated isos in 2009. PIERS import data submitted by the

domestic interested parties indicate that the U.S. import data used in this report may be substantially

understated, especially for Japan. The substantial increase of nonsubject imports, particularly from Japan,

was specifically noted by the domestic interested parties.66

 65 ***.

 66 Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2020, p. 10.

I-21
Table I-9

Chlorinated Isocyanurates: U.S. imports, by source, 2002-091

Source 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (short tons)

China *** *** *** 45 6,713 6,425 5,373 10,797

Spain *** *** *** 1,152 2,050 1,146 4,627 2,149

 Subtotal, subject *** *** *** 1,197 8,763 7,572 10,001 12,947

Japan (2

) (2) (2) 0 0 0 1,750 4,811

Vietnam (2

) (2) (2) 0 79 951 418 1,271

All other (2

) (2) (2) 0 0 75 33 102

 Subtotal, nonsubject *** *** *** 0 79 1,027 2,201 6,184

 Total, all countries 13,536 29,395 33,039 1,197 8,843 8,598 12,202 19,130

Value ($1,000)

China *** *** *** 63 8,585 7,666 7,236 15,900

Spain *** *** *** 2,053 4,239 2,231 10,060 5,232

 Subtotal, subject *** *** *** 2,116 12,823 9,897 17,296 21,131

Japan (2

) (2) (2) 0 0 0 3,665 10,432

Vietnam (2

) (2) (2) 0 87 2,128 858 2,662

All other (2

) (2) (2) 0 0 203 98 247

 Subtotal, nonsubject *** *** *** 0 87 2,331 4,621 13,340

 Total, all countries 19,734 36,782 42,603 2,116 12,911 12,228 21,917 34,472

Unit value (per short ton)

China3 *** *** *** 1,391 1,279 1,193 1,347 1,473

Spain *** *** *** 1,782 2,068 1,947 2,174 2,434

 Subtotal, subject *** *** *** 1,768 1,463 1,307 1,730 1,632

Japan (2

) (2) (2) 0 0 0 2,094 2,168

Vietnam (2

) (2) (2) 0 1,102 2,237 2,052 2,094

All other (2

) (2) (2) 0 0 2,688 3,968 2,094

 Subtotal, nonsubject *** *** *** 0 1,102 2,270 2,099 2,157

 Total, all countries 1,532 1,333 1,378 1,768 1,460 1,422 1,796 1,802

Table continued on the following page.

I-22
Table I-9--Continued

Chlorinated Isocyanurates: U.S. imports, by source, 2002-091

Source 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Share of quantity (percent)

China *** *** *** 3.8 75.9 74.7 44.0 56.4

Spain *** *** *** 96.2 23.2 13.3 37.9 11.2

 Subtotal, subject *** *** *** 100.0 99.1 88.1 82.0 67.7

Japan (2

) (2) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 25.1

Vietnam (2

) (2) (2) 0.0 0.9 11.1 3.4 6.6

All other (2

) (2) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.3 0.5

 Subtotal, nonsubject *** *** *** 0.0 0.9 11.9 18.0 32.3

 Total, all countries 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

China *** *** *** 3.0 66.5 62.7 33.0 46.1

Spain *** *** *** 97.0 32.8 18.2 45.9 15.2

 Subtotal, subject *** *** *** 100.0 99.3 80.9 78.9 61.3

Japan (2

) (2) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 30.3

Vietnam (2

) (2) (2) 0.0 0.7 17.4 3.9 7.7

All other (2

) (2) (2) 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.4 0.7

 Subtotal, nonsubject *** *** *** 0.0 0.7 19.1 21.1 38.7

 Total, all countries 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Data presented for 2002-04 are based on data from importer questionnaire responses received in the

Commission’s original investigations. Data presented for 2005-09 are based on official U.S. import statistics.

 2

 Not available.

 3

 Unit values for China during the original investigations as originally tabulated. Not derivable from data

presented.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Note.–Mexico and India entered the U.S. market in 2009, accounting for the majority of nonsubject imports after

Japan and Vietnam, a quantity of 247 short tons combined.

Note.–As noted previously, quantity data tabulated by the domestic interested parties suggest that imports of

chlorinated isos may be substantially greater than quantity of imports entering the United States under HTS

statistical reporting number 2933.69.6015.

Source: Staff Report on Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China and Spain, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and

1083 (Final), May 20, 2005 (INV-CC-069), table IV-2 (2002-04), official Commerce statistics, HTS statistical

reporting number 2933.69.6015.

I-23
Ratio of Imports to U.S. Production

Information concerning the ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production of chlorinated isos is

presented in table I-10. Subject imports of chlorinated isos from China were equivalent to *** percent of

U.S. production in 2002, increased to *** percent during 2003, and then further increased to *** percent

in 2004. Subject imports of chlorinated isos from China were equivalent to *** percent of U.S.

production in 2009, a slight increase when compared with the period examined in the original

investigations. Subject imports of chlorinated isos from Spain were equivalent to *** percent in 2002,

increased to *** percent in 2003, then decreased slightly to *** percent in 2004. Based on directly

reported 2009 domestic data and “clean” U.S. import data, subject imports of chlorinated isos from Spain

were equivalent to *** percent of U.S. production. Subject imports of chlorinated isos combined

amounted to *** percent of domestic production in 2009, decreasing less than half a percentage point

when compared with 2004. The ratio of nonsubject imports to domestic production increased from ***

percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2009.

Staff notes that the exclusion of major producer BioLab in the 2009 data set understates U.S.

production. The “clean” U.S. import data may also be potentially understated. Assuming the higher

values for both production and importation, the ratio of imports from China to U.S. production in 2009

would be *** percent, while the ratio of imports from Spain to U.S. production would be *** percent.

I-24
Table I-10

Chlorinated isos: Ratio of U.S. imports1

 to U.S. production, by sources, 2002-04 and 20092

Item 2002 2003 2004 2009

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. production 122,518 119,272 122,061 ***

U.S. imports from--

China *** *** *** 10,797

Spain *** *** *** 2,149

 All subject countries *** *** *** 12,946

Other *** *** *** 6,184

 All countries 13,536 29,395 33,039 19,130

Ratio of U.S. imports to production (percent)

China *** *** *** ***

Spain *** *** *** ***

 All subject countries *** *** *** ***

Other *** *** *** ***

 All countries 11.0 24.6 27.1 ***

 1 Import data presented for 2002-04 are based on data from importer questionnaire responses received in the

Commission’s original investigations and consist of granular dichlor, granular trichlor, tableted trichlor, and blended

tablets. Import data presented for 2009 are based on official U.S. import statistics and consist of only granular

dichlor and trichlor.

 2

 Production data presented for 2002-04 were provided by three producers believed to have represented 100

percent of the U.S. integrated production of chlorinated isos during 2004 and includes granular dichlor and granular

trichlor. Data presented for 2009 were provided by two producers believed to have represented *** percent of U.S.

production of chlorinated isos during 2004 and *** percent during 2009.

Note.–As noted previously, quantity data tabulated by the domestic interested parties suggest that imports of

chlorinated isos may be substantially greater than quantity of imports entering the United States under HTS

statistical reporting number 2933.69.6015.

