U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4171 July 2010

Washington, DC 20436

Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from 

China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-473 and 731-TA-1173 (Final)
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

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Angela M. W. Newell, Investigator 

Jack Greenblatt, Industry Analyst 

Aimee Larsen, Economist 

Justin Jee, Accountant 

Elizabeth Duall, Attorney 

Michael Haldenstein, Attorney 

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator

Special assistance from

Steven Hudgens, Senior Statistician 

Jennifer Merrill, Investigator 

Keysha Martinez, Investigative Intern
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4171 July 2010

Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from 

China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-473 and 731-TA-1173 (Final)

CONTENTS

Page

Determinations ................................................................. 1

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

Part I: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

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

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

U.S. market summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

DKP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

MKP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

TKPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Summary data and data sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Previous and related investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Nature and extent of subsidies and sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Subsidies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Production processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

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

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

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-4

Supply ................................................................... II-4

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-9

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-17

Lead times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-18

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-18

Comparison of domestic products and subject imports .............................. II-26

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-29

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-29

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-29

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-29

i
CONTENTS

Page

Part III: U.S. producers’ production, shipments, and employment ...................... III-1

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

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

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

U.S. shipments by grade/purity and end uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-5

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-6

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases ............................................ III-7

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ......................................... III-8

Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent consumption, and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

Negligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

Apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

U.S. importers’ imports by grade/purity and end uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-10

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

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

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

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

Geographic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-7

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-8

Lost sales and lost revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-9

DKP lost sales and lost revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-9

MKP lost sales and lost revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-9

TKPP lost sales and lost revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-9

General information on purchasing behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-10

Part VI: Financial condition of U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Operations on DKP, MKP, and TKPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-7

Assets and return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-8

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-9

ii
CONTENTS

Page

Part VII: Threat considerations and information on nonsubject countries ............... VII-1

The industry in China .......................................................... VII-2

U.S. importers’ current orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-5

U.S. inventories of phosphate salts ................................................ VII-6

Antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in third-country markets ............. VII-7

Information on nonsubject countries .............................................. VII-7

Production and exports of potassium phosphates .................................. VII-7

Additional demand considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-8

Additional supply considerations .............................................. VII-9

Appendixes

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

B. Hearing witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

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

D. Quarterly domestic, subject, and nonsubject-country price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Supplemental end use table (U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and importers’ imports, 

by end use) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

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

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

astericks.

iii

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-473 and 731-TA-1173 (Final)

CERTAIN POTASSIUM PHOSPHATE SALTS FROM CHINA

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International

Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to sections 735(b) and 705(b) of the Tariff Act of

1930 (19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b) and 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is materially

injured by reason of imports from China of certain potassium phosphate salts, specifically anhydrous

dipotassium phosphate (“DKP”) and tetrapotassium pyrophosphate (“TKPP”), provided for in

subheadings 2835.24.00 (DKP) and 2835.39.10 (TKPP) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United

States, that have been found by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) to be sold in the United States

at less than fair value (LTFV) and subsidized by the Government of China.

The Commission also determines that an industry producing anhydrous monopotassium

phosphate (“MKP”), provided for in subheading 2835.24.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States, is not materially injured or threatened with material injury, nor that the establishment of an

industry is materially retarded, by reason of imports from China, that have been found by Commerce to

be sold in the United States at LTFV and subsidized by the Government of China.

BACKGROUND

On September 24, 2009, a petition was filed with the Commission and Commerce by ICL

Performance Products LP, St. Louis, MO, and Prayon, Inc., Augusta, GA, alleging that an industry in the

United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV and subsidized

imports of DKP, MKP, sodium tripolyphosphate (“STPP”), and TKPP from China.2

 The final phase of

the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of a preliminary

determination by Commerce that imports of DKP, MKP, and TKPP from China were being sold at LTFV

and subsidized within the meaning of sections 733(b) and 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1671b(b)). 

Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission’s investigations and of a public hearing to

be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary,

U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal

Register of April 1, 2010 (Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from China, 75 FR 16509). The hearing

was held in Washington, DC, on June 2, 2010, and all persons who requested the opportunity were

permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

 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

 The Commission unanimously determined that there was no reasonable indication that an industry in the United

States was materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports of STPP from China

alleged to be sold at less than fair value and subsidized by the Government of China. Certain Sodium and Potassium

Phosphate Salts from China: Determinations, 74 FR 61173, November 23, 2009.

1

 Whether the establishment of an industry is being materially retarded is not an issue in these

investigations.

2

 The petitions also included sodium tripolyphosphate (“STPP”) in the definition of subject merchandise. 

In its preliminary determination, the Commission found that there was no reasonable indication that an industry in

the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports of STPP from

China. Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-473 and 731-TA-1173

(Preliminary), USITC Pub. 4110 (Nov. 2009).

3

 Confidential Staff Report, INV-HH-065 (June 18, 2010) (as revised by memorandum INV-HH-066, June

21, 21010) (“CR”) at III-1, Public Staff Report (“PR”) at III-1; CR/PR at Table III-1.

4

 CR at IV-1; PR at IV-1.

5

 CR at IV-1; PR at IV-1.

6

 CR at VII-4; PR at VII-3.

7

 Chairman Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in injury

investigations, but such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record

evidence as a whole in making its determination. 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

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, we find that an industry in the

United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury1

 by reason of subject imports of

anhydrous monopotassium phosphate (“MKP”) from China that the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) has found to be subsidized by the Government of China and sold in the United States at

less than fair value. We also find that industries in the United States are materially injured by reason of

imports of anhydrous dipotassium phosphate (“DKP”) and tetrapotassium pyrophosphate (“TKPP”) from

China that Commerce has found to be subsidized by the Government of China and sold in the United

States at less than fair value.2

I. BACKGROUND

The petitions in these investigations were filed by domestic producers ICL Performance Products

LP (“ICL”), St. Louis, MO, and Prayon, Inc. (“Prayon”), Augusta, GA, (collectively referred to as “the

Petitioners”) on September 24, 2009. Representatives from these firms appeared at the Commission’s

hearing accompanied by counsel and submitted prehearing and posthearing briefs. Representatives and

counsel for an importer of MKP, Valudor Products, Inc. (“Valudor”), appeared at the hearing and

submitted prehearing and posthearing briefs. No other interested party participated in these final phase

investigations. The Commission received questionnaire responses from firms that accounted for all

known domestic production and sales of MKP, DKP, and TKPP during the period examined.3

 The

Commission also received importer questionnaire data from 37 firms, which accounted for 84 percent of

MKP and DKP imports entering under the pertinent HTS subheading during 2007-2009.4

 The volume of

subject imports reported by importers of TKPP in response to Commission questionnaires exceeded the

volumes reported in the official import statistics under the pertinent HTS subheading during 2007-2009.5

Consequently, the Commission received relatively complete importer questionnaire data with respect to

the subject imports. Coverage of export data reported by foreign producers compared to data concerning

imports was more limited at 99.5 percent for DKP; 43.3 percent for MKP; and 8.2 percent for TKPP.6 7
of the level of participation and the interpretations urged by participating parties, 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.

8

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

9

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

10 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

11 See, e.g., Cleo, Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp. v. Department of

Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455

(1995); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed.

Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on the particular record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts

of each case’”). The Commission generally considers a number of factors including the following: (1) physical

characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) customer and producer perceptions

of the products; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees; and, where

appropriate, (6) price. See Nippon, 19 CIT at 455 n.4; Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1996).

12 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979).

13 Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49; see also S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979)

(Congress has indicated that the like product standard should not be interpreted in “such a narrow fashion as to

permit minor differences in physical characteristics or uses to lead to the conclusion that the product and article are

not ‘like’ each other, nor should the definition of ‘like product’ be interpreted in such a fashion as to prevent

consideration of an industry adversely affected by the imports under consideration.”).

14 See, e.g., USEC, Inc. v. United States, 34 Fed. Appx. 725, 730 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The ITC may not

modify the class or kind of imported merchandise examined by Commerce.”); Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States,

688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d, 865 F.3d 240 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 919 (1989).

4

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

A. In General

In determining whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with

material injury by reason of imports of the subject merchandise, the Commission first defines the

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”8

 Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(“the Tariff Act”), defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a {w}hole 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.”9

 In turn, the Tariff Act defines “domestic like

product” as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses

with, the article subject to an investigation . . . .”10

The decision regarding the appropriate domestic like product(s) in an investigation is a factual

determination, and the Commission has applied the statutory standard of “like” or “most similar in

characteristics and uses” on a case-by-case basis.11 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission

may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.12 The

Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.13

Although the Commission must accept the determination of Commerce as to the scope of the imported

merchandise that is subsidized or sold at less than fair value,14 the Commission determines what domestic
15 Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs., 85 F.3d 1561, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (the Commission may

find a single like product corresponding to several different classes or kinds defined by Commerce); Cleo, 501 F.3d

at 1298 n.1 (“Commerce’s {scope} finding does not control the Commission’s {like product} determination.”);

Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-52 (affirming the Commission’s determination defining six like products in

investigations where Commerce found five classes or kinds).

16 See, e.g., Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1304-05 (Ct. Int’l Trade

2000); Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States, 693 F. Supp.

1165, 1169 n.5 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988); Citrosuco Paulista, S.A. v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 1075, 1087-88 (Ct.

Int’l Trade 1988).

5

product is like the imported articles Commerce has identified.15 The Commission must base its domestic

like product determination on the record in these investigations. The Commission is not bound by prior

determinations, even those pertaining to the same imported products, but may draw upon previous

determinations in addressing pertinent domestic like product issues.16

B. Product Description

Commerce defined the scope of the imported merchandise under investigation as follows:

The phosphate salts covered by this investigation include anhydrous

Monopotassium Phosphate (MKP), anhydrous Dipotassium Phosphate (DKP)

and Tetrapotassium Pyrophosphate (TKPP), whether anhydrous or in solution

(collectively “phosphate salts”). 

TKPP, also known as normal potassium pyrophosphate, Diphosphoric acid or

Tetrapotassium salt, is a potassium salt with the formula K4P2O7. The CAS registry

number for TKPP is 7320-34-5. TKPP is typically 18.7% phosphorus and 47.3%

potassium. It is generally greater than or equal to 43.0% P2O5 content. TKPP is classified

under heading 2835.39.1000, HTSUS. 

MKP, also known as Potassium dihydrogen phosphate, KDP, or Monobasic potassium

phosphate, is a potassium salt with the formula KH2PO4. The CAS registry number for

MKP is 7778-77-0. MKP is typically 22.7% phosphorus, 28.7% potassium and 52%

P2O5. MKP is classified under heading 2835.24.0000, HTSUS. 

DKP, also known as Dipotassium salt, Dipotassium hydrogen orthophosphate or

Potassium phosphate, dibasic, has a chemical formula of K2HPO4. The CAS registry

number for DKP is 7758-11-4. DKP is typically 17.8% phosphorus, 44.8% potassium

and 40% P2O5 content. DKP is classified under heading 2835.24.0000, HTSUS. 

The products covered by this investigation include the foregoing phosphate salts in all

grades, whether food grade or technical grade. The product covered by this investigation

includes anhydrous MKP and DKP without regard to the physical form, whether crushed,

granule, powder or fines. Also covered are all forms of TKPP, whether crushed, granule,

powder, fines or solution. 
17 75 Fed. Reg. 30375 (June 1, 2010) (final countervailing duty determination) and 75 Fed. Reg. 30377

(June 1, 2010) (final antidumping duty determination).

18 CR at I-9 to I-10; PR at I-7. 

19 CR at I-3 to I-4; PR at I-3; CR/PR at Table E-1.

20 CR at I-11 and II-1; PR at I-8 and II-1.

21 Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-473 and 731-TA-1173

(Preliminary), USITC Pub. 4110 (Nov. 2009) at 11.

22 In its preliminary determination, the Commission found that there was no reasonable indication that an

industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports of

STPP from China. Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-473 and

731-TA-1173 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 4110 (Nov. 2009).

23 Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-473 and 731-TA-1173

(Preliminary), USITC Pub. 4110 (Nov. 2009) at 11.

24 Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-473 and 731-TA-1173

(Preliminary), USITC Pub. 4110 (Nov. 2009) at 11.

25 See, e.g., Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, Part II, Responses to Questions by Commissioner Lane, at 17. 

Respondents indicated at the hearing that, had they been participating earlier in the investigation, they likely would

have argued that MKP should be broken into two separate like products (food grade and technical grade). CR at I16; PR at I-12.

6

For purposes of the investigation, the narrative description is dispositive, and not the

tariff heading, American Chemical Society, CAS registry number or CAS name, or the

specific percentage chemical composition identified above.17

Although DKP, MKP, and TKPP are different chemical compounds with different chemical

formulas, they are all phosphate salts, they all have similar chemical structures, and they are all

derived primarily from phosphoric acid.18 Phosphate salts are used in a variety of applications,

including detergents and other cleaning applications (TKPP); fertilizers (MKP and TKPP); food

and feed additives (DKP and MKP); and water treatment (TKPP).19 Phosphate salts are generally

sold as technical or food grades and vary in terms of whether they are sold in solid (anhydrous)

form or in solution.20

C. Like Product Analysis

In its preliminary determinations the Commission found that each phosphate salt has different

properties and physical characteristics, performs different functions, and serves different end uses.21 The

record also indicated that DKP, MKP, TKPP, and STPP22 are not interchangeable and are perceived as

separate products.23 We thus concluded that the four phosphate salts DKP, MKP, TKPP, and STPP were

separate domestic like products.24

In the final phase of these investigations, no party has advocated a different definition of the

domestic like product.25 In addition, much of the evidence on the record in the final phase supports a

finding of three separate like products. DKP, MKP, and TKPP are different chemical compounds with

different chemical formulas. Each product has different properties and physical characteristics, performs
26 CR at I-13 to I-14; PR at I-9 to I-10.

27 Hearing Tr. at 78 (Cannon); Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, Part II, Responses to Questions from

Commissioner Lane, at 12-17. See CR/PR at Figs. V-2 to V-7.

28 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

29 See CR at III-12 to III-15; PR at III-7.

30 ICL Performance Products, LP (“ICL”) is the only producer of DKP. ICL and PCS Purified Phosphates

(“PCS”) produce MKP. ICL, PCS and Prayon, Inc. produce TKPP. CR/PR at Table III-1. PCS produced TKPP

***. CR at VI-14; PR at VI-6. Approximately *** percent of PCS’ production of TKPP is produced under this

agreement. CR at III-1 n.2; PR at III-1 n.2. In accordance with our standard practice, we do not consider the tollee,

***, to be part of the domestic industry because it does not engage in production of the like product. See e.g,

Ferrovanadium from China and South Africa, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-986 and -987 (Final), USITC Pub. 3570 (Jan. 2003)

at 12-13; Certain Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-919 (Final), USITC Pub. 3464

(Nov. 2001) at 10 n. 53. While Innophos is not a member of the domestic industry, it has provided the Commission

with certain data that are exclusively in its possession (e.g., shipments, sales, pricing, and inventory of the domestic

like product). CR at III-1 n.2; PR at III-1 n.2.

7

different functions, and serves different end uses. The record also indicates that DKP, MKP, and TKPP

are not interchangeable and are perceived as separate products.26

As we noted in our preliminary determinations, the three phosphate salts share common

manufacturing facilities, certain processes, and employees. There appears to be some overlap in the

channels of distribution for DKP, MKP, and TKPP, and the three products are arguably priced at

comparable levels.27 Thus, some factors (physical characteristics and uses, interchangeability, and

customer perceptions) support finding three like products, while other factors (price, manufacturing

processes, and channels of distribution) support finding a single like product. Although a close issue, for

the reasons noted in the preliminary determinations and in the absence of argument to the contrary, we

again find DKP, MKP, and TKPP to be separate domestic like products.

D. Domestic Industry

The domestic industry is defined as the domestic “producers as a {w}hole of a domestic like

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

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”28 In defining the domestic industry, the

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

of the like product, whether toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market. 

There are no known related party issues in the final phase of these investigations as no domestic producer

is affiliated with subject foreign producers or imported or purchased any subject merchandise from China

during the period examined.29

In accordance with our finding of three separate domestic like products, we find three separate

domestic industries as follows: (1) all domestic producers of MKP, (2) all domestic producers of DKP,

and (3) all domestic producers of TKPP.30
31 Negligibility is not an issue in these investigations. Subject imports from China far exceeded in volume

the three percent statutory negligibility threshold during the most recent 12-month period preceding the filing of the

petition for which data are available, July 2008 to June 2009, for each of the like products we have found. By

quantity, they accounted for *** percent of total DKP imports, *** percent of total MKP imports, and *** percent of

total TKPP imports. CR at IV-7; PR at IV-5. Accordingly, we find that subject imports are not negligible under 19

U.S.C. § 1677(24). 

32 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b), 1673d(b).

33 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)( i). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant

to the determination” but shall “identify each {such} factor ... and explain in full its relevance to the determination.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B).

34 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

35 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

36 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

37 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(a), 1673d(a).

38 Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478, 1484-85 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“{T}he statute does not

‘compel the commissioners’ to employ {a particular methodology}.”), aff’d, 944 F. Supp. 943, 951 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1996).

39 The Federal Circuit, in addressing the causation standard of the statute, observed that “{a}s long as its

effects are not merely incidental, tangential, or trivial, the foreign product sold at less than fair value meets the

causation requirement.” Nippon Steel Corp. v. USITC, 345 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This was further

ratified in Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 2008), where the Federal

8

I. MATERIAL INJURY OR THREAT OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF

IMPORTS OF SUBJECT MERCHANDISE FROM CHINA31

A. Legal Standards

In the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, the Commission

determines whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material

injury by reason of the imports under investigation.32 In making this determination, the Commission must

consider the volume of subject imports, their effect on prices for the domestic like product, and their

impact on domestic producers of the domestic like product, but only in the context of U.S. production

operations.33 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or

unimportant.”34 In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject

imports, we consider all relevant economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United

States.35 No single factor is dispositive, and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”36

Although the statute requires the Commission to determine whether the domestic industry is

“materially injured by reason of” unfairly traded imports,37 it does not define the phrase “by reason of,”

indicating that this aspect of the injury analysis is left to the Commission’s reasonable exercise of its

discretion.38 In identifying a causal link, if any, between subject imports and material injury to the

domestic industry, the Commission examines the facts of record that relate to the significance of the

volume and price effects of the subject imports and any impact of those imports on the condition of the

domestic industry. This evaluation under the “by reason of” standard must ensure that subject imports are

more than a minimal or tangential cause of injury and that there is a sufficient causal, not merely a

temporal, nexus between subject imports and material injury.39
Circuit, quoting Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997), stated that “this court

requires evidence in the record ‘to show that the harm occurred “by reason of” the LTFV imports, not by reason of a

minimal or tangential contribution to material harm caused by LTFV goods.’” See also Nippon Steel Corp. v.

United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d

1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

40 Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) on Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), H.R. Rep.

103-316, Vol. I at 851-52 (1994) (“{T}he Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing

injury from other sources to the subject imports.”); S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (1979) (the Commission “will consider

information which indicates that harm is caused by factors other than less-than-fair-value imports.”); H.R. Rep. 96-

317 at 47 (1979) (“in examining the overall injury being experienced by a domestic industry, the ITC will take into

account evidence presented to it which demonstrates that the harm attributed by the petitioner to the subsidized or

dumped imports is attributable to such other factors;” those factors include “the volume and prices of nonsubsidized

imports or imports sold at fair value, contraction in demand or changes in patterns of consumption, trade restrictive

practices of and competition between the foreign and domestic producers, developments in technology and the

export performance and productivity of the domestic industry”); accord Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877.