Source: Staff Report on Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China and Spain, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and

1083 (Final), May 20, 2005 (INV-CC-069), tables IV-2 and IV-5; Supplementary table I (2002-04); official Commerce

statistics, HTS statistical reporting number 2933.69.6015 (for 2009 U.S. import data); and Response of domestic

interested parties, June 2, 2010, p. 24 (for 2009 production data).

Apparent U.S. Consumption and Market Shares

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares are presented in table I-11. U.S. shipments of

domestically produced chlorinated isos decreased from 2002 to 2003, then increased in 2004. U.S.

shipments of chlorinated isos from China increased throughout the original period of investigation, while

U.S. shipments of chlorinated isos from Spain increased from 2002 to 2003 then decreased from 2003-04. 

U.S. imports from China increased by *** percentage points in market share based on quantity from 2002

to 2004 Spain's market share remained more stable, increasing slightly from *** percent in 2002 to ***

percent in 2004. The domestic industry's share of apparent U.S. consumption based on quantity fell from

89.2 percent in 2002 to 77.9 percent in 2004.

I-25
The quantity of apparent U.S. consumption in 2009 was lower than at any time during the

original investigations, but higher in terms of value when compared with 2004.67 The domestic

chlorinated isos industry held an estimated *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption on the basis of

quantity in 2009 and an estimated *** percent on the basis of value in that year. U.S. imports from China

held a *** percent share of the U.S. market in 2009 on the basis of quantity and *** percent on the basis

of value, while Spain held a *** percent share on the basis of quantity and *** percent share on the basis

of value. Apparent U.S. consumption shares for U.S. shipments of subject imports combined amounted to

*** percent on the basis of quantity and *** percent on the basis of value. 

The exclusion of BioLab from the data set underestimates 2009 domestic production and market

share of U.S. consumption and overestimates import market share of U.S. consumption. In addition,

quantity data submitted by the domestic interested parties indicate that “clean” U.S. import statistics may

also be understated. Assuming both values were maximized, U.S. shipments of *** short tons would

constitute *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption of *** short tons. U.S. imports from China and

Spain of *** and *** short tons, respectively, would constitute *** and *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption, respectively, or *** short tons (*** percent) cumulatively. Imports for identified

nonsubject countries would constitute *** short tons, or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption.

Table I-11

Chlorinated isos: U.S. integrated producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. shipments of imports, and

apparent U.S. consumption, 2002-04, and 2009

Item 2002 2003 2004 20091

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. integrated producers’ U.S. shipments 111,681 100,520 115,539 ***

U.S. shipments of imports from--

 China *** *** *** 10,797

 Spain *** *** *** 2,149

 Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** 12,947

 All other sources2 *** *** *** 6,184

 Total import shipments 13,485 27,392 32,712 19,130

Apparent U.S. consumption 125,166 127,912 148,251 ***

Table continued on the following page.

 67 As mentioned previously, BioLab, which accounted for approximately *** percent of total U.S. production, is

missing from the data set.

I-26
Table I-11–Continued

Chlorinated isos: U.S. integrated producers' U.S. shipments, U.S. shipments of imports, and

apparent U.S. consumption, 2002-04, and 2009

Item 2002 2003 2004 20091

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. integrated producers’ U.S. shipments 192,040 161,033 159,223 ***

U.S. shipments of imports from--

 China *** *** *** 15,900

 Spain *** *** *** 5,232

 Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** 21,131

 All other sources *** *** *** 13,340

 Total import shipments 22,181 49,737 60,281 34,472

Apparent U.S. consumption 214,221 210,770 219,504 ***

Share of consumption based on quantity (percent)

U.S. integrated producers’ U.S. shipments 89.2 78.6 77.9 ***

U.S. shipments of imports from--

 China *** *** *** ***

 Spain *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** ***

 All other sources *** *** *** ***

 Total import shipments 10.8 21.4 22.1 ***

Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of consumption based on value (percent)

U.S. integrated producers’ U.S. shipments 89.6 76.4 72.5 ***

U.S. shipments of imports from--

 China *** *** *** ***

 Spain *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** ***

 All other sources *** *** *** ***

 Total import shipments 10.4 23.6 27.5 ***

Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Consumption during the period examined in the original investigations was calculated using import shipments

as reported by U.S. importers while consumption during 2009 was calculated using official Commerce statistics.

Source: Supplementary table I; Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, p. 24; and official

Commerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting number 2933.69.6015.

The domestic swimming pool chemical market is strongly linked to activity in the U.S. housing

industry. The domestic interested parties indicated in their response to the Commission’s notice of

institution in this review that “hot summers tend to lead to increased demand” which they contend

explains trends observed from the 2002-04 period during the final-phase of the original investigations. 

They reason that “with the overall decline in the U.S. housing market for the last few years and the weak

economy, growth in the number of new swimming pools has slowed and overall consumption probably

I-27
has not increased substantially since the original investigations.” However, purchaser *** believes that as

the U.S. housing market and the economy continues to improve, consumer demand will increase.68

In their response to the notice of institution, the domestic producers assert that “the underlying

market dynamics for chlorinated isos” noted by the Commission in the original investigations have not

changed. The domestic producers note that “there is still intense competition among producers for

business...and low price offers are quickly communicated throughout the market and exert downward

pressure across all major segments...hav{ing} the effect of depressing or suppressing domestic prices of

U.S. producers in the event of revocation of the orders.”

Additionally, the domestic interested parties reported that the domestic industry has lost U.S.

market share since the imposition of the antidumping duty orders. OxyChem and Clearon are currently

operating at a combined *** percent capacity utilization, which is *** than at any point in the original

investigations. The domestic producers also believe that BioLab is “operating at much less than its full

production capacity.”69 They conclude that “while the domestic industry has experienced some beneficial

improvement in terms of pricing, the orders have not allowed the domestic industry to retake any of the

market share that was lost to subject imports during the period of the original investigations. This loss of

share also makes the domestic industry highly vulnerable to any deterioration in current pricing levels.”70

In the original investigations, “almost all” producer responses to Commission questionnaires

stated that imports from China and Spain satisfied minimum quality specifications and were therefore

interchangeable with the domestic product. However, in its purchaser survey response, *** reported that

“there is a limited amount of higher quality product” in the United States due to the small number of

domestic producers, while China and Spain are producing lower quality product. Purchaser *** also

notes that Spanish product is even lower quality than Chinese product and is failing quality control. For

example, the company has tested some product that have had less than 70 percent chlorine content even

though containers stated chlorine content of 99 percent.71 Recent events such as the bankruptcy of

domestic producer BioLab’s parent company, Chemtura, and a major Spanish company’ reported refusal

to export to the United States due to the antidumping duty orders potentially raises concern over supply

shortages in the future, at least according to certain customers. For example, *** alleges that with each

passing year, “some of the big U.S. vendors fear that there will be a shortage.”72 However, the domestic

interested parties noted an increase in import supply available from China and from nonsubject countries

such as Japan and Vietnam.73

Another factor impacting the supply of chlorinated isos in the U.S. market reflects changes in the

application of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) to chlorinated isos. 

Pool products containing chlorinated isos are treated as pesticides and must be registered under FIFRA. 

Since 1986, FIFRA has required in-depth studies to determine the environmental safety of the product. 

Therefore, any firm that wished to obtain a license to sell chlorinated isos in the United States had to file

an application with the EPA citing to studies regarding the environmental safety of the product.