41 SAA at 851-52 (“{T}he Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury

caused by unfair imports.”); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001)

(“{T}he Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfair imports ... . 

Rather, the Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to

the subject imports.” (emphasis in original)); Asociacion de Productores de Salmon y Trucha de Chile AG v. United

States, 180 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1375 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“{t}he Commission is not required to isolate the effects of

subject imports from other factors contributing to injury” or make “bright-line distinctions” between the effects of

subject imports and other causes.); see also Softwood Lumber from Canada, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA928 (Remand), USITC Pub. 3658 at 100-01 (Dec. 2003) (Commission recognized that “{i}f an alleged other factor is

found not to have or threaten to have injurious effects to the domestic industry, i.e., it is not an ‘other causal factor,’

then there is nothing to further examine regarding attribution to injury”), citing Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States,

132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the statute “does not suggest that an importer of LTFV goods can escape

countervailing duties by finding some tangential or minor cause unrelated to the LTFV goods that contributed to the

harmful effects on domestic market prices.”).

42 S. Rep. 96-249 at 74-75; H.R. Rep. 96-317 at 47.

43 See Nippon Steel Corp., 345 F.3d at 1381 (“an affirmative material-injury determination under the

statute requires no more than a substantial-factor showing. That is, the ‘dumping’ need not be the sole or principal

cause of injury.”).

9

In many investigations, there are other economic factors at work, some or all of which may also

be having adverse effects on the domestic industry. Such economic factors might include non-subject

imports; changes in technology, demand, or consumer tastes; competition among domestic producers; or

management decisions by domestic producers. The legislative history explains that the Commission must

examine factors other than subject imports to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other factors to

the subject imports, thereby inflating an otherwise tangential cause of injury into one that satisfies the

statutory material injury threshold.40 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not

isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.41 Nor does the

“by reason of” standard require that unfairly traded imports be the “principal” cause of injury or

contemplate that injury from unfairly traded imports be weighed against other factors, such as non-subject

imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.42 It is clear that the existence of

injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.43

Assessment of whether material injury to the domestic industry is “by reason of” subject imports

“does not require the Commission to address the causation issue in any particular way” as long as “the

injury to the domestic industry can reasonably be attributed to the subject imports” and the Commission
44 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877-78; see also id. at 873 (“While the Commission may not enter an

affirmative determination unless it finds that a domestic industry is materially injured ‘by reason of’ subject imports,

the Commission is not required to follow a single methodology for making that determination ... {and has} broad

discretion with respect to its choice of methodology.”) citing United States Steel Group v. United States, 96 F.3d

1352, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and S. Rep. 96-249 at 75.

45 Commissioner Pinkert does not join this paragraph or the following four paragraphs. He points out that

the Federal Circuit, in Bratsk, 444 F.3d 1369, and Mittal, held that the Commission is required, in certain

circumstances relating to present material injury, to undertake a particular kind of analysis of non-subject imports,

albeit without reliance upon presumptions or rigid formulas. Mittal explains as follows:

What Bratsk held is that “where commodity products are at issue and fairly traded, price-competitive, nonsubject imports are in the market,” the Commission would not fulfill its obligation to consider an important

aspect of the problem if it failed to consider whether non-subject or non-LTFV imports would have

replaced LTFV subject imports during the period of investigation without a continuing benefit to the

domestic industry. 444 F.3d at 1369. Under those circumstances, Bratsk requires the Commission to

consider whether replacement of the LTFV subject imports might have occurred during the period of

investigation, and it requires the Commission to provide an explanation of its conclusion with respect to

that factor.

542 F.3d at 878.

46 Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331, 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Mittal Steel, 542

F.3d at 879 (“Bratsk did not read into the antidumping statute a Procrustean formula for determining whether a

domestic injury was ‘by reason’ of subject imports.”).

47 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 875-79.

48 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873 (quoting from Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722), 875-79 & n.2 (recognizing

the Commission’s alternative interpretation of Bratsk as a reminder to conduct a non-attribution analysis).

10

“ensure{s} that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.”44 45 Indeed, the

Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various Commission methodologies and has disavowed “rigid

adherence to a specific formula.”46

The Federal Circuit’s decisions in Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel all involved cases

where the relevant “other factor” was the presence in the market of significant volumes of pricecompetitive non-subject imports. The Commission interpreted the Federal Circuit’s guidance in Bratsk as

requiring it to apply a particular additional methodology following its finding of material injury in cases

involving commodity products and a significant market presence of price-competitive non-subject

imports.47 The additional “replacement/benefit” test looked at whether non-subject imports might have

replaced subject imports without any benefit to the U.S. industry. The Commission applied that specific

additional test in subsequent cases, including the Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad

and Tobago determination that underlies the Mittal Steel litigation.

Mittal Steel clarifies that the Commission’s interpretation of Bratsk was too rigid and makes clear

that the Federal Circuit does not require the Commission to apply an additional test nor any one specific

methodology; instead, the court requires the Commission to have “evidence in the record” to “show that

the harm occurred ‘by reason of’ the LTFV imports,” and requires that the Commission not attribute

injury from non-subject imports or other factors to subject imports.48 Accordingly, we do not consider

ourselves required to apply the replacement/benefit test that was included in Commission opinions

subsequent to Bratsk.

The progression of Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel clarifies that, in cases involving

commodity products where price-competitive non-subject imports are a significant factor in the U.S.
49 Commissioner Lane also refers to her dissenting views in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and

Strip from Brazil, China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1131 to 1134 (Final), USITC

Pub. 4040 (Oct. 2008), for further discussion of Mittal Steel.

50 To that end, after the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Bratsk, the Commission began to present

published information or send out information requests in final phase investigations to producers in non-subject

countries that accounted for substantial shares of U.S. imports of subject merchandise (if, in fact, there were large

non-subject import suppliers). In order to provide a more complete record for the Commission’s causation analysis,

these requests typically seek information on capacity, production, and shipments of the product under investigation

in the major source countries that export to the United States. The Commission plans to continue utilizing published

or requested information in final phase investigations in which there are substantial levels of non-subject imports.

51 We provide in our respective discussions of volume, price effects, and impact a full analysis of other

factors alleged to have caused any material injury experienced by the domestic industry.

52 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873; Nippon Steel Corp., 458 F.3d at 1350, citing U.S. Steel Group, 96 F.3d at

1357; S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (“The determination of the ITC with respect to causation is ... complex and difficult, and

is a matter for the judgment of the ITC.”).

53 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

54 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

55 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 885 (“In material injury determinations, the Commission

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

some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they also may demonstrate that an industry is facing

difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.”) SAA at 885.

11

market, the Court will require the Commission to give full consideration, with adequate explanation, to

non-attribution issues when it performs its causation analysis.49 50

The question of whether the material injury threshold for subject imports is satisfied

notwithstanding any injury from other factors is factual, subject to review under the substantial evidence

standard.51 Congress has delegated this factual finding to the Commission because of the agency’s

institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.52

Section 771(7)(C)(i) of the Act provides that the “Commission shall consider whether the volume

of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to

production or consumption in the United States, is significant.”53 In evaluating the price effects of subject

imports, section 771(C)(ii) of the Act provides that, 

the Commission shall consider whether – (I) there has been significant price underselling

by the imported merchandise as compared with the price of domestic like products of the

United States, and (II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses

prices to a significant degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.54

Section 771(7)(C)(iii) provides that the Commission, in examining the impact of the subject

imports on the domestic industry, “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on

the state of the industry.”55 These factors include output, sales, inventories, capacity utilization, market

share, employment, wages, productivity, profits, cash flow, return on investment, ability to raise capital,

research and development, and factors affecting domestic prices. No single factor is dispositive and all
56 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851, 885; Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos.

701-TA-386, 731-TA-812-813 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3155 at 25 n.148 (Feb. 1999).

57 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

58 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

59 These factors are as follows:

(I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be presented to it by the administering

authority as to the nature of the subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a subsidy

described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement) and whether imports of the subject merchandise

are likely to increase,

(II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial increase in production capacity in the

exporting country indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise

into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional

exports,

(III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of imports of the subject merchandise

indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports,

(IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices that are likely to have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices and are likely to increase demand for further imports,

(V) inventories of the subject merchandise,

(VI) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to

produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products,

* * *

(VIII) the actual and potential negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the

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

product. 

(IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability that there is likely to be material

injury by reason of imports (or sale for importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it is actually

being imported at the time).

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i). Statutory threat factor VII is inapplicable as no imports of agricultural products are

included in these investigations. 

12

relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition

that are distinctive to the affected industry.”56

Section 771(7)(F) of the Tariff Act directs the Commission to determine whether the U.S.

industry is threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports by analyzing whether “further

dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would

occur unless an order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted.”57 The Commission may not make

such a determination “on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition,” and considers the threat factors “as

a whole” in making its determination of whether dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether

material injury by reason of subject imports would occur unless an order is issued.58 In making our

determinations, we consider all statutory threat factors that are relevant to these investigations.59
60 CR at II-20; PR at II-13.

61 CR at II-20; PR at II-13.

62 CR at II-20; PR at II-13.

63 CR/PR at Table II-2.

64 CR/PR at Table II-2.

65 CR/PR at Table IV-9. 

66 CR/PR at Table IV-8.

67 CR/PR at Table IV-10. 

68 See CR/PR at Table IV-9.

69 CR/PR at Table IV-9. As noted above, ***. CR/PR at Table III-14.

70 CR at I-5; PR at I-3; CR/PR Table III-1.

13

B. Conditions of Competition

The following conditions of competition inform our analysis in the final phase of these

investigations.

1. Demand Conditions

Demand for each phosphate salt tends to fluctuate depending on the general level of demand in

the end-use market for each phosphate salt.60 For all three phosphate salts, only a minority of purchasers

reported that there was a business cycle for the salts.61 However, there does appear to be seasonality in

demand for MKP used in fertilizer and TKPP used in industrial water treatment.62

U.S. purchasers identified different demand trends for MKP, DKP, and TKPP. With respect to

demand for MKP, purchasers’ views were divided and reflected the different end uses for MKP.63

Purchasers of DKP reported fluctuating demand, but generally without any net change. Purchasers that

could identify a trend for TKPP indicated that demand decreased over the period examined.64

Apparent U.S. consumption of MKP fell overall during the period examined, increasing from ***

pounds in 2007 to *** pounds in 2008, but then falling to *** pounds in 2009.65 Apparent U.S.

consumption of DKP increased overall during the period examined, rising from *** pounds in 2007 to

*** pounds in 2008, before falling to *** pounds in 2009.66 Apparent U.S. consumption of TKPP also

declined during the period examined, from 43.3 million pounds in 2007 to 37.4 million pounds in 2008

and 28.8 million pounds in 2009.67

 2. Supply Conditions

There are three sources of supply for the U.S. market: U.S. producers’ domestic production,

imports of subject merchandise from China, and nonsubject imports. 

For MKP, nonsubject imports were the largest source of supply of the U.S. market, accounting

for well over half of U.S. consumption by quantity during the period examined.68 The market share of

nonsubject imports of MKP decreased from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008 and to ***

percent in 2009.69 Two firms, ICL and PCS, produced MKP in the United States during the period,

although ***.70 Their market share was relatively flat, increasing from *** percent in 2007 to ***
71 See CR/PR at Table IV-9.

72 See CR/PR at Table IV-9. 

73 CR/PR at Table IV-8. 

74 CR/PR at Table IV-8. 

75 CR/PR at Table IV-8. 

76 CR/PR at Table IV-10. 

77 CR at I-5; PR at I-3; CR/PR at Table III-1.

78 CR/PR at Table IV-10. 

79 CR/PR at Table IV-10. 

80 CR/PR at Table IV-10. 

81 CR at I-14; PR at I-11.

82 CR at II-12; PR at II-8.

83 CR at III-3; PR at III-2; ***.

84 CR at II-12 and III-3; PR at II-8 and III-2.

85 CR at II-13; PR at II-8.

86 CR at II-12; PR at II-8.

14

percent in 2008, and falling to *** percent in 2009.71 Subject imports were the second largest source of

supply. Their market share increased from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008, and again to ***

percent in 2009.72

ICL, the sole U.S. producer of DKP, and nonsubject imports were the largest sources of supply

for the domestic DKP market during the period. The U.S. industry’s market share fell during the period

examined, from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009.73 The market share

of DKP nonsubject imports increased during the period examined, from *** percent in 2007 to ***

percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009.74 Subject imports’ market share increased from *** percent in

2007 to *** percent in 2008, before falling to *** percent in 2009.75

 For TKPP, the domestic producers were the largest source of supply.76 ICL, PCS, and Prayon

produce TKPP in the United States.77 Their market share dropped from 90.5 percent in 2007 to 87.7

percent in 2008 and 81.7 percent in 2009.78 The market share of TKPP subject imports increased from

*** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009.79 The market share of nonsubject

imports of TKPP remained small during the period examined, although it increased from *** percent in

2007 to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009.80

A key step in the production of phosphate salts is the reaction of phosphoric acid with potassium

hydroxide (“KOH”).81 U.S. producers of each of the phosphate salts reported that they had refused,

declined, or been unable to supply customers during the period examined due to shortages of phosphoric

acid and/or potassium hydroxide.82 This was largely due to a potassium miners strike in Canada, during

which a major supplier of KOH, ***83 ***.84 Nineteen of the 47 responding purchasers reported that their

domestic supplier refused, declined, or was unable to supply DKP, MKP, or TKPP during the period

examined, and nine of these purchasers were placed on allocation in 2008.85 Prayon reported supplying

some purchasers that could not obtain sufficient quantities of phosphate salts from ICL.86
87 CR/PR at Table III-14.

88 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 45. 

89 CR at III-12; PR at II-8; CR/PR at Tables III-13 to III-15.

90 CR at II-2; PR at II-1.

91 CR at II-2; PR at II-1

92 See CR/PR at Tables III-2, III-4, and C-4.

93 CR at III-3 to III-4, Table III-4; PR at III-2, Table III-4.

94 Tr. at 101-102 (Schewe). ICL plans to close a production facility in 2012. Id.

95 CR at II-1; PR at II-1.

96 CR at I-14; PR at I-10.

97 CR/PR at Tables III-9 and IV-15 and Appendix E.

98 CR/PR at Table II-3.

99 CR at I-14; PR at I-10.

100 CR at I-15 and II-1; PR at I-11 and II-1.

15

U.S. producers also imported substantial quantities of phosphate salts from nonsubject countries

during the period examined, often from affiliated companies. In fact, ICL’s imports of MKP from its

parent, Israel Chemicals Limited, ***.87 ICL explained that it imports MKP ***.88 ***, and ***.89

DKP, MKP, and TKPP are sold directly to large end-use customers, or through regional or

national distributors.90 Distributors typically buy larger orders – at least full truckloads – so that they can

sell smaller amounts to their customers. Sales made to some distributors ***.91

In general, the domestic producers’ capacity was stable over the period examined.92 However,

because the ***.93 ICL has reported that it plans to close one of its plants in 2012 to address its

overcapacity problem.94

3. Other Considerations

The phosphate salts at issue have different end uses depending on their distinctive properties. 

These properties include sequestration capability, buffering, emulsification, dispersion, fermentation, and

solubility.95

MKP is used mainly in fertilizer, but because it is an excellent buffering agent, it is also used in

food and beverages, as well as pharmaceuticals.96 Although MKP subject imports were used during the

period of investigation primarily in fertilizer, and to a lesser extent cement, domestically produced MKP

was used in a number of different applications, including as a buffering agent in compounding formulas,

in food and beverages, and in refractories.97

DKP is used as a buffering agent and emulsifier in compounding formulas, baked goods, and

dairy applications (e.g., coffee creamers).98 TKPP is used in water treatment, household and industrialtype products, detergents, metal finishing, and in paint in which it acts to keep the paint as a stable

suspension.99

The phosphate salts at issue in this proceeding are sold primarily as technical or food

grade products.100 Food grade phosphate salts are subject to more careful analysis and require a more

narrow range of specifications including pH and maximum allowable amounts of arsenic, fluoride, lead,
101 CR at I-11, PR at I-8. The Food Chemicals Codex, a compilation of food purity specifications and

testing methods recognized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is considered the authoritative standard for

food grade standards and testing in the industry. CR at I-11 n.21; PR at I-8 to I-9 n.21 (citing Response to staff

questions by ***, June 8, 2010).

102 CR at I-15; II-1; PR at I-11 and II-1.

103 CR at I-11 and II-25; PR at I-8 and II-17.

104 CR/PR at Table III-8.

105 CR/PR at Table III-8.

106 CR/PR at Table IV-14.

107 CR/PR at Table IV-14. 

108 CR at II-25; PR at II-18.

109 CR at II-2; PR at II-1.

110 See CR at Table IV-14; CR at II-2; PR at Table IV-14; PR at II-1 (***).

111 CR/PR at Table III-9. A witness for ICL confirmed that, “much of the product (MKP) that’s actually

consumed in the U.S. market is used for fertilizers, and we are not a large participant in that market space.” Staff

Conference Transcript at 60 (Schewe).

112 CR at V-1; PR at V-1. In 2009, raw materials accounted for *** percent of COGS for DKP, ***

percent for MKP, and *** percent for TKPP. Id.

16

and insoluble materials as specified in the Food Chemicals Codex (FCC).101 Domestic producers and

importers also provide their customers with a certification of analysis (“C of A”) after the finished

product is tested in a laboratory assessing the degree of impurities, the particle size, and the product’s

density.102 Although a higher grade, i.e. food grade, can be substituted for technical grade when it is

economically feasible, the reverse is usually not true.103

U.S. producers sold *** percent of their MKP and *** percent of their DKP as food grade in

2009.104 On the other hand, U.S. producers sold *** percent of TKPP as technical grade in 2009.105

U.S. importers sold *** percent of their MKP from China as technical grade in 2009.106 Although

*** U.S. imports of DKP from China were food grade in 2009, U.S. importers sold *** percent of their

TKPP from China as technical grade in 2009.107

Despite the fact that the record generally indicates a high degree of potential substitutability

among each domestically produced product and the corresponding subject and nonsubject imports, ICL

acknowledged that ***.108 Although food grade MKP was imported from China during the period

examined, the importer of MKP that accounted for *** percent of imports of food grade MKP reported

that its customer that purchased the food grade MKP was using it in ***.109 Thus, the record indicates

that although some Chinese MKP may be certified by its manufacturers as food grade, in practice it is

rarely, if ever, used in food and beverage applications in the United States.110 On the other hand, ICL’s

domestically produced MKP is not used in fertilizer.111

U.S. producers also experienced rising raw material costs during the period examined. As noted,

the primary raw materials used in the production of phosphate salts are phosphoric acid and potassium

hydroxide, and together they account for a substantial portion of the cost of goods sold (COGS).112 The

price of phosphoric acid rose rapidly in 2008, increasing by 400 percent in May 2008, partly due to

increased demand for phosphates used in corn and soybean fertilizer applications as federal biofuel
113 CR at V-1; PR at V-1.