Performing these studies individually was time consuming and costly, so individual producers were

permitted to rely on studies that had already been done by an Ad Hoc Committee in 1986. The three

integrated domestic producers, several non-subject suppliers, and Spanish producer Aragonesas were

 68 Purchaser survey response of ***.

 69 Response of domestic interested parties, p. 9. BioLab’s parent company Chemtura is undergoing bankruptcy

proceedings. Response of domestic interested parties, p. 9.

 70 Response of domestic interested parties, pp. 6-10 and 18.

 71 Purchaser survey response of ***.

 72 Purchaser survey responses of ***. Purchaser *** has also expressed concern about “the future effects on

capacity from a major U.S. supplier operating under Chapter 11 bankruptcy.” Purchaser survey response of ***.

 73 Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, pp. 25-26.

I-28
members of the Ad Hoc Committee. The Committee charged $400,000 to non-member applicants for

using these studies.

In 2001, the fifteen-year period during which the Ad Hoc Committee could charge this fee

expired. This meant that starting in 2001, importers of subject imports could use the Ad Hoc Committee

research to obtain the U.S. licenses without first paying the costly research fee. In 2001, Cadillac became

the first U.S. importer after the expiration of the fee requirement to obtain an EPA registration for

chlorinated isos, followed quickly by N. Jonas, Alden Leeds, and Arch. Both Petitioners and

Respondents in the original investigations agreed that the change in application of the EPA regulations for

approving U.S. sales of chlorinated isos made it easier for importers to sell subject imports of chlorinated

isos in the United States.74

ANTIDUMPING ACTIONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

In 2005, an antidumping duty order on trichloroisocyanuric acid (“TCCA”) products from China

and the United States was enacted by the European Union (“EU”). The duties imposed on TCCA from

China and the United States was 46.6 percent and 25.0 percent respectively. On April 23, 2010, the

European Commission published notice of “impending expiry” of the antidumping duty orders from

China and the U.S. unless a review was initiated. The antidumping duty orders are due to expire on

October 8, 2010.75

In addition, an antidumping order on imports of trichloroisocyanuric acid from China was

imposed by Mexico in December 2002. These Mexican duties remained in effect until December 2007,

when they were revoked pursuant to a notice published by the Mexican Ministry of Economics.76 There

are no antidumping measures for sodium dichloroisocyanuric acid and no other antidumping actions

concerning chlorinated isos outside the United States were identified in the domestic interested parties’

response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this review nor were any other actions identified in

public searches for information.77

THE WORLD MARKET

Total worldwide capacity of chlorinated isos was estimated to be approximately 373,000 short

tons in 2006 (but this includes over 110,000 short tons per year of capacity in China that reportedly

produces product of inferior quality). Close to half of this capacity is located in China (which again may

include inferior product only suitable for domestic consumption).78 Table I-12 presents information on

major producers of chlorinated isos, excluding China and Spain.

Table I-12

Chlorinated isos: Major world producers (excluding China and Spain)

* * * * * * *

 74 Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China and Spain: Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Final), USITC Pub.

3782, June 2005, pp. 23-24.

 75 European Commission. “Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures (2010/C 104/08),”

April 23, 2010, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/tdi/notices.cfm.

 76 Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, pp. 15-16.

 77 ***.

 78 Ibid., p. 5.

I-29
3V Italia is a privately owned company which started production in Italy in 1986. It is selfsufficient in cyanuric acid and is downstream-integrated into the production and marketing of final-use

form such as tablets and small buckets of granules. 3V Italia is an important manufacturer of cyanuric

acid-based optical brighteners (i.e. triazinylaminostilbene), for which the company has a significant

market share.79

All Japanese companies produce chlorinated isocyanurates from urea via cyanuric acid. Nissan

Chemical and Shikoku have been supplying product since the 1960s. Nippon Soda started production in

1982 and provides trichlorocyanuric acid mainly to the septic tank market. Nankai began production in

1999. Nippon Soda and Nankai also produce calcium hypochlorite, which competes with chlorinated

isocyanurates in the swimming pool market.80

THE SUBJECT INDUSTRY IN CHINA

The Commission reported in the original investigations that there were believed to be at least 22

producers of chlorinated isocyanurates in China at the time, although the exact number was unknown. 

The following four producers in China that provided questionnaire responses in the original investigations

were believed to have accounted for most of the exports of the subject merchandise to the United States

during 2004: (1) Changzhou Clean Chemical Co., Ltd.; (2) Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co., Ltd.; (3)

Nanning Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.; and (4) Sinochem Hebei Import and Export Corp.81 Those

companies, who are believed to be the leading producers in China, are listed in Table I-13.

The Commission did not receive a response to its notice of institution in these reviews from any

Chinese producer of chlorinated isos. However, the domestic interested parties identified in their

response six producers of chlorinated isos in China that have or may have exported the subject

merchandise to the United States after the order was imposed. According to information published by

*** and included as an exhibit to the domestic interested parties’ response, there are at least 22 producers

of chlorinated isos in China.82

 79 ***.

 80 ***.

 81 Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China and Spain: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Final), USITC

Publication 3782, June 2005, p. VII-1.

 82 Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China and Spain: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082-1083 (Review)--

Recommendation on Adequacy of Responses to Notice of Institution.

I-30
Table I-13

Chlorinated isos: Major Chinese producers

Firm

Capacity

(short tons) Location

*** (1

) ***

China Salt Changzhou Chemical Co., Ltd. 33,069.3 Changzhou, Jiangsu

*** (1

) ***

Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co., Ltd. 60,627.1 Hengshui, Hebei

Heze Huayi Chemical Co., Ltd. 17,637.0 Qingdao, Shandong

*** (1

) ***

*** (1

) ***

*** (1

) ***

Liaocheng London Chemical Co., Ltd. 6,613.9 Liaocheng, Shandong

Nanning Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. 16,534.7 Nanning, Guangxi Zhuang A.R.

Puyang Cleanway Chemicals Ltd. 27,557.8 Henan, Puyang

Shandong Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. 55,115.6 Juangcheng County, Shandong

Sino-Korea Anhui Suzhou SDF Chemical

Industry Co. 9,920.8 Putuo, Shanghai

Zhucheng Taisheng Chemical Co., Ltd. 5,511.6 Zhucheng, Shandong

 1 ***.

Source: Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, exh. 2 and 4.

The foreign producers’ data from the period examined in the original investigations for granular

chlorinated isos are shown in table I-14 and their data for tableted chlorinated isos are shown in table I-15

(granular and tableted chlorinated isos cannot be added together because of double-counting of the

granular product used in the tableted product). Both capacity and production for the four responding

producers increased overall in the period examined. Exports accounted for a substantial and increasing

share of total shipments during the period examined. As a share of total shipments, exports to the United

States increased from 2002 to 2004. The only data available for 2009 was derived from official import

statistics. However, this is an inadequate comparison since granular and tableted chlorinated isos were

not added together in the original investigations in order to avoid double-counting.