114 CR at V-1; PR at V-1. 

115 CR/PR at Table IV-3. U.S. importers’ shipments of subject imports followed a similar trend. See

CR/PR at Table IV-6.

116 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

117 CR/PR at Table IV-9.

118 CR/PR at Table IV-12.

119 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 45. Although there were two producers during the period examined,

***. CR/PR at Table III-3 n.4.

120 CR/PR at Tables III-9 and IV-15 and Appendix E (domestic shipments of MKP go to buffering,

refractories and food and beverage). While *** percent of domestic shipments were labeled as “Other,” *** as

direct shipments to end users. CR/PR at Table III-9, note 1.

121 CR/PR at Appendix E.

17

mandates became effective; it fell sharply after early 2009, however.113 Prices for potassium hydroxide

began rising in the first half of 2008 and increased by 300 percent between the third quarter of 2008 and

the second quarter of 2009.114

C. Anhydrous Monopotassium Phosphate (“MKP”)

1. No Material Injury or Threat of Material Injury By Reason of Subject

Imports

a. Volume and Likely Volume of the Subject Imports

Subject import volume increased overall during the period under examination in absolute terms

and as a share of both apparent U.S. consumption and domestic production. Subject imports increased

from *** pounds in 2007 to *** pounds in 2008, before falling to *** pounds in 2009.115 Importers’

shipments of subject imports increased by *** percent between 2007 and 2009, from *** pounds in 2007

to *** pounds in 2009.116

Subject import shipments as a share of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity increased from

*** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008, and then to *** percent in 2009.117 The ratio of subject

imports to domestic production also increased from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008 and ***

percent in 2009.118

Although the volume of subject imports and the increases in those volumes are significant relative

to consumption and production in the United States, as noted, competition between subject imports and

domestic MKP was limited because the subject imports were directed to end uses other than those served

by the domestic industry.

The domestic industry, ***, has adopted a strategy of focusing on the more profitable food and

beverage segment of the market, in which MKP is manufactured to stricter standards and commands a

higher price.119 ICL also served customers using MKP for buffering and in refractories.120 On the other

hand, *** percent of the subject imports of MKP was used in fertilizer, and *** percent was used in

cement.121 Hence, the overlap in end uses was limited to the *** percent of the subject imports used in
122 By Petitioners’ own calculation, of *** pounds of shipments of Chinese MKP during 2009, *** pounds

of Chinese MKP were sold for buffering and *** pounds were sold for food and beverage applications. Petitioners’

Final Comments at 7 (citing CR at IV-9, Table IV-15).

123 CR at II-2; PR at II-1. The importer that accounted for *** percent of imports of food grade MKP

indicated that its customer that had requested food grade MKP was using it in ***. The customer reportedly wanted

food grade for its ***. Id.

124 Tr. at 150-153 (Melamed).

125 CR/PR at Table IV-15. Although they did not identify these alleged lost accounts as lost sales in their

petitions, Petitioners allege in their Posthearing Brief that they lost two cement producer accounts to the subject

imports of MKP. Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commissioners’ Questions at 37. There may have been

some competition between the subject imports and domestic MKP for use in cement, but the rise in prices for MKP

appears to have led to decreased demand for MKP for use in cement applications. CR at II-17 n.33; PR at II-11

n.33. Nonsubject imports were a larger presence during the period examined, and the information cited by

Petitioners does not show that these cement accounts were lost to subject imports rather than nonsubject imports. 

Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commissioners’ Questions at 37. ***.

126 See CR/PR at Table C-2. Petitioners also argue that they lost sales to large importers/distributors of

MKP, *** during the period examined. Petitioners Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commissioners’ Questions at 31-

35. We note that the larger importer *** imported all technical grade MKP, and the subject imports were therefore

not used in the food and beverage market. CR at IV-17 n.10; PR at IV-10 n.10. The other importer, *** reported

that its imported MKP was used for food and beverage applications and buffering applications, but its imports of

MKP from China were ***. See CR at IV-17 n.9; PR at IV-10 n.9; Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, Answers to

Commissioners’ Questions at 33, Table 11; *** Importers’ Questionnaire. Another importer reporting imports of

MKP for use in food and beverage applications, ***. CR at IV-17 n.9; PR at IV-10 n.9.

127 See CR/PR at Table C-2. The record does not indicate that U.S. producers were losing sales to subject

imports. There were only two lost sales allegations and both were disputed. See CR/PR at Table V-10. We note

that of 24 responding purchasers, three reported switching to Chinese MKP due to lower pricing and 21 purchasers

indicated that they had not switched. CR at V-30; PR at V-10.

128 See CR/PR at Table C-2.

18

food and beverage or buffering applications.122 Although approximately *** of the subject imports of

MKP were labeled food grade, suggesting these subject imports might also be serving the food and

beverage market, in practice subject imports were largely used in fertilizer.123 Generally, distributors of

the subject imports prefer to stock food grade MKP because they do not want to keep separate inventory

of food grade and technical grade MKP, and the fact that subject imports are sold as food grade does not

indicate that they are competing with domestic food grade MKP for food and beverage applications.124

The record therefore indicates that competition between the subject imports and the domestic like

product has been substantially attenuated since they have generally not competed for the same customers. 

Moreover, the subject imports did not significantly displace the domestic industry’s shipments of

domestically produced MKP.125 Instead, the subject imports largely captured market share from

nonsubject imports, whose volumes declined considerably during the period examined.126

Shipments of subject imports increased by *** percent from 2007 to 2008, but the domestic

industry’s shipments of domestically-produced MKP increased *** percent, a rate exceeding the increase

in apparent U.S. consumption that occurred.127 The domestic industry’s market share fell from ***

percent in 2008 to *** percent in 2009, but we do not find that this indicates any significant loss of sales

volume to the subject imports. In 2009, as apparent U.S. consumption declined, shipments of subject

imports also declined.128 Further, subject imports and domestic MKP were not serving the same end
129 See CR/PR at Table VII-4; C-2. There do not appear to be any significant additions to production

capacity planned. Id.

130 CR/PR at Table VII-4.

131 CR/PR at Table VII-4. The subject producers’ inventories of MKP at the end of 2009 were *** pounds

and importers’ inventories were *** pounds. The U.S. industry’s total production was *** pounds of MKP in 2009. 

CR at Table C-2.

132 CR at VII-4; PR at VII-3. One *** foreign producer, Shifang Chuangxin Chemical Co., Ltd., provided

the Commission with a questionnaire response on June 23, 2010, the date on which the record in these investigations

closed. Staff issued a request for clarification and/or revisions concerning several issues, but Staff did not receive a

response to its request for clarification. The Commission therefore, has not considered the questionnaire data.

133 Foreign Producer Questionnaire Responses, Section II-8. Valudor’s purchasing manager visited ***

Chinese producers accounting for an estimated *** percent of Chinese production of MKP. ***. Valudor’s

Posthearing Brief at Exhibit 4, ***. See also Tr. at 62 (Stachiw) (noting much higher standards for food grade).

134 CR at II-25 to II-26; PR at II-17. One Chinese producer attempted, but failed, to meet the qualification

standards for a major U.S. purchaser, ***. CR at VII-5 n.7; PR at VII-3 n.7.

135 CR at II-25; PR at II-17.

136 CR at II-25; PR at II-17.

19

users, and as addressed in the following price and impact discussions, the significant volume of subject

imports has not had a significant impact on the prices or performance of the domestic industry.

We have also considered whether the subject imports are likely to threaten the domestic industry

with significant volumes of imports in the imminent future. The subject producers reported unused

capacity of *** pounds in 2009, which is equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption.129 The

Chinese MKP industry is also export-oriented, exporting almost *** of its shipments and benefits from

export subsidies from the Chinese government.130 Importers of the subject merchandise and the foreign

industry also hold large inventories of MKP.131 Some Chinese producers also produce other phosphate

salts on the same equipment as MKP and thus may be able to shift their production to MKP should

economic conditions so warrant.132

Nonetheless, the record also indicates that it is unlikely that the Chinese industry would export

significant quantities of MKP in the imminent future that would compete with the domestic industry’s

MKP in the market for food and beverage, buffering, and refractory end uses. Few Chinese producers

appear to currently meet the U.S. requirements for food grade MKP production (and few if any have

achieved customer acceptance for food applications) and the record does not indicate that this is likely to

change.133 The qualification process to supply food and beverage applications for MKP is not an easy one

and the record indicates that it may take a year or longer to complete.134 Furthermore, as ICL explained

“***,” suggesting Chinese product may have difficulty penetrating the food and beverage segment

regardless of its actual ability to meet specific requirements and become qualified.135 Hence, there is no

indication on the record that this situation will change in the imminent future and that subject imports will

compete for sales to end users in the food and beverage markets or other more demanding end uses for

MKP. Accordingly, we find that it is not likely that subject imports of MKP will threaten the domestic

industry with significant volumes of imports in the imminent future.

b. Price Effects and Likely Price Effects of the Subject Imports

The record indicates that although there is a generally high degree of substitutability between

imported phosphate salts and domestic phosphate salts, this is not the case with respect to MKP.136
137 See CR/PR at Table II-11. The apparent inconsistency is explained by the fact that the purchaser

questionnaire responses for MKP overwhelmingly came from those firms involved in the non-food market. 

Seventeen of the 21 responding MKP purchasers reported that they or their customers use MKP in technical

applications. Only three purchasers that identified themselves as using MKP in food grade applications (or both

technical and food) responded to the question regarding interchangeability: *** only reported for domestic versus

nonsubject imports.

138 CR at II-25; PR at II-17.

139 CR at V-7; PR at V-4 to V-5.

140 CR at V-6; PR at V-4.

141 CR at V-22 to V-23; PR at V-8.

142 The record does not indicate that prices for technical grade MKP influence those for food grade as

customers do not quote prices for technical grade as leverage in price negotiations for food grade. Tr. at 130-131

(Sexton).

143 CR at V-20 to V-21; PR at V-7.

144 See CR at V-20, V-20 n.14; PR at V-7, V-7 n.14. ***. Id. ***. Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at 9.

145 CR/PR at Table V-2.

146 CR/PR at Table C-2.

147 CR/PR at Table C-2.

20

Although purchasers indicated that the subject imports and domestically produced MKP are

interchangeable, this is not true for MKP used in the more demanding food and beverage and buffering

applications.137 Domestic purchasers generally do not substitute the subject imports for domestically

produced MKP in the applications for which domestic MKP is used.138

The Commission collected quarterly pricing data on two MKP products, product 3 (food grade)

and product 4 (technical grade), which accounted for 100 percent of domestic producers’ U.S. shipments

of MKP and 86.8 percent of subject imports of MKP from January 2007 to December 2009.139 Pricing

data were reported by one domestic producer and 14 importers.140 These data indicate that subject

imports undersold the domestic like product throughout the period under examination. Overall, subject

imports undersold the domestic like product in 21 of 24 quarterly comparisons at margins ranging from

*** percent and averaging *** percent for technical grade and *** percent for food grade.141 We do not,

however, find that the underselling was significant as Chinese MKP was not being sold to the same type

of customers as domestically produced MKP. The attenuation of competition may explain some of the

observed underselling, as subject imports were primarily used in lower value products. Consequently,

subject imports did not adversely affect domestic producers’ prices to a significant extent.142

The trends in domestic prices confirm this lack of competition. Prices for technical grade, in

which the Chinese MKP was concentrated, increased by *** percent over the period, from the first

quarter of 2007 to the fourth quarter of 2009. Prices for food grade MKP decreased *** percent over the

period.143 The lower prices for food grade MKP, however, primarily resulted from *** in response to

competition from nonsubject imports rather than with subject imports.144 We therefore find that the

subject imports have not significantly depressed domestic prices during the period.145

As noted, raw material prices increased sharply in 2008 and 2009, and the domestic industry’s

unit COGS increased from $*** in 2007 to $*** in 2008, and to $*** in 2009, an overall increase of ***

percent.146 Nonetheless, the industry was largely able to raise its prices, and the industry’s unit net sales

value increased *** percent.147 As a result, the domestic industry’s COGS to net sales ratio increased
148 Although the domestic industry’s COGS to net sales ratio increased to *** percent in 2008, this increase

can be attributed to the *** sales discussed above. CR at V-20, Table C-2; PR at V-7, Table C-2.

149 Unit COGS increased sharply from $*** in 2008 to $*** in 2009, yet the industry’s COGS to net sales

ratio fell during that period even though apparent U.S. consumption fell *** percent. See CR at Table C-2. Further,

the domestic industry’s two lost sales allegations and one lost revenue allegation were specifically denied by

purchasers who indicated they continued to purchase higher-priced domestic MKP. See CR at V-27; PR at V-9.

150 Commerce calculated one set of countervailing duty and antidumping duty margins corresponding to the

scope, rather than the three domestic like products found by the Commission in its affirmative determinations. In its

final determinations of sales at LTFV, Commerce found the following weighted-average dumping margins: 69.58

percent for seven specific producer and exporter combinations, and 95.40 percent for all others. CR at I-7; PR at I-6;

75 Fed. Reg. 30379 (June 1, 2010).

Commerce found a total subsidy rate of 109.11 percent ad valorem for 16 subsidy programs. CR at I-7; PR

at I-5; 75 Fed. Reg. 30375 (June 1, 2010). Commerce calculated a rate based entirely on facts available for the three

mandatory respondents and used the adverse facts available rate assigned to the mandatory respondents as the allothers rate. CR at I-7; PR at I-5.

In its final affirmative countervailing duty determination, Commerce found the following 16 subsidy

programs to be countervailable: Two Free, Three Half Tax Exemption for Foreign Invested Enterprises (FIEs);

Income Tax Subsidies for FIEs based on Geographic Location; Income Tax Exemption Programs for Export

Oriented FIEs; Local Income Tax Exemptions or Reduction Programs for ‘‘Productive’’ FIEs; Reduced Income Tax

Rate for High- and New–Technology Enterprises; Preferential Tax Policies for Research and Development by FIEs;

Income Tax Credit on Purchases of Domestically Produced Equipment; Subsidies to Loss–Making State–Owned

Enterprises (SOEs) by the GOC at the National Level; Grants Pursuant to the State Key Technology Renovation

Project Fund; Grants Pursuant to the ‘‘Famous Brands’’ Program; Subsidies to Loss–Making SOEs by the GOC at

the Provincial Level; Reduction in or Exemption from the Fixed Assets Investment Orientation Tax; Value Added

Tax (VAT) Refund for FIEs Purchasing Domestically Produced Equipment; VAT and Tariff Exemptions on

Imported Equipment; Discounted Loans for Export Oriented Industries (Honorable Industries); Export Restraints on

Yellow Phosphorus. CR at I-6 to I-7; PR at I-5; 75 Fed. Reg. 30375 (June 1, 2010); 75 Fed. Reg. 10469 (March 8,

2010).

21

minimally from *** percent to *** percent between 2007 and 2009.148 Given that domestic MKP was

largely competing with nonsubject imports rather than subject imports and the domestic industry was able

to raise its prices to cover most of the cost increases it experienced during a period in which demand was

relatively weak, we find that the subject imports have not suppressed prices to a significant degree.149

In assessing the likelihood that subject imports will have price depressing or suppressing effects

in the imminent future, we have considered the virtual lack of adverse price effects of the subject imports

during the period despite the increases in the volume of subject imports. Given this and the fact that the

record does not indicate that subject imports are likely to begin competing with the domestic industry for

sales in the same market segments in which the domestic industry competes, we do not find it likely that

the domestic industry will experience significant adverse price effects in the imminent future.

c. Impact and Likely Impact of the Subject Imports on the Domestic

Industry150

The indicators of the condition of the domestic industry have generally been positive, and when

changes have occurred, most have changed only modestly over the period of investigation despite the

increase in subject imports and the decline in apparent U.S. consumption. Significantly, the industry has

increased its profitability over the period.

The domestic industry’s capacity to produce MKP increased throughout the period examined,

rising from *** pounds in 2007 to *** pounds in 2008 and *** pounds in 2009, resulting in an overall
151 CR/PR at Table III-3.

152 CR/PR at Table III-3.

153 CR/PR at Table III-3. The industry’s low utilization rate reflects ***. CR/PR at Table III-3 n.3.

154 Tr. at 101-102 (Schewe).

155 CR at VI-2; PR at VI-1. Inventories of MKP peaked during 2008, rising from *** pounds in 2007 (***

percent of total shipments) to *** pounds in 2008 (*** percent of total shipments), before falling to *** pounds in

2009 (*** percent of total shipments). CR/PR at Table III-11.

156 CR/PR at Table III-17.

157 CR/PR at Table III-17.

158 CR/PR at Table III-17.

159 CR/PR at Table III-17. Hourly wages increased *** percent over the period as well. Id.

160 CR/PR at Table VI-2.

161 C/PR R at Table VI-2.

162 CR/PR at Table VI-2. Cash flow fluctuated over the period examined, falling from $*** in 2007 to

$*** in 2008 then increasing to $*** in 2009. CR/PR at Table VI-2. Capital expenditures, however, fell from $***

in 2007 to $*** in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-2.

22

increase of *** percent.151 Production increased from *** pounds in 2007 to *** pounds in 2008, but

then decreased to *** pounds in 2009, resulting in an overall decrease of *** percent.152 The domestic

industry’s capacity utilization remained low, falling from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2009.153

Although some overcapacity is due to the industry’s increased allocation of capacity to MKP, the industry

acknowledged that it has an overcapacity problem unrelated to subject imports and that it intends to

address the issue by closing one of its plants in 2012.154

Although total net sales fell overall, from *** pounds in 2007 to *** pounds in 2009, a decline of

*** percent, net sales by value increased, rising from $*** in 2007 to $*** in 2008, before declining to

$*** in 2009, resulting in an overall increase of *** percent.155

Overall employment was relatively constant during the period for which data were collected. The

number of production and related workers (PRWs) producing MKP increased from *** workers in 2007

to *** workers in 2008, before dropping to *** workers in 2009.156 PRW hours worked increased from

*** in 2007 to *** in 2008 and to *** in 2009.157 Productivity, however, fell by *** percent between

2007 and 2009.158 Wages paid to PRWs increased during the period for which data were collected. 

PRWs producing MKP earned $*** in 2007, $*** in 2008, and $*** in 2009, resulting in a net increase

of *** percent.159

As noted above, the domestic industry generated operating profits during each of the three years

of the period examined. Aggregate operating income fell from $*** in 2007 to $*** in 2008, and then

increased to a period high of $*** in 2009, resulting in a net increase of *** percent.160 Operating

income margins fell from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008, but then increased to *** percent in

2009.161 Thus, even facing sharply rising raw material prices and declining consumption, the domestic

industry was able to improve its financial position over the period.162

For the reasons stated above, in light of the prevailing conditions of competition in the U.S.

market, we find the volume of subject imports was large but concentrated in applications other than those

served principally by the domestic industry. Accordingly, competition between the subject imports and

the domestic like product has been limited over the period. Further, we do not find that the subject
163 See CR/PR at Table IV-9 and VI-2. Id.

164 See CR/PR at Table IV-9 and VI-2. Id.

165 CR/PR at Table VI-2.

166 See CR/PR at Table IV-9 and VI-2. Petitioners noted that the timing of the petition, which was filed in

September 2009, and the fact that the investigations proceeded without any extensions at Commerce, meant that

there was not a period for which the Commission collected data showing that subject imports declined post-petition,

as is often the case in Commission investigations. Tr. at 141-42 (Cannon).

167 As noted, ***, accounting for almost *** of nonsubject imports in 2009. CR/PR at Tables III-14, IV-3,

and IV-6.

23

imports had a significant adverse effect on domestic prices during the period examined. Finally, while the

domestic industry experienced some reductions in its production and sales volume numbers, its financial

results were favorable. Thus, not only is the industry not suffering material injury, but the prevailing

conditions of competition we have described above indicate that any adverse effects of the subject

imports were not significant.

We also find that the record indicates no causal nexus between the subject imports and the

condition of the domestic industry. Subject imports gained market share in 2009, yet the domestic

industry’s profitability improved in 2009 despite a drop in apparent U.S. consumption.163 Although

subject imports’ market share in the first half of 2009 stood at *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption,

up from *** percent in 2008, the domestic industry reported its ***.164 Similarly, the domestic industry

reported its highest level of operating income $*** in the first half of 2009.165 Subject imports

subsequently declined to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in the second half of 2009, and the

U.S. industry reported an ***.166

For these reasons, we find that subject imports are not having a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry. Accordingly, we determine that an industry in the United States is not materially

injured by reason of subject imports of MKP from China.

In assessing whether the domestic industry is likely to experience material injury by reason of the

subject imports in the imminent future, we consider the current condition of the domestic industry. The

industry has been profitable during the period examined, notwithstanding its acknowledged overcapacity

and despite the decrease in apparent U.S. consumption during 2009, and rising prices for raw materials. 

Although the industry’s market share was modest, most of the domestic market was supplied by

nonsubject imports, a majority of which were imported by ***, thus limiting import competition from

nonsubject imports.167 Moreover, the domestic industry increased its profitability during the period. We

therefore find that the industry is not vulnerable to the effects of the subject imports.

In assessing whether subject imports are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry within the imminent time frame, we have evaluated the statutory factors and

acknowledge that subject imports have increased in volume and U.S. market share during the period of

investigation. As explained above, however, we find that these increases have come in segments of the

market that are not the focus of the domestic industry, and, as a result, the industry has not experienced

significant declining sales and shipments or significant price effects as a result of the subject imports. The

domestic industry has remained profitable, and production, shipments, sales, and employment have not

been significantly negatively impacted.

As explained, due to the qualification process and other factors, the record indicates that it is

unlikely that the Chinese industry would export significant quantities of MKP in the imminent future that

would compete with the domestic industry’s MKP for sales to the same end users. Similarly, the

evidence does not indicate that subject imports are likely to depress or suppress domestic producers’

prices in the imminent future as there is no indication that subject imports, even at somewhat increased
168 CR/PR at Table IV-2. 

169 CR/PR at Table IV-5 and Table C-1.

170 CR/PR at Table IV-8 and Table C-1. In the first half of 2009 (January-June), U.S. shipments of subject

imports were *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, but decreased to *** percent in the second half of 2009

(July-December), resulting in the modest decrease from 2008 to 2009. CR/PR at Table IV-8.

171 CR/PR at Table IV-8 and Table C-1.

172 CR/PR at Table IV-8 and Table C-1.

173 CR/PR at Table IV-11.

174 CR/PR at Table IV-2.

175 CR/PR at Table IV-8 and Table C-1.

24

volumes, would imminently begin to compete for sales in market segments that are presently being served

principally by the domestic industry. Therefore, we do not find it likely that subject imports will have

adverse effects on domestic producers’ prices in the imminent future.

Accordingly, because there is no likelihood in the imminent future of a significant increase in

import volumes, or significant price effects from the subject imports, we find that the subject imports are

not likely to have a significant impact. We thus conclude that the domestic industry is not threatened with

material injury by reason of subject imports.

D. Anhydrous Dipotassium Phosphate (“DKP”)

1. Material Injury By Reason of Subject Imports

a. Volume of the Subject Imports

In absolute terms, the volume of subject imports of DKP significantly increased during the period

examined from *** pounds in 2007 to *** pounds in 2008 and *** pounds in 2009.168 

In terms of market penetration, subject imports gained market share from 2007 to 2009 at the

expense of domestically produced DKP. Apparent U.S. consumption increased irregularly during the

period examined from *** pounds in 2007 to *** pounds in 2008, before it decreased somewhat to ***

pounds in 2009 for an overall increase of *** percent from 2007 to 2009.169 At the same time, U.S.

shipments of subject imports of DKP were *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity in 2007,

*** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009.170 Thus, the market share of subject imports of DKP

increased by *** percentage points from 2007 to 2009.171 From 2007 to 2009, while demand for DKP

measured by apparent U.S. consumption increased irregularly and subject imports increased in absolute

terms and relative to consumption, the market share of U.S. producers’ shipments of domestically

produced DKP decreased from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008, before declining further to

*** percent in 2009, a decline of *** percentage points from 2007 to 2009.172 The ratio of the quantity of

subject imports to U.S. production also increased from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008 and

*** percent in 2009.173

During the period examined, nonsubject imports were also an increasing presence in the U.S.

market. Nonsubject imports of DKP increased from *** pounds in 2007 to *** pounds in 2008, before

decreasing somewhat to *** pounds in 2009.174 U.S. shipments of nonsubject imports constituted ***

percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009.175
176 CR/PR at Table C-1.

177 See CR/PR at Table II-11. CR at II-1-2; IV-17 and CR/PR at Table III-8 and Table IV-14; PR at II-1-2

and IV-10. Producers, importers, and purchasers also reported that domestically produced DKP is generally

interchangeable with nonsubject imports. See CR/PR at Table II-11.

178 CR at V-6; PR at V-5.

179 CR at V-6-7; PR at V-5.

180 CR at V-22; CR/PR at Table V-9; and PR at V-8.

181 CR/PR at Table V-2.

182 CR/PR at Table V-2.

183 CR/PR at Table V-2. The price of domestically produced food grade DKP was slightly lower in the

fourth quarter of 2009 than the highest price in 2007 and 2008 (i.e., $*** per pound), which occurred in the fourth

quarter of 2008.

184 CR/PR at Table V-2.

25

Although nonsubject imports of DKP increased their market share over the period examined at a

rate that was slightly higher than subject imports (*** percentage points versus *** percentage points

from 2007 to 2009),176 subject imports surged dramatically during the period examined, increasing from a

relatively low market share of *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2007 to *** percent in 2009

and taking away a substantial amount of domestic producers’ market share. 

Based on the foregoing, we find that the volume of subject imports is significant, both in absolute

terms and relative to consumption and production in the United States, and that the increase in subject

import volume and market share is also significant.

b. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

Subject imports of DKP and domestically produced DKP are both primarily food grade and

generally are interchangeable.177

The Commission collected pricing data on two DKP products (food grade and technical grade).178

Usable pricing data for DKP were provided by one U.S. producer and seven importers, and accounted for

99.9 percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of DKP and 98.4 percent of U.S. imports of subject DKP

from January 2007 to December 2009.179 The pricing data show that subject DKP generally undersold the

domestic like product. Specifically, subject imports of DKP undersold the U.S. product in 8 of 12

quarterly comparisons for food grade DKP with margins ranging from *** percent and in all four possible

quarterly comparisons for technical grade DKP with margins ranging from *** percent.180 

During the period examined, prices of DKP generally increased as input costs increased. Prices

for domestically produced food grade DKP (product 1) increased overall from 2007 to 2008.181 The

prices of subject imports of food grade DKP generally followed a trend similar to domestic prices during

the same period.182 In the first quarter of 2009, prices for domestically produced food grade DKP peaked

at $*** per pound before decreasing to $*** per pound in the fourth quarter, but were still generally

higher than prices in 2007 and 2008.183 Prices for subject food grade DKP peaked in the second quarter

of 2009 at $*** per pound, before falling in the third and fourth quarters, but were still significantly

higher in all quarters of 2009 than in 2007.184
185 CR/PR at Table V-3.

186 CR/PR at Table V-3.

187 CR/PR at Table V-3.

188 Petitioners made *** lost sales allegation with respect to DKP involving ***, valued at ***. CR at V27; PR at V-9. The *** disagreed with Petitioners’ lost sales allegation. CR at V-27; PR at V-9. Petitioners also

made *** lost revenue allegation involving ***, with a ***. CR at V-27; PR at V-9. The purchaser, *** disagreed

with Petitioners’ allegation, but nevertheless reported shifting from the domestic like product to Chinese product

because of price. CR at V-30; PR at V-9-10.

189 CR at V-20; PR at V-7.

190 CR/PR at Table C-1.

191 CR/PR at Table IV-2.

192 CR/PR at Table IV-5 and Table C-1.

26

Prices for domestically produced technical grade DKP fluctuated between $*** per pound and

$*** per pound in 2007 and 2008.185 Following a trend similar to that of food grade DKP, prices for

domestically produced technical grade DKP reached a high for the period examined of $*** in the first

quarter of 2009 before falling consistently in each quarter to $*** per pound in the fourth quarter.186 In

2009, the only year for which pricing data for Chinese technical grade DKP are available, prices declined

in 2009 from $*** per pound to $***.187

We find that subject imports generally undersold the domestic like product during the period

examined and gained market share as a result.188 Nevertheless, we do not find that subject imports

significantly depressed the prices of domestically produced DKP. As noted, domestic producers’ prices

increased from 2007 to 2009.189

We have also considered the degree to which lower-priced subject imports prevented price

increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree. The domestic industry’s COGS

as a share of net sales increased throughout the period examined, increasing from *** percent in 2007 to

*** percent in 2008, and to *** percent in 2009, a *** percentage point increase from 2007 to 2009.190

Thus, the data indicate a cost/price squeeze that accelerated in late 2008 and 2009. Significantly, this

cost/price squeeze occurred while apparent U.S. consumption was increasing, albeit irregularly. 

Furthermore, the rise in the domestic industry’s COGS to net sales ratio to its highest point in 2009

coincided with the highest volume of subject imports during the period examined,191 and occurred when

U.S. shipments of subject DKP and market penetration by subject imports had increased precipitously

from 2007.192 The rise in the COGS to net sales ratio combined with the surge in subject imports

indicates that by 2009 the domestic producers were unable to raise their prices sufficiently to cover

increased costs due to the significant volumes of lower-priced subject imports entering the U.S. market. 

Accordingly, we find that subject imports of DKP had significant price suppressing effects.
193 We have considered the magnitude of the countervailing duty and antidumping margins found by

Commerce. As noted above, Commerce calculated one set of countervailing duty and antidumping margins

corresponding to the scope, not to the three domestic like products found by the Commission in making its

determinations. In its countervailing duty investigation, Commerce found a total subsidy rate of 109.11 percent ad

valorem for all 16 programs. See CR at I-7; PR at I-5; 75 Fed. Reg. 30375 (June 1, 2010). In its antidumping

investigation concerning subject imports from China, Commerce calculated antidumping duty margins of 69.58

percent for seven supplier/exporter combinations and 95.40 percent for all other suppliers and exporters of certain

potassium phosphate salts from China. See CR at I-7; PR at I-6; 75 Fed Reg. 30377 (June 1, 2010).

194 CR/PR at Table IV-8 and Table C-1.

195 CR/PR at Table IV-8 and Table C-1.

196 CR/PR at Table C-1.

197 CR/PR at Table C-1.

198 CR at I-4; PR at I-3. 

199 See CR/PR at Table III-2, n.1 and Table C-4; CR at III-3-4; PR at III-2. ICL’s explanation is supported

by the data in Table C-4, which shows that total aggregated capacity for DKP, MKP, and TKPP remained relatively

stable from 2007 to 2009.

200 In weighing the significance of the changes in average capacity quantity and capacity utilization

between 2007 and 2009 for DKP and TKPP, the Commission took into consideration allocations made to these two

measures by ***. CR/PR at Table C-1. ***. CR/PR at Table C-1, Table C-3, and Table III-4, n.1. The allocation

between subject and non-subject products may account for some of the reduction in aggregated average capacity

quantity for DKP and TKPP.

201 CR/PR at Table C-1.

27

c. Impact of the Subject Imports193

We have examined data pertaining to performance indicators for the domestic industry producing

DKP. These data exhibited mixed trends in 2008 (despite a surge in apparent U.S. consumption and

marked export growth), with the industry experiencing only modest gains in certain indicators, followed

by steep declines in 2009. 

As noted above, although demand as measured by apparent U.S. consumption increased overall

from 2007 to 2009, the domestic DKP industry’s market share declined by *** percentage points during

the same period.194 Apparent U.S. consumption increased significantly from 2007 to 2008 (*** percent),

before declining *** percent from 2008 to 2009, yet the domestic producers’ market share declined ***

percentage points from 2007 to 2008, and then declined even further in 2009.195 At the same time, U.S.

producers’ U.S. shipments declined by *** percent between 2007 and 2009, from *** pounds in 2007 to

*** pounds in 2008 and *** pounds in 2009, although U.S. production of DKP was virtually unchanged

in 2009 relative to 2007, increasing by a mere *** pounds or *** percent.196

The domestic DKP industry’s capacity utilization rate also declined over the period examined. 

Specifically, capacity utilization rates declined by *** percentage points between 2007 and 2009, from

*** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009.197 Although it appears that U.S.

producers’ average capacity by quantity increased from 2007 to 2009, ICL, the only domestic producer of

DKP,198 explained that it ***.199 200

Although the domestic industry’s production trend was relatively stable, according to data on

employment-related indicators, it appears that the number of production workers increased from 2007 to

2009.201 The same allocation issue that applies to ICL’s U.S. production capacity, however, also applies
202 See ICL Prehearing Brief at 28.

203 In weighing the significance of the changes in the number of production workers, the Commission notes

that while the number of aggregated production workers for DKP and TKPP decreased between 2007 and 2009, ***

may account for some of the reduction in that number. See ICL Prehearing Brief at 28; CR/PR at Table C-1 and

Table C-3. See also footnote 200, supra.

204 See ICL Prehearing Brief at 29. ICL’s employees are performing maintenance tasks formerly performed

by contractors resulting in the declining productivity over the period examined. ICL Prehearing Brief at 29. 

205 CR/PR at Table III-16 and Table C-1. Hourly wages increased from $*** in 2007 to $*** in 2008, and

were $*** in 2009.

206 CR/PR at Table III-16 and Table C-1. Specifically, productivity declined *** percent from 2007 to

2009, with a *** percent decline in 2009. CR/PR at Table III-16 and Table C-1.

207 CR/PR at Table III-16 and Table C-1. Unit labor costs rose from $*** in 2007 to $*** in 2008, and to

$*** in 2009.

208 CR/PR at Table C-1.

209 CR/PR at Table C-1.

210 CR/PR at Table C-2.

211 CR/PR at Table C-1.

212 CR/PR at Table C-1.

213 CR/PR at Table C-1.

28

here and results in an increase in the number of employees allocated to DKP production.202 203 The

domestic DKP industry (i.e., ICL, the only domestic producer of DKP) was able to maintain its workforce

because it cut contracted services instead of its own employees.204 Although hourly wages increased by

*** percent and hours worked increased by *** percent from 2007 to 2009,205 because production

remained relatively stable despite the surge in apparent U.S. consumption, productivity declined from

2007 to 2009, with a sharp decline in 2009.206 The domestic industry’s average unit labor costs also rose

by *** percent from 2007 to 2009.207

The domestic industry’s net sales increased from *** pounds in 2007 to *** pounds in 2008,

before declining to *** pounds in 2009.208 The average unit value of domestic industry shipments

increased as domestic producers passed on at least a portion of their higher costs to purchasers.209 The

domestic industry’s net sales value increased by *** percent between 2007 and 2009, from $*** in 2007

to $*** in 2008 and $*** in 2009.210

Apparent U.S. consumption increased *** percent from 2007 to 2008, while the domestic DKP 

industry’s operating income increased *** percent (from $*** in 2007 to $*** in 2008).211 In 2009,

apparent U.S. consumption was still greater than in 2007 (although it had declined from 2008), yet the

domestic industry experienced steep declines in many performance indicators, including operating losses,

rising unit COGS, an increasing ratio of COGS to sales, rising unit labor costs, declining capital

expenditures, and declining productivity. The domestic industry experienced an operating loss of $*** in

2009.212 The domestic DKP industry’s ratio of operating income to net sales declined from *** percent

in 2007 to *** percent in 2008, and then fell sharply to *** percent in 2009.213

Although the domestic DKP industry was able to raise prices overall from 2007 to 2009, as

discussed previously, the unit COGS and the COGS to net sales ratio increased during the period, with a

dramatic increase in 2009. The increase in the COGS to net sales ratio occurred because, from late 2008

to 2009, there was an accelerating cost/price squeeze where the domestic industry was unable to raise
214 CR/PR at Table C-1.

215 CR/PR at Table C-1.

216 In addition, the domestic industry’s capital expenditures decreased by *** percent between 2007 and

2009. CR/PR at Table C-1.

217 Domestically produced DKP was priced *** than nonsubject DKP in *** possible comparisons. 

Subject DKP was priced *** than nonsubject DKP in *** possible comparisons. See CR/PR at Appendix D. 

218 With respect to the considerations required by Bratsk and Mittal, Commissioner Pinkert finds that the

DKP at issue is a commodity product in that there is likely to be a high degree of substitutability within each grade

among shipments from domestic and other sources. CR at II-25; PR at II-17. He further finds that price competitive,

nonsubject imports were a significant factor in the U.S. market during the period under examination. Collectively,

nonsubject imports increased their market share from *** percent to *** percent over the period. CR/PR at Table C1. 

29

prices sufficiently to cover costs. Unit COGS increased from $*** in 2007 to $*** in 2008, before

increasing sharply to $*** in 2009 (an increase of *** percent from 2008 to 2009).214 The unit value of

net sales increased by a much lower amount than the rise in the unit COGS, *** percent for unit net sales

value versus *** percent for unit COGS between 2008 and 2009.215 216 

In sum, despite overall growth in apparent U.S. consumption of DKP between 2007 and 2009 of

*** pounds and a surge in export volume of *** pounds over the same period, domestic production of

DKP by ICL was virtually unchanged from 2007 to 2009. Although ICL allocated more of its shared

capacity and workforce to DKP, it nevertheless suffered the adverse impact of rapidly increasing volumes

of low-priced DKP imports from China. ICL’s net sales showed little growth, as a steep decline in U.S.

shipments (despite an overall increase in apparent U.S. consumption) throughout the period examined

offset the benefits of increased export opportunities. With its U.S. shipments falling, ICL’s share of the

U.S. market fell from *** percent to *** percent in just two years, with nearly *** of that loss directly

attributable to imports of DKP from China, which barely had a market presence in 2007. Moreover, the

tremendous growth in the volume of low-priced imports from China, which undersold ICL and

nonsubject imports alike in the majority of instances, resulted in such price pressure that ICL was unable

to cover its rapidly rising costs, culminating in operating losses of $*** in 2009 (i.e., operating losses

equivalent to *** percent of the companies net sales of DKP).

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the domestic industry producing DKP is materially injured

by reason of subject imports of DKP from China found by Commerce to be sold in the United States at

less than fair value and subsidized by the Government of China. We find that there is a sufficient causal

nexus between the subject imports and the domestic industry’s poor performance during the period

examined to attribute significant adverse effects on the domestic industry to subject imports.