Table I-14

Granular chlorinated isos: China’s production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, by

type, 2002-04, and projections for 2005-06

* * * * * * *

Table I-15

Tableted chlorinated isos: China’s production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, by

type, 2002-04, and projections for 2005-06

* * * * * * *

I-31
The main uses of chlorinated isos in China are swimming pool sanitation and disinfection of

drinking water and industrial circulating water. Dichloroisocyanurate can be used for disinfection in

raising silkworms, livestock, poultry, and fish. It is also used as bleach for cotton, hemp, and chemical

fibers and as a wool antishrinkage agent. The Chinese market for swimming pool products is not very

large; therefore, many producers are export-oriented. Total Chinese exports were believed to be *** short

tons in recent years, with most exports going to Europe and North America.83

According to the domestic producers, the United States is, “by a very wide margin,” the largest

market in the world for chlorinated isos. The domestic producers also note that Chinese producers “must”

export their chlorinated isos because, in 2006, Chinese total domestic consumption of chlorinated isos

was *** metric tons (or *** short tons), while their production was *** metric tons (*** short tons). 

“This export imperative is why the surge of Chinese imports into the U.S. market in the 2002-2004 time

period...resulted in a precipitous decline in U.S. prices.” Finally, domestic producers highlight that the

Chinese industry exports almost its entire production of chlorinated isos, and that production “appears to

be rising rapidly with every year.”

THE SUBJECT INDUSTRY IN SPAIN

At the time of the Commission’s original investigations, the Spanish industry consisted of two

firms: Aragonesas Delsa S.A. (“Aragonesas”) and INQUIDE Flix, S.A. (“INQUIDE”). Aragonesas, the

sole exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States during the original investigations, was the

only producer in Spain that provided a questionnaire response to the Commission.

The Commission did not receive a response to its notice of institution of these reviews from any

Spanish producer, but Clearon and OxyChem’s response indicates that today the Spanish industry still

consists of two active producers of chlorinated isos: Aragonesas (acquired by Ercros in 2005) and

INQUIDE. Table I-16 presents information regarding the Spanish producers listed in the domestic

producers’ response and the Commission’s original investigations.

Table I-16

Chlorinated isos: Major Spanish producers

* * * * * * *

Based on information submitted by the domestic interested parties, Aragonesas is the leading

European producer of trichloroisocyanuric acid and commenced production in 1973. The chlorinated isos

that are produced are sold in the form of granules, powder, blocks, and tablets.84

Regarding Spanish production, domestic producers contend that the Spanish industry is highlyexport oriented and has substantial incentives to sell into the United States. Of the two producers in

Spain, the *** (included in the domestic producers’ response to the notice of institution) indicates that

Aragonesas and INQUIDE exported *** percent and *** percent of their total production respectively in

2006. The domestic interested parties note that with the spread of Chinese imports in Europe, Spanish

producers have the incentive to seek out export markets, such as the United States, for an increasing share

of their production.85

Production goes to both the industrial and professional markets and about *** percent of

production is exported. The raw materials for production of chlorinated isos are supplied from a newly

erected plant at the same site (Sabiñánigo); before 2005, the raw materials were transferred from

 83 ***.

 84 ***.

 85 Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, p. 12.

I-32
Aragonesas’s chlorine plant at Les Franqueses del Vallès, which was shut down after the new plant was

erected in Sabiñánigo. In 2005 Aragonesas was acquired by Ercros from Uralita SA, Spain for ***.

INQUIDE is a part of the Neokem Group, which together with AstralPool, are part of Aquaria

Group. About *** percent of INQUIDE’s production is for the Spanish market and the remaining ***

percent is exported to other Western European countries, South America, and the Middle East. Since

May 1997, the company has been producing isocyanuric acid in a factory at La Pobla de Claramunt, with

a capacity of *** short tons per year which is intended primarily for captive consumption, with smaller

volumes available for export. In 1999, INQUIDE entered into a joint venture with Ercros, that called for

the construction of a new plant to produce trichloroisocyanurate in Flix (Tarragona), which started

production in 2001, capable of producing *** short tons. The Flix plant uses the isocyanuric acid from

the INQUIDE plant in La Pobla de Claramunt, chlorine gas and caustic soda piped in from the adjacent

Ercros plant. Ercros claims to be the leading supplier of sodium hypochlorite in Spain and has a ***

percent share of the domestic market. INQUIDE is not involved in non-swimming pool markets of isos.

Data for Aragonesas compiled during the original investigations are shown in tables I-17

(granular chlorinated isos) and I-18 (tableted chlorinated isos).86 By mid-2003, Aragonesas shut down a

***-tons-per-year trichlor plant and now operates a ***-tons-per-year trichlor plant and a

***-tons-per-year dichlor plant. After the commissioning of the new dichlor plant, Aragonesas ***. 

Exports accounted for a *** of Aragonesas’ total shipments in the period examined, with *** going to the

United States. Other principal export markets for Aragonesas include ***. The only data available for

2009 was derived from official import statistics. However, this is an inadequate comparison since

granular and tableted chlorinated isos were not added together in the original investigations in order to

avoid double-counting.

Table I-17

Granular chlorinated isos: Spain’s production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories,

2002-04, and projections for 2005-06

* * * * * * *

Table I-18

Tableted chlorinated isos: Spain’s production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories,

2002-04, and projections for 2005-06

* * * * * * *

 86 Although complete data for the second producer, INQUIDE. are not available, it reportedly began operating in

2001 and was reported to have a production capacity of over 7,700 short tons. Chlorinated Isocyanurates From

China and Spain: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1082 and 1083 (Final), USITC Publication 3782, June 2005, p. VII-2

n. 2.

I-33

Contains Business Proprietary Information

A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 2010 / Notices 23303 

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. 10–5–213, 

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. 

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 2009 

(report quantity data in square yards 

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 after 2004, 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. 

Issued: April 22, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9815 Filed 4–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1082–1083 

(Review)] 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China 

and Spain 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the antidumping duty orders 

on chlorinated isocyanurates from 

China and Spain. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

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 orders on chlorinated 

isocyanurates from China and Spain 

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 June 2, 2010. Comments on 

the adequacy of responses may be filed 

with the Commission by July 16, 2010. 

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), as most recently amended at 74 FR 

2847 (January 16, 2009). 

DATES: Effective Date: May 3, 2010. 

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: 

Background.—On June 24, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce issued 

antidumping duty orders on imports of 

chlorinated isocyanurates from China 

and Spain (70 FR 36561–36563). The 

Commission is conducting reviews to 

determine whether revocation of the 

orders 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 full or 

expedited reviews. The Commission’s 

determinations in any expedited 

reviews will be based on the facts 

available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions.—The following 

definitions apply to these reviews: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year reviews, as 

defined by the Department of 

Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Countries in these 

reviews are China and Spain. 

(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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
23304 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 2010 / Notices 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determinations, the Commission 

defined the Domestic Like Product as all 

chlorinated isocyanurates, coextensive 

with Commerce’s scope of investigation. 

(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 determinations, 

the Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry as all domestic integrated 

producers of chlorinated isocyanurates, 

as well as all domestic tableters of 

chlorinated isocyanurates. Certain 

Commissioners defined the Domestic 

Industry differently. 

(5) The Order Date is the date that the 

antidumping duty orders under review 

became effective. In these reviews, the 

Order Date is June 24, 2005. 

(6) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the reviews 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 reviews 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 reviews. 

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 has advised that a five-year 

review is not 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 not 

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 these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, 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 reviews. 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 these 

reviews 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 June 2, 2010. 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 expedited or full reviews. The 

deadline for filing such comments is 

July 16, 2010. All written submissions 

must conform with the provisions of 

sections 201.8 and 207.3 of the 

Commission’s rules and any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, in 

accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each 

document filed by a party to the reviews 

must be served on all other parties to 

the reviews (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 reviews 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 

determinations in the reviews. 

Information To Be Provided in 

Response to This Notice of Institution: If 

you are a domestic producer, union/ 

worker group, or trade/business 

association; import/export Subject 

Merchandise from more than one 

Subject Country; or produce Subject 

Merchandise in more than one Subject 

Country, you may file a single response. 

If you do so, please ensure that your 

response to each question includes the 

information requested for each pertinent 

Subject Country. 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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 2010 / Notices 23305 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in these reviews by providing 

information requested by the 

Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders 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 each Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries since 

the Order Date. 

(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in 

the U.S. market for the Domestic Like 

Product and the Subject Merchandise 

(including street address, World Wide 

Web address, and the name, telephone 

number, fax number, and E-mail address 

of a responsible official at each firm). 

(8) A list of known sources of 

information on national or regional 

prices for the Domestic Like Product or 

the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or 

other markets. 

(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product , provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2009, except as noted 

(report quantity data in short tons 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); 

(d) the quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s); and 

(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include 

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country(ies), provide 

the following information on your 

firm’s(s’) operations on that product 

during calendar year 2009 (report 

quantity data in short tons and value 

data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/ 

business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from each Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from each 

Subject Country; and 

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from each Subject Country. 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject 

Country(ies), provide the following 

information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2009 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars, landed and duty-paid at the 

U.S. port but not including antidumping 

duties). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in each Subject Country accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) The quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country since the Order 

Date, and significant changes, if any, 

that are likely to occur within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. Supply 

conditions to consider include 

technology; production methods; 

development efforts; ability to increase 

production (including the shift of 

production facilities used for other 

products and the use, cost, or 

availability of major inputs into 

production); and factors related to the 

ability to shift supply among different 

national markets (including barriers to 

importation in foreign markets or 

changes in market demand abroad). 

Demand conditions to consider include 

end uses and applications; the existence 

and availability of substitute products; 

and the level of competition among the 

Domestic Like Product produced in the 

United States, Subject Merchandise 

produced in the Subject Countries, and 

such merchandise from other countries. 

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
23306 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 2010 / Notices 

Issued: April 22, 2010. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9817 Filed 4–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Office of Justice Programs 

[OJP (BJA) Docket No. 1517] 

Establishment of Advisory Committee 

on the National Motor Vehicle Title 

Information System 

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs 

(OJP), Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of establishment of the 

National Motor Vehicle Title 

Information System (NMVTIS) Advisory 

Board. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National 

Motor Vehicle Title Information System 

(NMVTIS) Final Rule, 74 FR 5740, 5774 

(January 30, 2009) the committee is 

being established in accordance with 

the provisions of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 

U.S.C., App. 2. The NMVTIS Advisory 

Board is necessary and in the public 

interest. The objective of the NMVTIS 

Advisory Board is to provide input and 

recommendations to the Office of Justice 

Programs (OJP) regarding the operations 

and administration of NMVTIS. The 

Charter is subject to renewal and will 

expire two years from its filing. The 

NMVTIS Advisory Board is continuing 

in nature, to remain functional until the 

BJA Director determines that all 

necessary duties have been performed. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alissa Huntoon, Designated Federal 

Employee (DFE), Bureau of Justice 

Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, 

810 7th Street, Northwest, Washington, 

DC 20531; Phone: (202) 305–1661 [note: 

this is not a toll-free number]; E-mail: 

Alissa.Huntoon@usdoj.gov. 

J. Patrick McCreary, 

Acting Deputy Director, Bureau of Justice 

Assistance, Office of Justice Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10290 Filed 4–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2008–0520; Docket Nos. 52–025 and 

52–026] 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

et al.: Supplementary Notice of Hearing 

and Opportunity To Petition for Leave 

To Intervene on a Combined License 

Application for the Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Supplementary notice of 

hearing and opportunity to petition for 

leave to intervene. 

DATES: Petitions for leave to intervene 

must be filed by July 2, 2010. 

I. Introduction 

This proceeding concerns the 

application dated March 28, 2008, filed 

by Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company (SNC, the Applicant), acting 

on behalf of itself and Georgia Power 

Company, Oglethorpe Power 

Corporation (an Electric Membership 

Corporation), Municipal Electric 

Authority of Georgia, and the City of 

Dalton, Georgia, an incorporated 

municipality in the State of Georgia 

acting by and through its Board of 

Water, Light and Sinking Fund 

Commissioners (Dalton Utilities), 

pursuant to Subpart C of 10 CFR part 52 

for a combined license (COL). The 

application was accepted for docketing 

on May 30, 2008. The docket numbers 

established for this application are 52– 

025 and 52–026. 

The application requests approval of 

a COL for Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant (Vogtle) Units 3 and 4, located in 

Burke County, Georgia. The Vogtle COL 

application incorporates by reference 

the Westinghouse AP1000 design 

certified in Appendix D to 10 CFR part 

52, and the application to amend that 

certified design. The AP1000 

amendment application is the subject of 

an ongoing rulemaking under docket 

number 52–006. The Vogtle COL 

application also references an Early Site 

Permit (ESP) that was the subject of an 

adjudicatory proceeding under docket 

number 52–011. That ESP application 

also included a request for a limited 

work authorization (LWA) to engage in 

selected construction activities as 

defined by 10 CFR 50.10. The Final 

Environment Impact Statement for the 

ESP was published on August 22, 2008. 

The ESP and accompanying LWA was 

issued on August 26, 2009. 

On September 16, 2008, a notice of 

hearing and opportunity for leave to 

intervene was published by the United 

States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC, the Commission) in the Federal 

Register (73 FR 53446) in this 

proceeding. That notice specified that a 

hearing to consider the COL application 

would be held at a time and place to be 

set in the future by the Commission or 

designated by the Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board (Board). The notice also 

provided an opportunity for persons 

whose interest might be affected by the 

proceeding to petition for leave to 

intervene. 

On October 2, 2009, SNC submitted to 

the NRC a supplement to its COL 

application requesting an LWA to 

engage in selected construction 

activities as defined by 10 CFR 50.10. 

As described by SNC, these activities 

would generally involve the 

‘‘installation of reinforcing steel, sumps, 

and drain lines and other embedded 

items in the Nuclear Island (NI) 

foundation base slab and placement of 

concrete for the NI foundation base 

slab.’’ SNC provided additional 

information in support of its LWA 

request by letters dated February 5, 2010 

and March 11, 2010. In light of the 

request for this additional authorization, 

the Commission herein dockets the 

LWA request and supplements its 

original notice of hearing of September 

16, 2008, as follows: 

The NRC staff will complete a 

detailed technical review of the COL 

application, including the LWA 

supplement requesting authority to 

perform selected construction activities 

as defined by 10 CFR 50.10, and will 

document its findings in a safety 

evaluation report (SER) and a 

supplement to the Vogtle ESP 

environmental impact statement (EIS). 