 We have considered whether there are other factors that have had an impact on the domestic

industry. We acknowledge that the volume and pricing of nonsubject imports also may have adversely

impacted the U.S. industry. We do not attribute, however, the adverse effects of nonsubject imports to

subject imports. Not only did nonsubject imports undersell the domestic like product less frequently than

subject imports, subject imports undersold the nonsubject imports nearly 60 percent of the time.217

Moreover, although nonsubject imports also increased their market share during the period examined,

subject imports had a very limited presence in 2007 (*** percent of apparent U.S. consumption) and

increased their market share dramatically by 2009 (*** percent of apparent U.S. consumption) to become

a significant presence in the market. Although nonsubject imports also took sales and market share from

domestic producers during the period examined, the presence of nonsubject imports does not negate the

causal link between our finding of significant adverse effects and subject imports of DKP.218
Commissioner Pinkert finds, however, that, had the subject imports exited the market during the period,

nonsubject imports would not have replaced them without benefit to the domestic industry. Although nonsubject

imports might in fact have replaced the subject imports, the record indicates that antidumping relief would

nevertheless have benefitted the domestic industry by means of higher prices. Nonsubject imports undersold the

domestic like product less than subject imports and, in turn, were undersold by the subject imports nearly 60 percent

of the time. CR/PR at Appendix D.

219 See CR at II-1-2; IV-17 and CR/PR at Table III-8 and Table IV-14; PR at II-1-2 and IV-10.

220 CR/PR at Table IV-4. 

221 CR/PR at Table IV-10 and Table C-3.

222 CR/PR at Table IV-10 and Table C-3.

223 CR/PR at Table IV-10 and Table C-3. 

224 CR/PR at Table C-3.

225 CR/PR at Table IV-10 and Table C-3.

226 CR/PR at Table IV-13.

227 CR/PR at Table C-3.

228 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

30

E. Tetrapotassium Pyrophosphate (“TKPP”)

1. Material Injury By Reason of Subject Imports

a. Volume of the Subject Imports

 As explained above, subject imports and domestically produced TKPP are both primarily

technical grade and generally are interchangeable.219 

In absolute terms, the volume of subject imports of TKPP increased from *** pounds in 2007 to

*** pounds in 2008, and then increased further to *** pounds in 2009.220 

In terms of market penetration, subject imports of TKPP gained market share from 2007 to 2009,

while apparent U.S. consumption declined from *** pounds in 2007 to *** pounds in 2008, before

decreasing further to *** pounds in 2009.221 Specifically, the market share of subject imports of TKPP

increased *** percentage points from 2007 to 2009.222 U.S. shipments of subject imports of TKPP were

*** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in

2009.223 From 2007 to 2009, while demand for TKPP as measured by apparent U.S. consumption

decreased and the market share of subject imports increased,224 the market share of U.S. producers’

shipments of domestically produced TKPP decreased from 90.5 percent in 2007 to 87.7 percent in 2008,

before declining further to 81.7 percent in 2009 -- a decrease of 8.8 percentage points from 2007 to

2009.225 The ratio of the quantity of subject imports to U.S. production increased from *** percent in

2007 to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009.226

During the period examined, nonsubject imports also had an increasing presence in the U.S.

market, but did not account for a large share of apparent U.S. consumption. U.S. shipments of nonsubject

TKPP accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and ***

percent in 2009.227 In absolute terms, nonsubject imports of TKPP increased from *** pounds in 2007 to

*** pounds in 2008, and then increased to *** pounds in 2009.228 
229 CR/PR at Table C-3.

230 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

231 CR at V-6; PR at V-5.

232 CR at V-6-7; PR at V-5.

233 See CR/PR at Table V-6 and Table V-9.

234 CR at V-22; PR at V-8; and CR/PR at Table V-9.

235 See CR/PR at Table V-7 and Table V-9.

236 See CR/PR at Table V-7.

237 CR/PR at Table V-6. The fourth quarter of 2008 corresponds to a strike by workers at PCS, a major

U.S. supplier of potassium hydroxide (KOH), which forced ICL to put customers on allocation from September

through November 2008. See CR at V-20; PR at V-7; and ICL Prehearing Brief at 8.

238 CR/PR at Table V-6. The price of domestically produced food grade TKPP in all quarters of 2009 was

slightly higher than all prices in 2007 and 2008 except for prices in the third and fourth quarters of 2008.

31

Although nonsubject imports of TKPP increased their market share over the period, subject

imports increased at a much higher rate (*** percentage points versus *** percentage points for

nonsubject imports).229 Moreover, nonsubject imports constituted a significantly smaller volume of

imports relative to subject imports.230

Based on the foregoing, we find that the volume of subject imports is significant, both in absolute

terms and relative to consumption and production in the United States, and that the increase in subject

import volume and market share is also significant.

b. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

The Commission collected pricing data on two TKPP products (food grade and technical

grade).231 Usable pricing data were provided by three U.S. producers and 17 importers, and accounted for

47.4 percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of TKPP and 85.7 percent of U.S. imports of subject

TKPP from January 2007 to December 2009.232

For food grade TKPP (product 5), subject imports undersold domestically produced food grade

TKPP in all five possible quarterly comparisons with margins ranging from *** to *** percent.233

Subject imports of technical grade TKPP undersold the domestic product in 7 of 12 possible quarterly

comparisons with margins ranging from *** to *** percent.234 In 2007 and 2008, there was a mixed

pattern of overselling and underselling by subject imports of technical grade TKPP (product 6).235 In

2009, however, higher volumes of subject imports of technical grade TKPP entered the United States

accompanied by declining prices and more consistent underselling of the domestically produced

product.236 

During the period examined, prices of TKPP generally increased, consistent with higher input

costs. Prices for domestically produced food grade TKPP (product 5) increased continuously in 2007

and 2008, rising from $*** per pound in the first quarter of 2007 to a peak of $*** per pound in the

fourth quarter of 2008.237 After peaking in the fourth quarter of 2008, prices for domestically produced

food grade TKPP declined from $*** per pound in the first quarter of 2009, eventually falling to $*** per

pound in the fourth quarter of 2009, but were still generally higher than prices in 2007 and 2008.238 In the

five quarters for which pricing data for subject food grade TKPP is available, subject import prices
239 CR/PR at Table V-6.

240 CR/PR at Table V-7.

241 CR/PR at Table V-7.

242 CR/PR at Table V-7

243 CR/PR at Table V-7. Prices of subject imports of technical grade TKPP fell from a peak in the fourth

quarter of 2008 of $*** per pound to $*** per pound in the fourth quarter of 2009.

244 See CR at V-24, V-28-29; PR at V-9; CR/PR at Table V-11. Although Petitioners also made lost sales

allegations of $*** involving *** pounds of TKPP, purchasers disagreed with Petitioners’ allegations.

245 CR at V-20; PR at V-7.

246 CR/PR at Table C-3.

32

followed a trend similar to the domestic prices, with prices peaking in 2008, but generally rising from

2007 to 2009.239

Similar to food grade TKPP, prices for domestically produced technical grade TKPP increased

continuously in 2007 and 2008.240 Prices for domestically produced technical grade TKPP reached a high

for the period examined of $*** in the first quarter of 2009, before falling consistently to $*** per pound

in the fourth quarter.241 Subject import prices for technical grade TKPP generally experienced trends that

were consistent with prices of the domestically produced product. They were relatively stable in 2007

and the first quarter of 2008, but increased in the last three quarters of 2008.242 In 2009, the quantity of

subject imports of technical grade TKPP increased significantly at the same time as prices of subject

imports of technical grade TKPP fell more sharply than prices for the domestic product, resulting in large

margins of underselling ranging from *** percent to *** percent.243 

Purchasers agreed with several lost revenue allegations made by Petitioners, although some

disputed the amounts at issue. The value of the confirmed lost revenue allegations was $*** involving

*** pounds of TKPP.244 

Based on the foregoing, we find that subject imports generally undersold the domestic like

product during the period examined and gained market share as a result. Nevertheless, we do not find that

subject imports significantly depressed the prices of domestically produced TKPP. Domestic producers’

prices generally increased from 2007 to 2009 as input costs increased, indicating that the underselling by

subject imports did not depress prices for the domestic like product.245

We have also considered the degree to which lower-priced subject imports prevented price

increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree. The domestic industry’s COGS

to net sales ratio increased irregularly from 2007 to 2009; decreasing from *** percent in 2007 to ***

percent in 2008, before increasing by *** percentage points to *** percent in 2009; a *** percentage

point increase from 2007 to 2009.246 Furthermore, the rise in the domestic industry’s COGS to net sales

ratio to its highest point in 2009 coincided with the highest levels of market penetration by subject

imports during the period examined, which provides some evidence that by the end of the period the

domestic producers were unable to raise their prices sufficiently to cover increased costs due to the

significant volumes of lower-priced subject imports entering the U.S. market. Indeed, while apparent

U.S. consumption was actually improving significantly in terms of quantity in the last six months of 2009

relative to the first six months, the COGS to sales ratio jumped *** percentage points as subject import

market penetration remained at the peak level achieved in the first six months of 2009. 
247 Commissioner Aranoff finds that the domestic industry is materially injured because subject imports

took significant market share from the domestic industry through underselling, with adverse effects noted in the

following section. Therefore, she does not join the majority’s discussion of price suppression.

248 We have considered the magnitude of the countervailing duty and antidumping margins found by

Commerce. As noted above, Commerce calculated one set of countervailing duty and antidumping margins

corresponding to the scope, not to the three domestic like products found by the Commission in making its

determinations. In its countervailing duty investigation, Commerce found a total subsidy rate of 109.11 percent ad

valorem for all 16 programs. See CR at I-7; PR at I-5; 75 Fed. Reg. 30375 (June 1, 2010). In its antidumping

investigation concerning subject imports from China, Commerce calculated antidumping duty margins of 69.58

percent for seven supplier/exporter combinations and 95.40 percent for all other suppliers and exporters of certain

potassium phosphate salts from China. See CR at I-7; PR at I-6; 75 Fed Reg. 30377 (June 1, 2010).

249 See CR/PR at Table C-3.

250 CR/PR at Table C-3.

251 CR/PR at Table C-3.

252 CR/PR at Table C-3. Production quantity decreased from 41.1 million pounds in 2007 to 36.2 million

pounds in 2008, before decreasing further to 23.6 million pounds in 2009.

253 CR/PR at Table C-3. See also footnote 200, supra.

33

Accordingly, we find evidence of significant price suppression by subject imports of TKPP.247

c. Impact of the Subject Imports248

We have carefully examined the performance of the domestic industry producing TKPP. As

discussed more fully below, the existence of a *** between *** and *** results in certain data anomalies,

but does not detract from the record evidence pointing to the negative impact of subject imports of TKPP

from China.

Despite the industry’s positive performance in terms of operating income in 2008, it experienced

negative performances in many other trade indicia from 2007 to 2009. Demand, as measured by apparent

U.S. consumption, declined throughout the period examined. U.S. imports of TKPP from China,

however, did not decline or even remain stable, but rather increased markedly not only in 2008 (when

certain U.S. producers experienced a disruption in the supply of potassium hydroxide), but also in 2009. 

Moreover, notwithstanding a *** of the volume of TKPP from China held in inventory by U.S. importers,

U.S. shipments of Chinese TKPP increased not only in 2008, but even more substantially in 2009. As a

result, U.S. producers experienced an accelerating decline in their U.S. shipments and correspondingly

their share of the U.S. market – losses that were most pronounced in 2009.249 Specifically, the domestic

TKPP industry’s market share declined by 8.8 percentage points between 2007 and 2009, while subject

imports’ market share increased by *** percentage points.250 U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments declined

steadily 40.0 percent between 2007 and 2009, from 39.2 million pounds in 2007 to 32.8 million pounds in

2008 and to 23.5 million pounds in 2009.251 

The production quantity of domestic producers decreased 42.7 percent from 2007 to 2009.252 The

domestic TKPP industry’s average capacity and capacity utilization rates also declined over the period

examined. Specifically, capacity declined overall by 16.2 percentage points between 2007 and 2009; the

domestic industry’s capacity utilization rates were relatively stable in 2007 and 2008, increasing modestly

from 56.9 percent in 2007 to 58.3 percent in 2008, but declined sharply to 39.0 percent in 2009.253
254 CR/PR at Table C-3. 

255 CR/PR at Table III-18 and Table C-3.

256 CR/PR at Table III-18 and Table C-3. Productivity increased slightly from 351.2 pounds per hour in

2007 to 371.2 pounds per hour in 2008, before declining to 251.2 pounds per hour in 2009.

257 CR/PR at Table C-3. Unit labor costs were $0.10 in 2007 and 2008, and then increased to $0.15 in

2009.

258 CR/PR at Table VI-4.

259 CR/PR at Table VI-4 and Table C-3. The operating income of U.S. producers (i.e., excluding *** and

including ***) was $*** in 2007 and $*** in 2008. CR/PR at Table VI-10. 

260 CR/PR at Table C-3. The ratio of operating income to net sales for U.S. producers (i.e., excluding ***

and including ***) was *** percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008. CR/PR at Table VI-10.

261 CR/PR at Table C-3. 

262 CR/PR at Table VI-4 and Table C-3. Unit COGS rose from $*** in 2007 to $*** in 2008. CR/PR at

Table C-3.

263 During 2007 and 2008, prices of subject imports of technical grade TKPP, which constitute the largest

volume of TKPP, generally moved in a manner consistent with prices of domestically produced technical grade

TKPP. See CR/PR at Table V-7. Petitioners testified at the hearing that, after raising their prices in anticipation of

the increases in raw material costs, they did not experience intense price competition from subject imports of TKPP

and were able to maintain relatively good price levels in 2008. See Hearing Transcript at 45-46 (testimony of Allen

Sexton, Vice President - Finance and Procurement for Prayon, Inc.). See also CR/PR at Table IV-4 and Table C-3

(subject imports of TKPP increased modestly from 2007 to 2008, before increasing significantly from 2008 to 2009). 

Moreover, all of the lost revenue allegations for TKPP occurred after 2008. See CR/PR at Table V-11.

264 See CR at VI-14; PR at VI-6-7.

265 See CR/PR at Table VI-4.

34

Many employment-related indicators also declined for the domestic TKPP industry during the

period examined.254 The number of production workers for TKPP declined 23.3 percent from 2007 to

2009, while hours worked declined 19.8 percent and wages paid declined 13.5 percent.255 Likewise,

productivity decreased 28.5 percent from 2007 to 2009.256 At the same time, the domestic industry’s

average unit labor costs rose by 50.8 percent from 2007 to 2009.257 

Between 2007 and 2008, the quantity of net sales of domestically produced TKPP declined.258

TKPP-related operating income, however, increased from $138,000 in 2007 to $3.9 million in 2008.259

Similarly, the TKPP-related ratio of operating income to net sales increased by 11.3 percentage points

from 0.5 percent in 2007 to 11.9 percent in 2008.260 The increased profitability reported by the domestic

TKPP industry is attributable to the increase in the prices of domestically produced TKPP; the unit value

of their U.S. shipments rose 61.5 percent from $0.60 in 2007 to $0.97 in 2008.261 Although the domestic

industry collectively experienced an increase in unit COGS of 41.6 percent from 2007 to 2008, unit net

sales increased by 59.9 percent.262 These increases reflect several factors, including the relatively

moderate level of price competition of Chinese TKPP until the fourth quarter of 2008263 and the nature of

the costs faced by ***. *** reported a modest decline in unit COGS in 2008 and positive operating

income in 2008 because a large component of its costs are its ***. Because of the nature of ***,264 ***

did not adjust to market developments as rapidly as other domestic producers in 2008.265
266 See CR/PR at Table IV-4 and Table C-3; Hearing Transcript at 46 (Sexton, testifying that subject

imports of TKPP began to flood the U.S. market in the fourth quarter of 2008 and in 2009).

267 See CR/PR at Table V-7. Concurrently, domestically produced technical grade TKPP was experiencing

lower volumes and falling prices in each quarter of 2009. 

268 See CR/PR at Table C-3. Unit COGS rose from $0.76 in 2008 to $1.13 in 2009, an increase of 47.9

percent. In comparison, the unit value of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments increased 20.1 percent from $0.97 in 2008

to $1.17 in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-3.

269 See CR/PR at Table VI-9.

270 See CR/PR at Table VI-4.

271 CR/PR at Table VI-4 and Table C-3 and Table VI-8; CR at VI-10; PR at VI-5.

272 CR/PR at Table C-3.

273 As we observed earlier, the domestic industry consists of the U.S. producers of TKPP. As we also

observed, when considering ***, certain data are in the possession of the *** rather than the ***. This is the case

with *** and, to a certain extent, the ***. We have, however, also carefully analyzed the *** of ***. *** generated

*** and *** levels of operating income throughout the period examined through its sales of ***, with such income

reaching $*** in 2009, equivalent to *** percent of the firm’s revenue ***. CR/PR at Table VI-9. Even with these

*** operating results, U.S. producers of TKPP as a whole experienced ***, as the poor performance of U.S.

producers *** in their sales of TKPP ***. CR/PR at table VI-4 (company-specific financial data), table VI-9 (***),

and Table VI-10 (financial data ***).

274 CR/PR at Table C-3.

275 CR/PR at Table C-3.

35

In 2009, however, pressure from subject imports intensified as subject imports of TKPP increased

significantly by quantity and price-based competition increased.266 As noted above, in 2009, subject

imports of TKPP entered the U.S. market in increasing volumes at sharply decreasing prices and with

large margins of underselling.267 As unit COGS continued to rise through 2009, U.S. producers were

unable to raise prices to cover the increases in costs.268 Furthermore, *** increased its *** significantly in

2009269 and, as a result, *** experienced a significant additional increase in *** that it was unable to

cover with its increase in unit value.270 As a result of these factors, the TKPP operations of domestic

producers experienced an operating loss of $1,973,000 in 2009.271 The ratio of operating income to net

sales of domestically produced TKPP decreased to negative 6.8 percent, a decline of 18.6 percentage

points from 2008.272 273

Although the domestic TKPP industry was able to raise prices from 2007 to 2009, as discussed

previously, U.S. producers were not able to continue to raise prices sufficiently to cover the increasing

costs beginning in late 2008 and accelerating in 2009, resulting in a cost/price squeeze. The unit COGS

and COGS to net sales ratio increased during the period, with a dramatic increase in 2009. Unit COGS

increased from $0.54 in 2007 to $0.76 in 2008, before increasing sharply to $1.13 in 2009, an increase of

109.5 percent from 2007 to 2009.274 The COGS to net sales ratio was 88.9 percent in 2007 and decreased

to 78.7 percent in 2008, before increasing significantly to 96.5 percent in 2009, demonstrating an increase

of 7.6 percentage points from 2007 to 2009, with an increase of 17.8 percentage points from 2008 to

2009.275 As noted above, the unit value of net sales between 2008 and 2009 increased by a much lower
276 CR/PR at Table C-3.

277 The domestic TKPP industry’s capital expenditures also fell dramatically by *** percent between 2007

and 2009. CR/PR at Table C-3.

278 Subject imports of TKPP were priced lower than nonsubject TKPP in 26 of 27 possible pricing

comparisons. CR/PR at Appendix D, D-3. 

279 See CR/PR at Table III-15, n.1.

280 See CR at III-12; PR at III-7; CR/PR at Table III-15. *** supplied *** pounds of TKPP to the United

States in 2009. CR/PR at Table III-15.