In addition, the Commission will refer 

a copy of the application to the 

Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards (ACRS) in accordance with 

10 CFR 52.87, and the ACRS will report 

on those portions of the application that 

concern safety. 

II. Petitions for Leave To Intervene 

Requirements for petitions for leave to 

intervene are found in 10 CFR 2.309, 

‘‘Hearing requests, Petitions to 

Intervene, Requirements for Standing, 

and Contentions.’’ Interested persons 

should consult 10 CFR part 2, section 

2.309, which is available at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room (PDR), located 

at O1 F21, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 

20852 (or call the PDR at (800) 397– 

4209 or (301) 415–4737). NRC 

regulations are also accessible 

electronically from the NRC’s Electronic 

Reading Room on the NRC Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov.


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
23240 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 2010 / Notices 

Administration, we have exercised our 

discretion to toll deadlines for the 

duration of the closure of the Federal 

Government from February 5 through 

February 12, 2010. Thus, all deadlines 

in this review have been extended by 

seven days. The revised deadline for the 

final results of this administrative 

review is currently April 28, 2010. See 

Memorandum to the Record from 

Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import 

Administration, regarding ‘‘Tolling of 

Administrative Deadlines As a Result of 

the Government Closure During the 

Recent Snowstorm,’’ dated February 12, 

2010. 

Extension of Time Limit for Final 

Results 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires 

the Department to make a final 

determination within 120 days after the 

date on which the preliminary 

determination is published. If it is not 

practicable to complete the review 

within this time period, section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 

Department to extend the time limit for 

the final determination to a maximum of 

180 days after the date on which the 

preliminary results are published. See 

also 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). 

We determine that it is not practicable 

to complete the final results of this 

administrative review by the current 

deadline of April 28, 2010, because we 

are continuing to examine the issue 

related to the export–subsidy 

adjustment addressed by the petitioner 

and respondent in briefs submitted in 

response to the Preliminary Results. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(h)(2), we are extending the time 

period for issuing the final results of 

this review by 60 days until June 27, 

2010. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(h)(2). 

Dated: April 26, 2010. 

Edward C. Yang, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10261 Filed 4–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–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 and countervailing duty 

orders listed below. The International 

Trade Commission (‘‘the Commission’’) 

is publishing concurrently with this 

notice its notice of Institution of FiveYear Review which covers the same 

orders. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 3, 2010. 

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 

Ave., 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 FiveYear (‘‘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 

and countervailing duty orders: 

DOC case No. ITC case No. Country Product Department contact 

A–570–898 ....... 731–TA–1082 ... PRC .............................................. Chlorinated Isocyanurates ........... Jennifer Moats, (202) 482–5047. 

A–469–814 ....... 731–TA–1083 ... Spain ............................................ Chlorinated Isocyanurates ........... Jennifer Moats, (202) 482–5047. 

A–570–101 ....... 731–TA–101 ..... PRC .............................................. Greige Polyester Cotton Printcloth 

(3nd Review).

Jennifer Moats, (202) 482–5047. 

A–570–001 ....... 731–TA–125 ..... PRC .............................................. Potassium Permanganate (3rd 

Review).

Jennifer Moats, (202) 482–5047. 

A–351–503 ....... 731–TA–262 ..... Brazil ............................................ Iron Construction Castings (3rd 

Review).

Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482– 

1391. 

A–122–503 ....... 731–TA–263 ..... Canada ......................................... Iron Construction Castings (3rd 

Review).

Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482– 

1391. 

A–570–502 ....... 731–TA–265 ..... PRC .............................................. Iron Construction Castings (3rd 

Review).

Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482– 

1391. 

C–351–504 ....... 701–TA–249 ..... Brazil ............................................ Heavy Iron Construction Castings 

(3rd Review).

Brandon Farlander, (202) 482– 

0182. 

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 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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 2010 / Notices 23241 

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. 

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. 

See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 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. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 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). 

Dated: April 19, 2010. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10258 Filed 4–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XW11 

Marine Mammals; File No. 14514 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the University of Florida, Aquatic 

Animal Program, College of Veterinary 

Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610 (Ruth 

Francis-Floyd, Responsible Party) has 

applied in due form for a permit to 

receive, import and export marine 

mammal specimens for scientific 

research. 

DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail 

comments must be received on or before 

June 2, 2010. 

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. 14514 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, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 

(301) 713–2289; fax (301) 713–0376; and 

Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th 

Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, Florida 

33701; phone (727) 824–5312; fax (727) 

824–5309. 

Written comments on this application 

should be submitted to the Chief, 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, at the address listed above. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

facsimile to (301) 713–0376, or by email 

to NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov. 

Please include the File No. in the 

subject line of the email comment. 

Those individuals requesting a public 

hearing should submit a written request 

to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and 

Education Division at the address listed 

above. The request should set forth the 

specific reasons why a hearing on this 

application would be appropriate. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Sloan or Kate Swails, (301) 713– 

2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

subject permit is requested under the 

authority of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act of 1972, as amended 

(MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the 

regulations governing the taking and 

importing of marine mammals (50 CFR 

part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.), the regulations governing the 

taking, importing, and exporting of 

endangered and threatened species (50 

CFR 222–226), and the Fur Seal Act of 

1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et 

seq.). 

The objectives of this research are to 

study various aspects of disease 

afflicting marine mammals including 

viral pathogens and brevetoxin studies; 

develop a marine mammal histology 

database and atlas, marine mammal cell 

lines; and conduct comparative 

morphology. Marine mammal parts 

would be obtained from the following 

sources: samples collected as part of 

routine husbandry procedures using 

captive stocks; other permitted 

academic, federal, and state institutions 

involved in marine mammal research; in 

conjunction with legal subsistence 

harvests; from marine mammals caught 

incidental to fisheries; or from animals 

in foreign countries following the host 

countries legal operations. The samples 

would then be received or imported to 

the investigators. Samples may be 

exported for research or archiving. 

Marine mammal parts (hard and soft 

parts) would not exceed 200 animals per 

year from animals within the order 

Cetacea (dolphins, porpoises and 

whales) and 100 animals per year from 

animals within the order Pinnipedia 

(sea lions and seals but excluding 

walruses), with unlimited sampling 

from each animal to maximize use. 

There would not be incidental take or 

take of live animals. The requested 

permit period is five years. 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial 

determination has been made that the 

activity proposed is categorically


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
49464 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 156 / Friday, August 13, 2010 / Notices 

1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s 

Republic of China, 70 FR 36561 (June 24, 2005) 

(‘‘PRC Order’’); see also Chlorinated Isocyanurates 

from Spain: Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 70 

FR 36562 (June 24, 2005) (‘‘Spain Order’’). 

2See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 75 

FR 23240 (May 3, 2010) (‘‘Sunset Initiation’’). 

3The Spain Order currently covers HTSUS 

subheadings 2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, and 

2933.69.6050, while the PRC Order currently covers 

HTSUS subheadings 2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, 

2933.69.6050, 3808.40.50, 3808.50.40 and 

3808.94.50.00. 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

administrative review and notice in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: August 9, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—Issues & Decision 

Memorandum 

Comment 1: Respondent Selection 

Methodology 

Comment 2: North Korean Import Data 

Comment 3: Shrimp Larvae 

Comment 4: Shrimp Feed 

Comment 5: Electricity 

Comment 6: Diesel Fuel 

Comment 7: Byproducts 

Comment 8: Wage Rate Methodology 

Comment 9: Use of Uniroyal’s and 

Waterbase’s Financial Statements 

Comment 10: Classification of Expenses 

from Falcon’s Financial Statements 

[FR Doc. 2010–20073 Filed 8–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–469–814, A–570–898 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain 

and the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of the Expedited Sunset 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty 

Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On May 3, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated sunset reviews of 

the antidumping duty orders on 

chlorinated isocyanurates (‘‘chlorinated 

isos’’) from Spain and the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘the Act’’). Based on the 

notices of intent to participate and 

adequate responses filed by the 

domestic interested parties, and the lack 

of response from any respondent 

interested party, the Department 

conducted expedited (120-day) sunset 

reviews of the antidumping duty orders 

on chlorinated isos from Spain and the 

PRC, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result of 

these sunset reviews, the Department 

finds that revocation of the antidumping 

duty orders would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping, 

at the levels indicated in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Sunset Review’’ section of this 

notice, infra. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 13, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brandon Petelin or Charles Riggle, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–8173 or (202) 482– 

0650, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

24, 2005, the Department published the 

antidumping duty orders on chlorinated 

isos from Spain and the PRC.1 On May 

3, 2010, the Department published the 

notice of initiation of the first sunset 

reviews of the antidumping duty orders 

on chlorinated isos from Spain and the 

PRC, pursuant to section 751(c) of the 

Act.2 On May 18, 2010, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1), the Department 

received timely and complete notices of 

intent to participate in the sunset 

reviews from Clearon Corporation and 

Occidental Chemical Corporation, 

domestic producers of chlorinated isos 

(collectively ‘‘Petitioners’’). On June 2, 

2010, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3), 

Petitioners filed timely and adequate 

substantive responses within 30 days 

after the date of publication of the 

Sunset Initiation. The Department did 

not receive substantive responses from 

any respondent interested party with 

respect to the orders on chlorinated isos 

from Spain or the PRC. As a result, 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), 

the Department conducted expedited 

(120-day) sunset reviews of the 

antidumping duty orders on chlorinated 

isos from Spain and the PRC. 

SCOPE OF THE ORDERS: 

The products covered by the orders 

are chlorinated isos, which are 

derivatives of cyanuric acid, described 

as chlorinated s–triazine triones. There 

are three primary chemical 

compositions of chlorinated isos: (1) 

trichloroisocyanuric acid (Cl3(NCO)3), 

(2) sodium dichloroisocyanurate 

(dihydrate) (NaCl2(NCO)3(2H2O), and (3) 

sodium dichloroisocyanurate 

(anhydrous) (NaCl2(NCO)3). Chlorinated 

isos are available in powder, granular, 

and tableted forms. The orders cover all 

chlorinated isos. Chlorinated isos are 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, 

2933.69.6050, 3808.40.50, 3808.50.40 

and 3808.94.50.00 of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’).3 The tariff classification 

2933.69.6015 covers sodium 

dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous and 

dihydrate forms) and 

trichloroisocyanuric acid. The tariff 

classifications 2933.69.6021 and 

2933.69.6050 represent basket categories 

that include chlorinated isos and other 

compounds including an unfused 

triazine ring. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

order is dispositive. 

ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS 

RECEIVED: 

A complete discussion of all issues 

raised in these sunset reviews is 

provided in the accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum, which is 

hereby adopted by this notice. See 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders on 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain 

and the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

from Edward C. Yang, Acting Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, to 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

dated concurrently with this notice 

(‘‘I&D Memo’’). The issues discussed in 

the I&D Memo include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and the magnitude of the margins likely 

to prevail if the orders were revoked. 

Parties can obtain a public copy of the 

I&D Memo from the Central Records 

Unit, room 1117, of the main Commerce 

building. In addition, a complete public 

version of the I&D Memo can be 

accessed directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the I&D Memo are 

identical in content. 

FINAL RESULTS OF REVIEW: 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on chlorinated isos from Spain 

and the PRC would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 156 / Friday, August 13, 2010 / Notices 49465 

at the following weighted–average 

margins: 

Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted–Average Margin 

(percent) 

Spain.

Argonesas Delsa S.A. ............................................................................................................................................... 24.83 

All–Others Rate ......................................................................................................................................................... 24.83 

PRC.

Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................................................... 75.78 

Nanning Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. ........................................................................................................................ 285.63 

Changzhou Clean Chemical Co., Ltd. ....................................................................................................................... 137.69 

Liaocheng Huaao Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. ......................................................................................................... 137.69 

Sinochem Hebei Import & Export Corporation .......................................................................................................... 137.69 

Sompcje, Shanghai Import & Export Corp. ............................................................................................................... 137.69 

PRC–Wide Rate ........................................................................................................................................................ 285.63 

NOTIFICATION REGARDING 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROTECTIVE 

ORDER: 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective orders 

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: August 9, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–20074 Filed 8–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XY09 

Marine Mammals; File No. 14682 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

NMFS has issued a permit to Whitlow 

Au, Ph.D., University of Hawaii, Hawaii 

Institute of Marine Biology, Marine 

Mammal Research Program, PO Box 

1106, Kailua, HI 96734, to conduct 

research on marine mammals. 

ADDRESSES: The permits and related 

documents are available for review 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the following offices: See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristy Beard or Carrie Hubard at 

(301)713–2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 12, 2009, notice was 

published in the Federal Register (74 

FR 58243) that a request for a permit to 

conduct scientific research on marine 

mammals had been submitted by the 

above-named applicant. The requested 

permit has been issued under the 

authority of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the regulations 

governing the taking and importing of 

marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

and the regulations governing the 

taking, importing, and exporting of 

endangered and threatened species (50 

CFR parts 222–226). 

A five-year permit was issued to Dr. 

Au to investigate the population 

dynamics and behavior of cetaceans 

around Hawaii and the Pacific, to 

determine aspects of the behavior and 

use of the acoustic environment by large 

whales, and to determine the effects of 

noise on behavior of cetaceans around 

Hawaii. The permit authorizes 

researchers to conduct behavioral 

observations, photo-identification, 

genetic sampling, suction-cup tagging, 

acoustic recording, and acoustic 

playbacks from vessels on: Blainville’s 

beaked whale (Mesoplodon 

densirostris), Cuvier’s beaked whale 

(Ziphius cavirostris), killer whale 

(Orcinus orca), humpback whale 

(Megaptera novaeangliae), dwarf sperm 

whale (Kogia sima), pygmy sperm whale 

(K. breviceps), short-finned pilot whale 

(Globicephala macrorhynchus), false 

killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens), 

pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata), 

melon-headed whale (Peponocephala 

electra), long-beaked common dolphin 

(Delphinus capensis), short-beaked 

common dolphin (D. delphis), striped 

dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba), spinner 

dolphin (S. longirostris), pantropical 

spotted dolphin (S. attenuata), 

bottlenose dolphin (Turisiops 

truncatus), Risso’s dolphin (Grampus 

griseus), Pacific white-sided dolphin 

(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), and 

rough-toothed dolphin (Steno 

bredanensis). 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an environmental 

assessment (EA) was prepared analyzing 

the effects of the permitted activities on 

the human environment. Based on the 

analyses in the EA, NMFS determined 

that issuance of the permit will not 

significantly impact the quality of the 

human environment and that 

preparation of an environmental impact 

statement was not required. That 

determination is documented in a 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI), signed on July 14, 2010. 