281 See CR/PR at Table C-3. Subject imports of TKPP increased by *** of market share from 2007 to

2009; nonsubject imports of TKPP increased by *** over the same period. CR/PR at Table C-3.

282 With respect to the considerations required by Bratsk and Mittal, Commissioner Pinkert finds that the

TKPP at issue is a commodity product in that there is likely to be a high degree of substitutability within each grade

among shipments from domestic and other sources. In addition, food grade TKPP may be substituted for technicalgrade TKPP. CR at II-25; PR at II-17. Commissioner Pinkert further finds, however, that, although nonsubject

imports were present in the U.S. market throughout the period under examination in increasing volumes, market

share for nonsubject imports did not reach levels above *** percent. CR/PR at Table C-3. He therefore concludes

that nonsubject imports were not a significant factor in the U.S. market during the period.

36

level than the rise in the unit COGS, 20.7 percent for unit net sales value versus 47.9 percent for unit

COGS.276 277

In sum, although the domestic TKPP industry experienced large operating income in 2008, these

data were impacted by the *** and do not outweigh the negative trends experienced in virtually all other

performance indicators during the period examined.

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the domestic industry producing TKPP is materially

injured by reason of subject imports of TKPP from China found by Commerce to be sold in the United

States at less than fair value and subsidized by the Government of China. We find that there is a

sufficient causal nexus between the subject imports and the domestic industry’s poor performance during

the period examined to attribute significant adverse effects on the domestic industry to subject imports.

 We have considered whether there are other factors that have had an impact on the domestic

industry. In addition to subject imports, nonsubject imports took an increasing share of the U.S. market

for TKPP during the period examined, but were imported at much smaller levels than subject imports and

generally were sold at *** average unit values than subject imports.278 In addition, U.S. producers

imported nonsubject TKPP to address shortages in supply caused by shortages of KOH and to provide

certain products required by customers that they were unable to produce in the United States. For

example, ***.279 ***.280 Furthermore, subject imports increased at a far greater rate than nonsubject

imports during the period examined.281 Thus, the presence of nonsubject imports does not negate the

causal link between our finding of significant adverse effects and subject imports of TKPP. 282

CONCLUSION

Based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, we find that an industry in the

United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports of

MKP from China that Commerce has found to be sold at less than fair value and subsidized by the

Government of China. We also find that industries in the United States are materially injured by reason

of imports of DKP and TKPP from China that Commerce has found to be subsidized by the Government

of China and sold in the United States at less than fair value.
PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

These investigations result from a petition filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC” or “Commission”) by ICL

Performance Products LP (“ICL”), St. Louis, MO, and Prayon, Inc. (“Prayon”), Augusta, GA, on

September 24, 2009, alleging that an industry1

 in the United States is materially injured and threatened

with material injury by reason of subsidized and less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of certain

phosphate salts from China. The specific products that remain at issue in this proceeding are anhydrous

dipotassium phosphate (“DKP”), anhydrous monopotassium phosphate (“MKP”), and tetrapotassium

pyrophosphate (“TKPP”).2 3

 Information relating to the background of the investigations is provided in

the following tabulation.4

Effective date Action

September 24, 2009

Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission’s

investigations (74 FR 50817, October 1, 2009)

October 21, 2009 Commerce’s notice of antidumping duty initiation (74 FR 54024)

October 23, 2009 Commerce’s notice of countervailing duty initiation (74 FR 54778)

November 17, 2009 Commission’s preliminary determination (74 FR 61173, November 23, 2009)

March 8, 2010 Commerce’s preliminary countervailing duty determination (75 FR 10466)

March 16, 2010

Commerce’s preliminary antidumping duty determination (75 FR 12508);

scheduling of final phase of Commission investigations (75 FR 16509, April 1,

2010)

May 5, 2010

Commerce’s preliminary affirmative determinations of critical circumstances in

the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations (75 FR 24572 and 75 FR

24575)

June 1, 2010

Commerce’s final affirmative countervailing duty and antidumping duty

determinations and termination of critical circumstances inquiry (75 FR 30375

and 75 FR 30377)

June 2, 2010 Commission’s hearing1

June 30, 2010 Commission’s vote

July 15, 2010 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce

 1 App. B presents a list of witnesses appearing at the hearing.

 1 Although the petition uses the term “industry” in the singular, its subsequent discussion of individual domestic

like products suggests that multiple industries are at issue.

 2

 See the section entitled “The Subject Merchandise” in Part I of this report for a complete description of the

merchandise subject to these investigations.

 3

 During the preliminary phase of these investigations, sodium tripolyphosphate (“STPP”) was subject to

investigation. The Commission unanimously determined that there was no reasonable indication that an industry in

the United States was materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports of STPP

from China alleged to be sold at less than fair value and subsidized by the Government of China. Certain Sodium

and Potassium Phosphate Salts from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-473 and 731-TA-1173 (Preliminary), USITC

Publication 4110, November 2009, p. 1.

 4 Federal Register notices from the final phase of these investigations cited in the tabulation are presented in app.

A.

I-1
STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

Section 771(7)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)) provides that in

making its determinations of injury to an industry in the United States, the Commission–

shall consider (I) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise, (II)

the effect of imports of that merchandise on prices in the United States

for domestic like products, and (III) the impact of imports of such

merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only

in the context of production operations within the United States; and . . .

may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination regarding whether there is material injury by reason of

imports.

Section 771(7)(C) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)) further provides that--

In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the Commission

shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any

increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production

or consumption in the United States is significant.

. . .

In evaluating the effect of imports of such merchandise on prices, the

Commission shall consider whether . . . (I) there has been significant

price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the

price of domestic like products of the United States, and (II) the effect of

imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant

degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.

. . .

In examining the impact required to be considered under subparagraph

(B)(i)(III), the Commission shall evaluate (within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the

affected industry) all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on

the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to

. . . 

(I) actual and potential declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, (II)

factors affecting domestic prices, (III) actual and potential negative

effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to

raise capital, and investment, (IV) actual and potential negative effects

on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic

industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced

version of the domestic like product, and (V) in {an antidumping

investigation}, the magnitude of the margin of dumping.

I-2
Organization of the Report

Part I of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, subsidy and dumping

margins, and domestic like product. Part II of this report presents information on conditions of

competition and other relevant economic factors. Part III presents information on the condition of the

U.S. industry, including data on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. Parts IV

and V present the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise, respectively. Part VI

presents information on the financial experience of U.S. producers. Part VII presents the statutory

requirements and information obtained for use in the Commission’s consideration of the question of threat

of material injury as well as information regarding nonsubject countries.

U.S. MARKET SUMMARY

“Certain” potassium phosphate salts consist of DKP, MKP, and TKPP, three of six major

industrial potassium phosphates produced in the United States.5

 These chemicals are used in a variety of

applications, including detergents and other cleaning applications; fertilizers;6

 food and feed additives;

and water treatment. The leading firms manufacturing and selling domestically produced potassium

phosphate salts at issue are ICL, Prayon, Innophos, Inc. (“Innophos”), and PCS Purified Phosphates

(“PCS”), while leading producers of certain potassium phosphate salts outside the United States include

Mianyang Aostar Phosphorous Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. and Sichuan Blue Sword Chemical (Group)

Co., Ltd. The leading U.S. importers of potassium phosphate salts from China are ***. Leading

importers of certain potassium phosphate salts from nonsubject countries (primarily Germany, Mexico,

and Israel) include ***. The major U.S. purchasers of DKP are end users, while the major U.S.

purchasers of MKP and TKPP are distributors. Leading purchasers include national distributor Brenntag

North American, Inc., ***. 

DKP

Apparent U.S. consumption of DKP totaled approximately *** pounds ($***) in 2009. 

Currently, one firm, ICL, is known to produce DKP in the United States. The U.S. producer’s U.S.

shipments of DKP totaled *** pounds ($***) and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption by quantity and *** percent by value in 2009. U.S. shipments of imports of DKP from

China totaled *** pounds ($***) in 2009 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by

quantity and *** percent by value. U.S. shipments of imports from nonsubject sources totaled ***

pounds ($***) in 2009 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and

*** percent by value. 

MKP

Apparent U.S. consumption of MKP totaled approximately *** pounds ($***) in 2009. Two

firms, ICL and PCS are known to produce MKP in the United States. The U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments of MKP totaled *** pounds ($***) and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption by quantity and *** percent by value in 2009. U.S. shipments of imports of MKP from

China totaled *** pounds ($***) in 2009 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by

quantity and *** percent by value. U.S. shipments of imports of MKP from nonsubject sources totaled

 5 ***.

 6

 The primary end use of imported MKP is for fertilizers; U.S. producers, however, reported that *** of their

MKP production was sold for use in fertilizers in 2009.

I-3
*** pounds ($***) in 2009 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and

*** percent by value.

TKPP

Apparent U.S. consumption of TKPP totaled approximately 28.8 million pounds ($33.1 million)

in 2009. Currently, four firms (ICL, Innophos, PCS, and Prayon) are known to manufacture and/or sell

domestically produced TKPP in the United States. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of TKPP totaled 23.5

million pounds ($27.4 million) and accounted for 81.7 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity

and 82.6 percent by value in 2009. U.S. shipments of imports of TKPP from China totaled *** pounds

(***) in 2009 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent

by value. U.S. shipments of imports of TKPP from nonsubject sources totaled *** pounds (***) in 2009

and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent by value.

SUMMARY DATA AND DATA SOURCES

Appendix C contains a summary of data collected in these investigations. Tables C-1 through C3 present summary data for DKP, MKP, and TKPP, respectively. Table C-4 presents combined data for

the three potassium phosphate salts at issue in this proceeding. Except as noted, U.S. industry data are

based on questionnaire responses of four firms that accounted for all known U.S. shipments of domestic

production of each of the three chemicals during 2009. Data regarding U.S. imports of DKP, MKP, and

TKPP are based on questionnaire responses from 37 companies. Chinese industry data are based on

questionnaire responses from 13 companies, while available information on other foreign industries is

based on published sources and from a survey of major producers.

PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

There have been no previous import injury investigations concerning DKP, MKP, or TKPP. 

However, as discussed above, the Commission conducted a preliminary phase investigation of the sodium

phosphate STPP from China that concluded with a negative determination. In addition, the Commission

instituted an antidumping duty investigation on imports of the sodium phosphate SHMP (sodium

hexametaphosphate) effective February 8, 2007, following receipt of a petition by ICL and Innophos. 

Effective March 12, 2008, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was

materially injured by reason of imports from China of SHMP that had been found by Commerce to be

sold in the United States at less than fair value.7

 The Commission is scheduled to begin reviewing the

antidumping duty order on SHMP from China in February 2013.

 7 SHMP is a water-soluble polyphosphate glass that consists of a distribution of polyphosphate chain lengths. It

is a collection of sodium polyphosphate polymers built on repeating NaPO3 units. The Commission concluded that

SHMP, in all grades, chain lengths, and particle sizes, constituted a distinct domestic product “like” the merchandise

subject to investigation. Sodium Hexametaphosphate from China, Investigation No. 731–TA–1110 (Final), USITC

Publication 3984, March 2008, pp. 1-5.

I-4
NATURE AND EXTENT OF SUBSIDIES AND SALES AT LTFV 

Subsidies

On June 1, 2010, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the final affirmative

countervailing duty determination on certain potassium phosphate salts from China. Commerce identified

the following government programs in China:

I. Income Tax Programs

1. Two Free, Three Half Tax Exemption for Foreign Invested Enterprises (“FIEs”).

2. Income Tax Subsidies for FIEs based on Geographic Location.

3. Income Tax Exemption Programs for Export Oriented FIEs.

4. Local Income Tax Exemption or Reduction Program for “Productive” FIEs.

5. Reduced Income Tax Rate for High- and New-Technology Enterprises.

II. Government of China (“GOC”) Tax Credit Programs

6. Preferential Tax Policies for Research and Development by FIEs.

7. Income Tax Credit on Purchases of Domestically Produced Equipment.

III. GOC Grant Programs

8. Subsidies to Loss-Making State-Owned Enterprises (“SOEs”) by the GOC at 

the National Level. 

9. Grants Pursuant to the State Key Technology Renovation Project Fund.

10. Grants Pursuant to the “Famous Brands” Program.

IV. Provincial Grant Program

11. Subsidies to Loss-Making SOEs by the GOC at the Provincial Level.

V. Indirect Tax Exemption/Reduction Programs

12. Reduction in or Exemption from the Fixed Assets Investment Orientation

Tax.

13. Value Added Tax (“VAT”) Refunds for FIEs Purchasing Domestically Produced

Equipment.

VI. VAT and Tariff Exemption on Imported Equipment

14. VAT and Tariff Exemptions on Imported Equipment.

VII. Preferential Export Lending

15. Discounted Loans for Export Oriented Industries (Honorable Enterprises).

VIII. Export Restraints

16. Export Restraints on Yellow Phosphorus.

The sum of all the subsidy programs identified above by Commerce equals a total CVD subsidy rate of

109.11 percent ad valorem for all exporters and producers of DKP, MKP, and TKPP from China.8

 8 Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing

Duty Determination and Termination of Critical Circumstances Inquiry, 75 FR 30375, June 1, 2010.

I-5
Sales at LTFV

On June 1, 2010, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the final affirmative

antidumping duty determination on certain potassium phosphate salts from China. Commerce calculated

antidumping duty margins of 69.58 percent for seven supplier/exporter combinations and 95.40 percent

for all other suppliers and exporters of certain potassium phosphate salts from China.9

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce has issued final determinations in its investigations with the following scope:

The phosphate salts covered by this investigation include anhydrous Monopotassium

Phosphate (MKP), anhydrous Dipotassium Phosphate (DKP) and Tetrapotassium

Pyrophosphate (TKPP), whether anhydrous or in solution (collectively “phosphate

salts”). 

TKPP, also known as normal potassium pyrophosphate, Diphosphoric acid or

Tetrapotassium salt, is a potassium salt with the formula K4P2O7. The CAS registry

number for TKPP is 7320-34-5. TKPP is typically 18.7% phosphorus and 47.3%

potassium. It is generally greater than or equal to 43.0% P2O5 content. TKPP is

classified under heading 2835.39.1000, HTSUS. 

MKP, also known as Potassium dihydrogen phosphate, KDP, or Monobasic

potassiumphosphate, is a potassium salt with the formula KH2PO4. The CAS registry

number for MKP is 7778-77-0. MKP is typically 22.7% phosphorus, 28.7%

potassium and 52% P2O5. MKP is classified under heading 2835.24.0000, HTSUS. 

DKP, also known as Dipotassium salt, Dipotassium hydrogen orthophosphate or

Potassium phosphate, dibasic, has a chemical formula of K2HPO4. The CAS registry

number for DKP is 7758-11-4. DKP is typically 17.8% phosphorus, 44.8% potassium

and 40% P2O5 content. DKP is classified under heading 2835.24.0000, HTSUS. 

The products covered by this investigation include the foregoing phosphate salts in

all grades, whether food grade or technical grade. The product covered by this

investigation includes anhydrous MKP and DKP without regard to the physical form,

whether crushed, granule, powder or fines. Also covered are all forms of TKPP,

whether crushed, granule, powder, fines or solution. For purposes of the

investigation, the narrative description is dispositive, not the tariff heading,

American Chemical Society, CAS registry number or CAS name, or the specific

percentage chemical composition identified above.10

 9 Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value and Termination of Critical Circumstances Inquiry, 75 FR 30377, June 1, 2010.

 10 Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing

Duty Determination and Termination of Critical Circumstances Inquiry, 75 FR 30375, June 1, 2010 and Certain

Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value and Termination of Critical Circumstances Inquiry, 75 FR 30377, June 1, 2010.

I-6
Tariff Treatment

 The three potassium phosphate salts subject to investigation are MKP, DKP, and TKPP. MKP

and DKP are classifiable in the HTS under subheading 2835.24.00, which also includes other potassium

phosphates. According to industry sources, however, MKP and DKP are the leading imports entering

under that HTS subheading. Moreover, based on industry observations, all or nearly all imports under

HTS subheading 2835.24.00 from China appear to be either MKP or DKP.11 TKPP is classifiable in the

HTS under subheading 2835.39.10, which also includes other potassium polyphosphates. According to

industry sources, however, TKPP is the more commercially important product entering under that

subheading and is the only known product imported under subheading 2835.39.10 from China. Table I-1

presents the current duty rates for DKP, MKP, and TKPP.

Table I-1 

DKP, MKP, and TKPP: Tariff rates, 2010

HTS provision Article description

General1 Special2

Column

23

Rates (percent ad valorem)

2835

2835.24.00

2835.39

2835.39.10

Phosphinates (hypophosphites), phosphonates (phosphites)

and phosphates; polyphosphates, whether or not chemically

defined:

Phosphates:

Of potassium..............................................

Polyphosphates:

Other:

Of potassium.....................................

3.1

3.1

(

4

)

(

4

)

25

25

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

 2

 Special rates not applicable when General rate is free.

 3

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

 4

 General note 3(c)(i) defines the special duty program symbols enumerated for this provision; none of these programs apply to

imports from China. 

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

THE PRODUCT

Overview

The products that are the subject of this proceeding are potassium salts of phosphoric acid,

H3PO4; as such, these chemical products are labeled potassium phosphates. These include

monopotassium phosphate with the chemical formula KH2PO4; dipotassium phosphate with the chemical

formula K2HPO4; and tetrapotassium pyrophosphate with the chemical formula K4P2O7. MKP exists as

colorless crystals, DKP as hygroscopic white crystals or powder, and TKPP as colorless crystals or as a

white powder. 

All of these products are manufactured by the reaction of phosphoric acid with an alkali base, as

will be discussed in the production process section. According to industry sources, DKP, MKP, and

TKPP are not interchanged one for another even though their uses may partially overlap. Additionally,

 11 Petition, pp. 17-18.

I-7
different grades of the same phosphate salt are not generally interchanged with each other particularly if a

higher grade is to be replaced by a lower grade.12

The key raw material, purified phosphoric acid, consists of two types of high-purity grades:

 • Thermal grade is a high purity product made from elemental phosphorus which is burnt

to form phosphorus pentoxide and is then cooled and absorbed in water. According to an

ICL witness, thermal grade phosphoric acid is used primarily for food applications but

some is used for high-purity electronic applications.13 

• Solvent purified wet phosphoric acid is a purified form of agricultural phosphoric acid

which is, in turn, made from phosphate rock to which sulfuric acid or hydrochloric acid is

added. After the agricultural-grade phosphoric acid is produced, it is further purified by

solvent extraction.14 The purity of this purified phosphoric acid is generally more than

sufficient to allow it to be used for both technical and food applications.

 

According to an ICL witness, as of 2009, thermal acid accounted for not more than 10 percent of

domestic consumption of the starting material for the production of industrial phosphates; the remainder

being primarily purified wet phosphoric acid.15 According to the witness, thermal acid is used primarily

for food applications in the United States, although some is also used for high-purity electronic

applications.16 In China, according to industry sources, thermal grade phosphoric acid remains the

primary form of phosphoric acid used to make the potassium phosphate salts covered in this proceeding.17

According to a representative from ICL, purified phosphoric acid is less expensive to produce but has a

higher level of impurities than thermal acid.18 Additionally, although higher grades, e.g. food grade, can

be substituted for lower grades, e.g. technical grade, when it is economically feasible, the reverse is

usually not considered to be an appropriate practice.