Issuance of the permit, as required by 

the ESA, was based on a finding that 

such permit: (1) was applied for in good 

faith; (2) will not operate to the 

disadvantage of such endangered 

species; and (3) is consistent with the 

purposes and policies set forth in 

section 2 of the ESA. 

Documents may be reviewed in the 

following locations: 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 

(301)713–2289; fax (301)713–0376; 

Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West 

Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, 

CA 90802–4213; phone (562)980–4001; 

fax (562)980–4018; and 

Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, 1601 

Kapiolani Blvd., Rm 1110, Honolulu, HI


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 18, 2010 / Notices 51113 

1A 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. 

2The Commission has found the response 

submitted by Carus Corp. to be individually 

adequate. Comments from other interested parties 

will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)).

1A 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. 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: August 6, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cynthia Trainor (202–205–3354), 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 at 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On August 6, 2010, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (75 

FR 23298, May 3, 2010) of the subject 

five-year review was adequate and that 

the respondent interested party group 

response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct an expedited review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report. A staff report containing 

information concerning the subject 

matter of the review will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on September 2, 

2010, and made available to persons on 

the Administrative Protective Order 

service list for this review. A public 

version will be issued thereafter, 

pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions. As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the review and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

review may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the review. 

Comments are due on or before 

September 8, 2010 and may not contain 

new factual information. Any person 

that is neither a party to the five-year 

review nor an interested party may 

submit a brief written statement (which 

shall not contain any new factual 

information) pertinent to the review by 

September 8, 2010. However, should the 

Department of Commerce extend the 

time limit for its completion of the final 

results of its review, the deadline for 

comments (which may not contain new 

factual information) on Commerce’s 

final results is three business days after 

the issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must 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). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the 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: August 11, 2010. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–20355 Filed 8–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1082 and 1083 

(Review)] 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates From China 

and Spain 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of expedited fiveyear reviews concerning the 

antidumping duty orders on chlorinated 

isocyanurates from China and Spain. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of expedited 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the antidumping 

duty orders on chlorinated 

isocyanurates from China and Spain 

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: August 6, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keysha Martinez (202–205–2136), 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: 

Background. On August 6, 2010, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (75 

FR 23303, May 3, 2010) of the subject 

five-year reviews was adequate and that 

the respondent interested party group 

response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting full reviews.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct expedited reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report. A staff report containing 

information concerning the subject 

matter of the reviews will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on September 2, 

2010, and made available to persons on 

the Administrative Protective Order 

service list for these reviews. A public 

version will be issued thereafter, 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
51114 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 18, 2010 / Notices 

2The Commission has found the joint response 

submitted by Clearon Corp. and Occidental 

Chemical Corp. to be adequate. Comments from 

other interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 

CFR 207.62(d)(2)). 

pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions. As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the reviews and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

reviews may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the 

reviews. Comments are due on or before 

September 8, 2010, and may not contain 

new factual information. Any person 

that is neither a party to the five-year 

reviews nor an interested party may 

submit a brief written statement (which 

shall not contain any new factual 

information) pertinent to the reviews by 

September 8, 2010. However, should the 

Department of Commerce extend the 

time limit for its completion of the final 

results of its reviews, the deadline for 

comments (which may not contain new 

factual information) on Commerce’s 

final results is three business days after 

the issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must 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). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the reviews must be 

served on all other parties to the reviews 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Authority: These 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: August 12, 2010. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–20349 Filed 8–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—IMS Global Learning 

Consortium, Inc. 

Notice is hereby given that, on July 

13, 2010, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the 

National Cooperative Research and 

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 

et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), IMS Global Learning 

Consortium, Inc. has filed written 

notifications simultaneously with the 

Attorney General and the Federal Trade 

Commission disclosing changes in its 

membership. The notifications were 

filed for the purpose of extending the 

Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of 

antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages 

under specified circumstances. 

Specifically, Korea Cyber University 

(KCU), Seoul, Republic of Korea; 

Moodlerooms, Baltimore, MD; Ocean 

County College, Toms River, NJ; New 

York City Department of Education, 

New York, NY; and Ucompass.com, 

Inc., Tallahassee, FL, have been added 

as parties to this venture. 

Also, Tekville.com, Inc., Seoul, 

Republic of Korea; 4C Soft, Inc., Seoul, 

Republic of Korea; and DaulSoft, Seoul, 

Republic of Korea, have withdrawn as 

parties to this venture. 

No other changes have been made in 

either the membership or planned 

activity of the group research project. 

Membership in this group research 

project remains open, and IMS Global 

Learning Consortium, Inc. intends to file 

additional written notifications 

disclosing all changes in membership. 

On April 7, 2000, IMS Global 

Learning Consortium, Inc. filed its 

original notification pursuant to Section 

6(a) of the Act. The Department of 

Justice published a notice in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on September 13, 2000 (65 FR 

55283). 

The last notification was filed with 

the Department on April 26, 2010. A 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on June 4, 2010 (75 FR 31816). 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2010–20220 Filed 8–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to The National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—Pistoia Alliance, Inc. 

Notice is hereby given that, on July 

13, 2010, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the 

National Cooperative Research and 

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 

et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Pistoia Alliance, Inc. 

has filed written notifications 

simultaneously with the Attorney 

General and the Federal Trade 

Commission disclosing changes in its 

membership. The notifications were 

filed for the purpose of extending the 

Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of 

antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages 

under specified circumstances. 

Specifically, Allergan Sales, LLC, Irvine, 

CA; Bayer Schering Pharma AG, Berlin, 

GERMANY; Syapse, Palo Alto, CA; and 

Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, GERMANY, 

have been added as parties to this 

venture. 

No other changes have been made in 

either the membership or planned 

activity of the group research project. 

Membership in this group research 

project remains open, and Pistoia 

Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional 

written notifications disclosing all 

changes in membership. 

On May 28, 2009, Pistoia Alliance, 

Inc. filed its original notification 

pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The 

Department of Justice published a notice 

in the Federal Register pursuant to 

Section 6(b) of the Act on July 15, 2009 

(74 FR 34364). 

The last notification was filed with 

the Department on April 22, 2010. A 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on June 4, 2010 (75 FR 31815). 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2010–20225 Filed 8–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Contains Business Proprietary Information

B-1

APPENDIX B

COMMISSION’S STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATIONS ON ADEQUACY

in

Chlorinated Isocyanurates from China and Spain, 

Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1082-1083 (Review)

On August 6, 2010, the Commission determined that it should conduct expedited reviews in the

subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.

§ 1675(c)(3)(B)).

The Commission received a single response filed jointly by domestic integrated producers

Clearon Corporation (“Clearon”) and Occidental Chemical Corporation (“OxyChem”). Clearon and

OxyChem estimate that they represent two-thirds of all domestically-produced chlorinated isocyanurates.

The Commission found the joint response of the domestic producers 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. 

The Commission did not find any circumstances that would warrant conducting full reviews of

the orders. The Commission, therefore, determined to conduct expedited reviews of the orders.

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and on the

Commission’s website (http://www.usitc.gov).