Description and Applications 

The phosphate salts at issue in this proceeding are sold primarily as either a technical or a food

grade.19 Food-grade phosphate salts are subject to more careful analysis and require a more narrow range

of specifications including pH and maximum allowable amounts of arsenic,20 fluoride, lead and insoluble

 12 Hearing transcript, p. 65 (Sexton).

 13 Conference transcript, pp. 118-121 (Schewe).

 14 ***. ***. 

 15 Conference transcript, p. 119 (Schewe).

 16 Conference transcript, pp. 118-121 (Schewe).

 17 Conference transcript, p. 98 (Sexton).

 18 Hearing transcript, p. 26 (Schewe). 

 19 Additionally, small amounts of these phosphate salts are sold as ultrapure USP and electronic grades.

 20 To remove arsenic, sulfide is added to the phosphoric acid raw material to precipitate the arsenic which is then

filtered out. Conference transcript, p. 63 (Fyock).

I-8
materials as specified in the Food Chemicals Codex (FCC).21 According to Valudor Products, producers

of the food-grade phosphate salts are subject to numerous additional requirements such as the requirement

that the phosphoric acid raw material be also food grade; cannot be contaminated with the technical

grade; and use only stainless steel vessels, tubing and other manufacturing equipment. In addition,

according to Valudor, producers must meet additional food-grade sanitary, testing, handling and

maintenance requirements.22 23 The petitioners agree with the assessment that there are stricter standards

with regard to food grade but note that in instances some standards may be preferred but not necessary.24

In the United States, producers generally manufacture technical- and food-grade phosphate salts

in the same facility, although they subject food-grade phosphate salts to more rigorous testing, handling,

and maintenance requirements.25 26 Although customers generally specify food grade or technical grade,

the lines between the two grades can blur; for example, according to a witness, technical-grade MKP has

been purchased for use in fermentation to make insulin.27

The grades are further classified by particle size (typically categorized as fines, powder, or

granules in order of increasing particle size). These are determined by the average size of the individual

particles when they are sifted though a sieve of a given mesh size.

The phosphate salts purchased by customers can be procured either as dry material (usually the

anhydrous salt) or they may be purchased as a solution. Whether the customer requiring the phosphate

salt in solution decides to purchase the solution from the manufacturer or decides to dissolve the salt in

the customer’s own facilities largely depends on the type of phosphate salt being considered. Because

MKP and DKP can be produced directly by customers by the reaction of potassium hydroxide and

phosphoric acid, they typically are not purchased in solution form (and the solution form for these

 21 The Food Chemicals Codex, consisting of a compilation of food purity specifications and testing methods, is

considered to be the authoritative standard for food grade standards and testing and is recognized by the FDA. 

Monographs listing quality specifications for MKP, DKP and TKPP are listed in the Seventh edition of the Food

Chemical Codes published by the United States Pharmacopeial Convention. There is a formal protocol for revisions. 

Response to staff questions by ***, June 8, 2010.

 22 For example, Valudor states that there are de facto requirements that all production equipment and tubing must

be stainless steel; that sanitary requirements dictate the materials that can be used in factory floors, windows and

other surfaces; that food grade ingredients must be made on dedicated production equipment and cannot be made on

the same equipment used in technical grade ingredients and that all food ingredients must be stored in food grade

warehouses and transported by food grade trucks. Valudor’s posthearing brief, response to questions from Chairman

Aranoff, pp. 3-4.

 23 According to ***, the Chinese Ministry of Health implements China’s comprehensive Food Safety Law (2009). 

Food additives are required to be listed in a catalog of approved substances. The additive names and approved

quantities are to be listed in the outer packaging labels of the food products. Additionally, food additives must meet

national food safety standards and must pass inspection. China may employ the specifications and allowances

published in the Codex Alimentarius which is a code of food standards for all nations as China is actively involved

in that organization. Food additives from the United States which meet FCC specifications are typically accepted in

China as are generally Chinese food ingredients entering the United States which meet FCC specifications and are

prepared in accordance with Good Manufacturing Practices (“GMP”). Response to staff questions by ***, June 8,

2010. 

 ***. Valudor’s posthearing brief, exh. 4.

 24 Hearing transcript, pp. 62-63 (Stachiw).

 25 Conference transcript, pp. 64-66 (Fyock, Allen); p. 107 (Sexton, Fyock); and p. 108 (Sexton).

 26 Manufacturing specifications are listed in Current Good Manufacturing Practice in CFR 21, Part 110. Food

ingredients, including the subject chemicals, need to be manufactured under GMP, packaged in food grade

packaging, and stored and transported as food grade. Conditions in the production and warehouse facilities and

shipping vehicles must be clean and protected from pests. Response to staff questions by ***, June 8, 2010. 

 27 Conference transcript, pp. 66-67 (Stachiw); staff telephone interview with ***, October 28, 2009.

I-9
products is therefore not included within the scope of these investigations). On the other hand, to make

TKPP in solution form, additional processing is required (such as calcining) that cannot be readily

performed by customers in their facilities and, consequently, solutions of these products are typically

purchased from the phosphate salt producers. Consequently, in contrast to MKP and DKP, the petitioners

have opted to include solutions of TKPP within the scope of these investigations.28

In some cases, the solution is more expensive to make than the dry anhydrous salt and in other

cases, the dry anhydrous salt is more expensive to make than the solution, depending on whether the

solution to be sold is made from the anhydrous material or vice-versa. Because anhydrous MKP and

DKP are made from the solution after the phosphate salt has been dried, milled and packaged, the

anhydrous product is typically more expensive than the solution. On the other hand, because TKPP

solution is made from the dry material which is then put in solution and filtered, the solution form is

typically more expensive to make than the anhydrous salt.29

In terms of applications, DKP is used in dairy applications, in baked goods, and in meat

processing. The product is used in non-dairy creamers as an emulsifier to prevent coagulation as well as

an emulsifier in many dairy applications. 30 DKP is sold in solution form in liquid creamers and is used in

coffee creamers to counteract acidity.31 Some DKP is also used in anhydrous form in dry creamers, but in

the United States there is more demand for creamers in liquid form.32 MKP is used as a fertilizer where it

serves as a source of phosphorus and potassium and is also used as a stabilizer and fungicide.33 Because

MKP is an excellent buffering agent and a nutrient, it has broad applications in the food and beverage

market as well as in pharmaceuticals.34 TKPP is used in liquid cleaning products and in potable and

industrial water treatment where it acts to prevent corrosion. The product is also used in metal cleaners

and metal surface treatment and in the manufacture of latex paints where the TKPP acts to allow the paint

formulation to remain as a stable suspension.35

 28 Petition, pp. 10-11.

 29 Conference transcript, p. 95 (Sexton).

 30 Hearing transcript, pp. 17-18 (Stachiw); petition exhibit GEN-4.

 31 Hearing transcript, p. 20 (Stachiw); petition exhibit GEN-4.

 32 Petition, pp. 14-16. Conference transcript, pp. 16-22 (Stachiw) and 60-61 (Sexton); hearing transcript, pp. 17-

18 (Stachiw).

 33 According to Valudor, domestic MKP is food grade whereas Chinese MKP, at least in the U.S. market, is not. 

According to Valudor, “(N)o Chinese producers are in fact capable of producing food grade MKP to these strict

{U.S.} standards.” Hearing transcript, pp. 10-13 (Ritcey-Donohue). 

 34 Hearing transcript, pp. 22-23 (Stachiw); petition exhibit GEN-4.

 35 Petition, volume 2, exhibit GEN-4.

I-10
Production Processes

The initial steps in the production of the potassium phosphate salts is the reaction of phosphoric

acid with a base, which is usually potassium hydroxide. To produce MKP and DKP, potassium

hydroxide is reacted with phosphoric acid at relatively low temperatures, in a mole ratio of 1:1 and 2:1,

respectively. To produce TKPP, DKP solution is synthesized and then calcined at a temperature between

400 and 500 degrees Celsius.36 37 TKPP forms when molecules of DKP react and chemically condense. 

The water is then removed using either using drum dryers or in some cases, the product is crystallized.

After cooling, the TKPP particles are passed through a series of sieves so that only particles within the 

specified size range are packaged to be shipped to customers. TKPP particles that are outside the

acceptable range, particularly, if they are too large, may be resized, using a granulator, and the resulting

material may be fed back into the product stream. The TKPP product then is sized and packaged for

shipping (if sold as a solid) or, if the product if shipped as a liquid, the TKPP is redissolved. Similar

steps are taken during the production of merchant grade MKP and DKP in solid form.

According to an industry source, the customers of the domestic phosphate salts, as well as the

Chinese phosphate salts,38 receive a certification of analysis (C of A) after the finished product is tested in

a laboratory assessing the degree of impurities, the particle size, and the density.39 Once that certification

of analysis is received and accepted, the phosphate salts provided by the various suppliers are

interchangeable and, according to domestic industry sources, the product can be considered to be a

commodity. The certification process can be in a form of a guarantee based on statistical testing of

selected samples or a lab result may be based on actual testing of the batch that is being shipped to the

customer.40 In addition to meeting general requirements, a supplier can produce to customer

specifications if required.41

 36 ***. Email from ***, to Commission staff, October 27, 2009. 

 37 As noted in the previous section, to produce MKP or DKP in solution, customers, especially if they are

chemical manufacturers, can react purchased potassium hydroxide with purchased phosphoric acid in house. This

method cannot, however, be used to produce TKPP in solution; to produce this product, the potassium

orthophosphate starting materials must be calcined. Thus customers requiring TKPP in solution typically will rely

on the phosphate salt manufacturer to manufacture anhydrous TKPP which is then dissolved by the manufacturer in

water. According to industry sources, dissolving TKPP in water is a difficult and time consuming step; consequently

most customers prefer to purchase TKPP as a solution rather than dissolving the TKPP in the customers’ facilities.

Conference transcript, p. 62 (Sexton). 

 38 Conference transcript, p. 23 (Schewe).

 39 A C of A is a tabulation of specific assays performed for a customer at a given date of a particular sample. It

may include special specifications requested by a customer. In contrast, a product data sheet usually provides assay

ranges that the manufacturer is required to provide a customer. Assays that can be provided either in a C of A or a

product data sheet include product assay, pH, amount of insoluble substances, loss on drying, and sizing. Other tests

can include data on element content such as phosphorus and granularity. One parameter that is evaluated carefully

by producers of food additives because of its toxicity is arsenic content. Staff telephone interview with ***, June 17,

2010.

 40 Conference transcript, pp. 106-107 (Stachiw).

 41 Hearing transcript, p. 44 (Sexton).

I-11
DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

The Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic product(s) that are “like” the

subject imported product is based on a number of factors including: (1) physical characteristics and uses;

(2) common manufacturing facilities and production employees; (3) interchangeability; (4) customer and

producer perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and (6) price. Information regarding these factors is

discussed below.

The Commission defined DKP, MKP, and TKPP as separate and distinct domestic like products

in the preliminary phase of these investigations, and did not indicate an intent to revisit the issue.42 In the

final phase of these investigations, the petitioners and respondents were requested to comment on the

draft questionnaires. The petitioners made comments, but did not suggest collecting additional

information or data regarding the domestic like product. Respondents did not provide comments on the

draft questionnaires.43

The petitioners, in both their prehearing and posthearing briefs, agreed with the Commission’s

preliminary determination finding of three separate like products.44 Respondent Valudor’s prehearing

brief stated that the Commission had determined that MKP was a separate like product.45 At the hearing,

the respondent explained that they entered the investigations late, but would likely have argued at the

onset that MKP should be considered two separate like products (food grade and technical grade).46 

 42 Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts from China, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-473 and 731-TA-1173

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4110, November 2009, p. 11.

 43 For the Commission’s analysis of the domestic like product, see Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate

Salts from China, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-473 and 731-TA-1173 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4110, November

2009, pp. 11, I-10-I-11 and Confidential Staff Report, Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts from China,

Inv. Nos. 701-TA-473 and 731-TA-1173 (Preliminary), Memorandum INV-GG-105, November 2, 2009, pp. I-15-I21.

 44 Petitioners’ prehearing brief, p. 1 and petitioners’ posthearing brief, part II, p. 17.

 45 Respondent’s prehearing brief, p. 1.

 46 Hearing transcript, p. 171 (Ritcey-Donohue).

I-12
 1

 Hearing transcript, p. 19 (Stachiw).

 2

 Petition, p. 9.

 3

 The solution form of DKP and MKP have been excluded from the scope of these investigations.

 4

 Conference transcript, p. 20 (Stachiw) and p. 194 (Wei).

 5

 Staff notes from ***. See also tables V-4 and V-5.

 6

 Conference transcript, p. 60 (Schewe).

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

The phosphate salts at issue in this proceeding have many varied uses and characteristics which

depend on the chemical properties of each salt. These properties are covered in Part I: Introduction, and

include differing abilities of sequestration, buffering, emulsification, dispersion, fermentation, and

solubility. A witness for ICL summarized these differences as follows:

“MKP’s most important functions are as a buffer and in fermentation. DKP’s most

important functions would be as a buffer and in emulsification. Also its solubility is very

high. TKPP’s most important functions are solubility, dispersion and sequestration.”1

The differing properties of the three subject phosphate salts are useful in a number of downstream

industries including, but not limited to, cleaning, water treatment, dairy, meat processing, baking, and

fertilizers.

Each phosphate salt may be sold in technical or food grade. Food-grade phosphate salts must

meet stricter guidelines in terms of the allowable amounts of certain impurities (arsenic, fluoride, lead,

and heavy metals) and pH level.2 These salts may be sold in solid (anhydrous) form or in solution.3

Additionally, phosphate salts can be blended with other subject and nonsubject chemicals to produce

chemical blends that may have certain chemical properties preferred by certain customers.4 

The domestic industry reportedly has been shifting toward the food-grade segment of the MKP

market.5 A witness for ICL stated that, “much of the product (MKP) that’s actually consumed in the U.S.

market is used for fertilizers, and we are not a large participant in that market space.”6 U.S. producers

sold *** percent of their MKP as food grade in 2009. Domestically produced DKP is also primarily sold

as food grade; U.S. producers sold *** percent of their DKP as food grade in 2009. TKPP produced in

the United States is primarily sold as technical grade; U.S. producers sold *** percent of TKPP as

technical grade in 2009.

*** U.S. imports of DKP from China were sold as food grade in 2009. U.S. importers sold ***

percent of their MKP from China as technical grade in 2009. Moreover, *** importer of MKP, ***,

accounted for *** percent of imports of food-grade MKP; *** customer that requested food-grade MKP

was using it in a *** application due to its ***. U.S. importers sold *** percent of their TKPP from

China as technical grade in 2009.

Food-grade DKP accounted for *** percent of the entire market in 2009. Technical-grade MKP

accounted for *** percent of the entire market in 2009. Technical-grade TKPP accounted for *** percent

of the entire market in 2009.
 7

 Conference transcript, p. 24 (Schewe) and staff telephone interview with ***, October 28, 2009.

 8

 A witness for U.S. importer *** reported that *** sells technical-grade MKP mostly to end users, and had never

sold technical-grade MKP to distributors because distributors want both food and technical grades. Hearing

transcript, pp. 159-1620 (Melamed).

 9

 Hearing transcript, p. 28 (Schewe). 

 10 ***.

 11 Because of potassium phosphate salts’ tendency to absorb moisture, clump, and become brick-like, distributors

do not tend to hold inventories of potassium phosphate salts for long periods of time. Hearing transcript, p. 196

(Ritcey-Donohue). *** company policy is that food-grade product has a shelf life of ***, although some customers

will not accept product that is over ***. ***.

 12 *** imports MKP from sources other than China.

II-2

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

DKP, MKP, and TKPP may either be sold directly to large end-use customers, or through

regional or national distributors. Univar and Brenntag are national distributors, although Brenntag’s

geographically dispersed operations function as regional distributors.7 8

 Distributors typically buy larger

orders – at least full truckloads – so that they can sell less-than-truckload amounts to their customers.9

Also, sales made to some distributors ***.10 Some distributors may be importers of record, whereas

others may distribute salts that were produced in the United States or imported by another firm.11 Also,

some end users import potassium phosphate salts, in particular MKP, directly for their own use from

China as well as nonsubject countries (***).12 The share of shipments from producers and importers for

each of the certain phosphate salts that was reported to be sold to distributors and end users is presented in

table II-1.
II-3

Table II-1

Certain potassium phosphate salts: U.S. producers’ and importers’ shares of reported U.S.

shipments, by sources and channels of distribution, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and 

July-December 2009

Item

2007 2008 2009

Jan.-June

2009

Jul.-Dec.

2009

Share of reported shipments (percent)

DKP

Domestic producer’s U.S. shipments of DKP:

 To distributors *** *** *** *** ***

 To end users *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of DKP from China:

 To distributors *** *** *** *** ***

 To end users *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of DKP from nonsubject countries:

 To distributors *** *** *** *** ***

 To end users *** *** *** *** ***

MKP

Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of MKP:

 To distributors *** *** *** *** ***

 To end users *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of MKP from China:

 To distributors *** *** *** *** ***

 To end users *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of MKP from nonsubject countries:

 To distributors *** *** *** *** ***

 To end users *** *** *** *** ***

TKPP

Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of TKPP:

 To distributors 41.6 44.4 37.4 40.9 34.5

 To end users 58.4 55.6 62.6 59.1 65.5

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of TKPP from China:

 To distributors *** *** *** *** ***

 To end users *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of TKPP from nonsubject countries:

 To distributors *** *** *** *** ***

 To end users *** *** *** *** ***

 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
II-4

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

Supply

Four companies that produce and/or sell domestically produced phosphate salts responded to the

Commission’s questionnaire. ICL produces all three phosphate salts; Innophos’ TKPP is ***; Prayon

produces TKPP; and PCS produces MKP and TKPP (***).

Domestic Production

Based on available information, U.S. producers have the ability to respond to changes in demand

with large changes in the quantity of shipments of each of the U.S.-produced phosphate salts to the U.S.

market. The main factors contributing to the high degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability

of unused capacity, inventories, and the existence of alternative markets and production alternatives.

Industry capacity

DKP–Capacity utilization for U.S. producer ICL decreased from *** percent in 2007 to ***

percent in 2009. In January-June 2009, capacity utilization was *** percent, but increased to *** percent

in July-December 2009 despite an increase in capacity of *** percent between the first and last half of

2009.

MKP–Capacity utilization for U.S. producers increased from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent

in 2008, and then fell to *** percent in 2009. In January-June 2009, capacity utilization declined from

*** percent to *** percent in July-December 2009. Capacity increased by *** percent between the first

and last half of 2009.

TKPP–Capacity utilization for U.S. producers decreased irregularly from 56.9 percent in 2007 to

39.0 percent in 2009. In January-June 2009, capacity utilization was 37.1 percent, then increased to

41.0 percent in July-December 2009. Capacity decreased by 8.0 percent between the first and last half of

2009.

Alternative markets

DKP–Exports of DKP increased from *** percent of *** total shipments in 2007 to *** percent

in 2009; exports accounted for *** percent of the U.S. producer’s total shipments in January-June 2009

and *** percent in July-December 2009. 

MKP–Exports of MKP increased from *** percent of U.S. producers’ total shipments in 2007 to

*** percent in 2009. Exports as a share of U.S. producers’ total shipments fell from *** percent in

January-June 2009 to *** percent in July-December 2009. 

TKPP–Exports of TKPP decreased irregularly from 6.4 percent of U.S. producers’ total

shipments in 2007 to 5.5 percent in 2009; exports accounted for 5.7 percent in January-June 2009 and

5.4 percent in July-December 2009. 

Inventory levels

DKP–ICL’s DKP inventories as a ratio to its total DKP shipments decreased between 2007 and

2009 from *** percent of its shipments in 2007 to *** percent in 2009. Inventories were equivalent to

*** percent of total annualized shipments in January-June 2009 compared with *** percent in JulyDecember 2009. 

MKP–U.S. producers’ MKP inventories as a ratio to their total MKP shipments increased

irregularly from *** percent of their shipments in 2007 to *** percent in 2009. Inventories were
 13 Official statistics of Commerce indicate that during the period for which data were collected, a larger volume of

U.S. imports from France and Germany entered the United States under HTS subheading 2825.39.10. However,

these reportedly consist primarily of chemicals other than TKPP. ***.

 14 Innophos reported in its 2009 Annual Report that: 

“Over the past several years, we estimate that imports, including domestically located production

facilities owned by foreign based organizations, have accounted for approximately 15-20% of the

North American specialty phosphate market. This market share has been fairly stable for the last

two years; however, China imports of STPP and Phosphoric acid increased in 2009, off-setting

reductions in phosphoric acid imports from Belgium and Israel.”

II-5

equivalent to *** percent of total annualized shipments in January-June 2009 compared to *** percent in

July-December 2009. 

TKPP–U.S. producers’ TKPP inventories as a ratio to their total TKPP shipments increased

between 2007 and 2009 from *** percent of their shipments in 2007 to *** percent in 2009. Inventories

were equivalent to *** percent of total annualized shipments in January-June 2009 and *** percent in

July-December 2009. 

Production alternatives

ICL produces *** using the same equipment and machinery or with the same production workers

at its St. Louis, MO plant ***. Prayon produces *** and PCS produces *** using the same equipment

and machinery. 

Foreign Supply

Although China was not the largest foreign source of supply for DKP or MKP during the 2007-09

period, it was the single-largest source of U.S. imports of TKPP. 13 14 The share of quantity of imports

from China of DKP and MKP increased steadily from *** and *** percent respectively in 2007 to ***

and *** percent in 2009. The share of quantity imports of TKPP from China decreased from *** percent

in 2007 to *** percent in 2009, respectively. In the first half of 2009, China accounted for *** percent,

by quantity, of DKP, *** percent of the imports of MKP, and *** percent of imports of TKPP. In the

second half of 2009, these shares were *** percent for DKP, and *** percent for MKP, but increased to

*** percent for TKPP. 

Subject Imports from China

Based on available information, Chinese producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of certain potassium phosphate salts to the

U.S. market. The main contributing factors to the moderate degree of supply responsiveness are Chinese

producers’ demonstrated ability to add production capacity and the existence of substantial alternate

markets. 

Industry capacity

DKP–According to six foreign producer questionnaire responses received by the Commission,

reported capacity of DKP in China increased from *** pounds to *** pounds between 2007 and 2009. 

Production of DKP increased from *** in 2007 to *** in 2008, but fell in 2009 to *** pounds. DKP

capacity utilization in China therefore decreased from a high of *** percent in 2008 to *** percent in
II-6

2009; Chinese capacity utilization was at *** percent in the first half of 2009 and *** percent in the

second half of 2009. Chinese capacity utilization is projected to be *** percent in 2010.

MKP–According to ten foreign producer questionnaire responses received by the Commission,

reported capacity of MKP in China increased from 69.1 million pounds in 2007 to 71.1 million pounds in

2009, while production of MKP increased from 47.0 million pounds in 2007 to 49.7 million pounds in

2009, after reaching 53.9 million pounds in 2008. MKP production in the first half of 2009 was 23.7

million pounds, compared to 25.9 million pounds in the second half of 2009. MKP capacity utilization in

China therefore increased irregularly from 67.9 percent in 2007 to 69.8 percent in 2009; Chinese capacity

utilization is projected to be 64.9 percent in 2010. 

TKPP–According to six foreign producer questionnaire responses received by the Commission,

reported capacity of TKPP in China ***. Production of TKPP increased from *** pounds in 2007 to ***

pounds in 2009. TKPP production in the first half of 2009 was *** pounds, compared to *** pounds in

the second half of 2009. Capacity utilization was *** percent in 2007, then increased to *** percent in

2008 and to *** percent in 2009. Capacity utilization was *** percent in the first half of 2009, compared

to *** percent in the second half of 2009. Capacity utilization is projected to retreat to *** percent in

2010.

Alternative markets

DKP–The share of China’s shipments of DKP exported to the United States, as a share of its total

shipments, increased from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008, then decreased to *** percent in

2009. In the first half of 2009, this share was *** percent; by the second half of 2009, however, U.S.

exports accounted for *** percent of total shipments. Principal alternative export markets identified by

Chinese producers and exporters include Australia, Europe, Korea, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, and

South Africa. Shipments to the Chinese home market comprised between *** and *** percent of total

shipments for Chinese producers in 2007 to 2009.

MKP–The share of China’s shipments of MKP exported to the United States, as a share of its

total shipments, increased from 9.3 percent in 2007 to 18.1 percent in 2008, then decreased to 10.0

percent in 2009. In the first half of 2009, this share was 9.7 percent but increased to 10.4 percent in the

second half of 2009. Principal alternative export markets identified by Chinese producers and exporters

include Asia, Europe, India, Japan, Korea, the Middle East, Thailand, and Vietnam. Shipments to the

Chinese home market comprised of 34.0 percent of total shipments for Chinese producers in 2007 and

32.8 percent in 2009.

TKPP–The share of China’s shipments of TKPP exported to the United States, as a share of its

total shipments, decreased from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008 and to *** percent in 2009. 

In the first half of 2009, this share was *** percent, compared to *** percent in the second half of 2009. 

Principal alternative export markets identified by Chinese producers and exporters of TKPP include

Australia, Korea, and Thailand. Shipments to the Chinese home market comprised *** percent of total

shipments for Chinese producers in 2007, and increased to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009. 

Inventory levels

DKP–Inventories, as a share of total shipments, of the responding producers in China increased

from *** percent in 2007, to *** percent in 2008, to *** percent in 2009. The ratio was *** percent in

the first half of 2009, and increased to *** percent in the second half of 2009. 

MKP–Inventories, as a share of total shipments, of the responding producers in China decreased

from *** percent in 2007, to *** percent in 2008, to *** percent in 2009. The ratio was *** percent in

the first half of 2009, and increased to *** percent in the second half of 2009. 
 15 Based on quarterly pricing data received in response to the Commission’s importer questionnaires.

 16 Based on quarterly pricing data received in response to the Commission’s importer questionnaires.

 17 Ibid.

 18 Hearing transcript, p. 36 (Allen). See also 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid (HEDP) from China

and India, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1146-1147 (Final), USITC Publication 4072, April 2009, p. 14 (noting a curtailment of

phosphorous production in China, “surging” global phosphorous demand for agricultural applications, and the

imposition of export taxes by the Chinese government on exports of phosphorous in 2008).

II-7

TKPP–Inventories, as a share of total shipments, of the responding producers in China decreased

from *** percent in 2007, to *** percent in 2008, to *** percent in 2009. The ratio was *** percent in

the first half of 2009, and decreased to *** percent in the second half of 2009. 

Production alternatives

Only two Chinese producers provided responses regarding production alternatives. Chinese

producer *** produces *** using the same equipment: ***. Chinese producer *** stated that it does not

produce any other phosphate salts using the same equipment. 

Nonsubject Imports

Since the start of 2007, Israel and Belgium have been the largest nonsubject sources for DKP;

Israel and Mexico for MKP; and Israel for TKPP. According to Commission questionnaire data,

nonsubject imports accounted for *** percent of all imports of DKP in 2007, but this decreased to ***

percent in 2008, and *** percent of imported DKP in 2009. In the first half of 2009, nonsubject imports

accounted for *** percent of all nonsubject imports of DKP, compared to *** percent in the second half

of 2009. Until the fourth quarter of 2008, imports from Belgium, Germany, Israel, and Taiwan were all

higher than imports of Chinese DKP.15

With respect to MKP, nonsubject imports accounted for *** percent of all imports in 2007, but

decreased to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent of all imported MKP in 2009. In the first half of 2009,

nonsubject imports accounted for *** percent of all imports of MKP, compared to *** percent in the

second half of 2009. The largest sources for MKP according to Commission questionnaire data were

Israel and Mexico.16 Importer *** reported that for part of 2008, Israeli producer Haifa was sold out of

MKP. 

Regarding TKPP, nonsubject imports displayed the opposite trend, accounting for approximately

*** percent of all imports in 2007, and increasing to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent of all imported

TKPP in 2009. In the first half of 2009, nonsubject imports accounted for *** percent of all imports of

TKPP, but decreased to *** percent in the second half of 2009. According to Commission questionnaire

data, the largest nonsubject source for TKPP was Israel.17

General Supply Conditions

Fertilizers and phosphate salts compete in their respective production processes. Strong

agricultural demand in fertilizers increases competition for phosphate feedstock. This can create a tight

supply of finished phosphate salts and lead to increased raw material prices, a situation which occurred in

2008.18 

Firms were asked to discuss the change in demand for fertilizers since January 1, 2007. All four

responding U.S. producers and 11 of the 22 responding importers reported fluctuating demand for

fertilizers. *** reported that “due to relatively high crop prices, demand for fertilizer increased in 2008
 19 *** producer’s questionnaire responses, section IV-15.

 20 For example, *** reported that “current pricing reflects the drop in KOH 45% solution pricing from $1800 per

ton on spot market to down to below $600 per ton today. Yellow phosphorous pricing has dropped from $3385/MT

to less than $1850/MT today.”

 21 See Part V: Pricing and Related Information for data related to domestic producers’ raw material prices.

 22 *** producer’s questionnaire responses, section IV-24; hearing transcript, pp. 30-31 (Schewe).

 23 Hearing transcript, p. 36 (Allen).

 24 Respondents contend that ***. Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 21.

 25 One of these importers reported that the shortage began in October 2007 but continued in 2008. 

 26 Two importers reported supply limitations only since March 2009, stating that the loss in competitive pricing

resulted in lost accounts. 

 27 Hearing transcript, pp. 92-93 (Sexton).

II-8

and then as pricing came down in the second half of 2008 into 2009, demand for fertilizer in 2009 was

negatively impacted.”19 Three importers reported an increased demand in fertilizers, three importers

reported that demand had decreased, and four importers reported that demand was unchanged. 

Firms were also asked to discuss the trends in raw material prices and expected future prices of

raw materials. Most firms reported fluctuating raw material prices, with a major increase in 2008 and a

steady decline in 2009.20 21 The fluctuating prices of raw materials were attributed to fertilizer demand,

and an increased demand in China and other developing countries. *** reported that from 2007 to 2009,

the cost of phosphoric acid increased by *** percent, and potassium hydroxide increased by *** percent. 

Although future trends in input price changes were less clear, a number of firms reported that they expect

input prices to increase when the price and demand of fertilizer increases.

Firms were asked if they had refused, declined, or been unable to supply DKP, MKP, or TKPP

since January 1, 2007. ***. ICL reported that it had an *** allocation on *** and limited its customers

in 2007 to 2008 levels for all phosphate products, including phosphoric acid.22 During that time, Prayon

supplied purchasers that could not get enough material from ICL.23 ***. Innophos also reported that ***. 

 *** reported that their customers were affected in terms of their ability to obtain both MKP and TKPP in

the fourth quarter of 2008 due to a KOH raw material shortage.24 

Eight of 33 responding importers reported limitations on the supply of potassium phosphate salts;

five specifically reported shortages in 2008.25 26 Some importers reported that purchasers of U.S. product

turned to them because of the reduced availability of U.S.-produced phosphate salts. Importers reported

U.S. product was less available both because of limitations on the inputs and because of an increased

fertilizer demand, which caused the inputs to be shifted away from the production of phosphate salts. 

Importers also reported restrictions on sourcing from China (because of seasonal export taxes), Taiwan,

and Israel (because Haifa was sold out of MKP). One importer, ***, reported experiencing supply

interruptions and delivery delays of up to four months in 2008 due to the earthquake in China. Petitioners

contend that the supply of phosphoric acid from China is seasonal and always declines during the winter

months due to the reduction in the availability of hydroelectric power.27 

Nineteen of the 47 responding purchasers reported that their supplier refused, declined, or was

unable to supply DKP, MKP, or TKPP since January 1, 2007. Nine of these purchasers were placed on

allocation in 2008. Three purchasers reported that suppliers, including *** refused to accept new

customers during 2008. Two purchasers reported that its suppliers were on a controlled order entry

during 2008, and that *** implemented a potassium surcharge due to North American potassium
 28 A firm in the fertilizer retail business *** stated that, “***” ***.

II-9

shortages. One purchaser reported that its Chinese source became too expensive due to the preliminary

duties in place, and its Israeli source was unable to fill full orders so it has raised its pricing.28 

Purchasers were asked if they had switched suppliers due to certain potassium phosphate salts

being unavailable since January 1, 2007. Six of 28 responding purchasers reported changing their

suppliers for DKP; six of 26 responding purchasers switched suppliers for MKP; and seven of 33

responding purchasers changed suppliers for TKPP. Of those that changed suppliers for either DKP,

MKP, or TKPP, six purchasers reported finding new suppliers because their previous supplier

experienced a shortage of supply, and three purchasers reported switching to Israeli product.

When asked if there had been any changes in the product range or marketing of potassium

phosphate salts, *** responding U.S. producers and 31 of 32 responding importers reported “no.” The

importer of TKPP responding “yes,” reported the consolidation of phosphorous manufacturers. 

Demand

U.S. Demand Characteristics

Certain phosphate salts are used in a wide range of applications. DKP is used primarily in baked

goods, dairy, meat processing, and chemical processing. MKP is used generally in fertilizer, food and

beverage, fungicides, cement, and chemical processing. TKPP is used mainly in detergents and cleaning

products, household and industrial products, and water treatment, as well as in fertilizer, buffering agents,

and metal finishing.

Demand Trends

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked how demand has changed within the

United States for each of the certain potassium phosphate salts since 2007. Their responses appear in

table II-2 and are discussed below.
 29 *** importer questionnaire response, section III-19a.

 30 *** importer questionnaire response, section III-19a.

 31 *** purchaser questionnaire response, section III-9a.

II-10

Table II-2

DKP, MKP, and TKPP: Producer, importer, and purchaser perceptions regarding DKP, MKP, and

TKPP demand

DKP MKP TKPP

Producers Increase *** *** 1

No Change *** *** 2

Decrease *** *** 1

Fluctuated *** *** 0

Importers Increase 3 2 1

No Change 6 6 9

Decrease 4 8 6

Fluctuated 5 7 6

Purchasers Increase 2 6 0

No Change 9 4 9

Decrease 3 3 8

Fluctuated 7 10 11

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

DKP– Demand, as measured by apparent U.S. consumption, increased from *** pounds in 2007

to *** pounds in 2008, and decreased to *** pounds in 2009. U.S. consumption was *** pounds in the

first half of 2009, compared to *** pounds in the second half of 2009. 

U.S. producer *** reported that U.S. demand of DKP *** since 2007. Six of 18 responding

importers reported no change in demand for DKP; five importers reported that demand had fluctuated;

four importers reported a decrease in demand; and three importers reported an increase in demand since

2007. Of the importers that reported fluctuating demand, demand for fertilizer and seasonality were the

principal factors given. Importers, reporting a decrease in demand, indicated that regulations and higher

prices were the primary factors that affected demand. One importer who sold primarily technical-grade

DKP, MKP, and TKPP, reported that demand was strong in 2007 and 2008, but demand then dropped

because farmers could not afford to apply the subject phosphate salts to the fields due to increased

prices.29 One importer reported that demand for DKP increased due to its new use in meat processing.30

Nine of the 21 responding purchasers reported no change in U.S. demand for DKP, seven

reported that demand fluctuated, three reported a decrease in demand, and two reported an increase in

demand. Of the purchasers reporting that demand fluctuated stated that price and availability were the

principal factors that affected demand. One purchaser, ***, stated that the decrease in demand was due to

“the sharp increases in price (which) forced the removal (of) as much DKP from formulation of finished

goods as possible.”31
 32 Environmental regulations address eutrophication concerns. 

 33 *** used MKP when “it was lower than $***/lb as an alternative in *** applications. This demand has

decreased as it is too expensive to compete in larger application like ***.” Importer questionnaire responses, section

III-19.

 34 *** and *** purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-9a.

II-11

MKP–Demand, as measured by apparent U.S. consumption, increased from *** pounds in 2007

to *** pounds in 2008, and decreased to *** pounds in 2009. U.S. consumption was *** pounds in the

first half of 2009, compared to *** pounds in the second half of 2009. 

U.S. producer *** reported that U.S. demand of MKP had increased since 2007 due to its

growing use in horticulture-grade fertilizers. U.S. producer *** reported no change in U.S. demand for

MKP. Eight of 23 responding importers reported decreased demand for MKP; seven importers reported

that demand had fluctuated; six importers reported no change in demand; and two importers reported an

increase in demand since 2007. Of the importers that reported decreased demand, environmental

regulations, high prices, lower-cost alternatives, and the current recession were given as primary factors

that affected demand.32 33

Ten of 23 responding purchasers reported that demand for MKP fluctuated, six reported that

demand had increased, four reported no demand change, and three reported that demand had decreased. 

Of the purchasers reporting that demand fluctuated, stated that price and availability were the principal

factors stated that affected demand. Four purchasers stated that the increased demand for fertilizers was

the principal factor for the increased demand for MKP.

TKPP–Demand, as measured by apparent U.S. consumption, decreased from 43.3 million pounds

in 2007 to 37.4 million pounds in 2008, and to 28.8 million pounds in 2009. U.S. consumption was 13.1

million pounds in the first half of 2009, and grew to 15.7 million pounds in the second half of 2009. 

U.S. producers *** reported no change in demand for TKPP since 2007. *** reported an

increase in U.S. demand due to an increase in GDP growth. *** reported that demand for TKPP

decreased due to a growing trend to produce phosphate-free cleaning products. 

Nine of 22 importers reported that demand for TKPP had not changed since 2007. Six importers

reported fluctuating U.S. demand, six reported decreased demand, and one importer reported that demand

had increased. Of those that reported a decrease in demand, the recession, higher prices, and

environmental concerns were the principal factors that affected demand. Importers reporting fluctuating

demand stated that change in fertilizer demand, competitive pricing, and seasonality were the primary

factors that affected demand.

Eleven of 28 responding purchasers reported that demand for TKPP had fluctuated, nine reported

no change, and eight reported that demand decreased. Of the purchasers that reported a fluctuation in

demand, most identified price increases as the primary factor. Of the purchasers that reported a decreased

demand in TKPP, two purchasers reported reformulation away from potassium phosphate material, one of

which stated was due to rising prices.34

End-Use Demand

Purchasers that are end users of phosphate salts were asked to describe how demand for their final

products incorporating DKP, MKP, or TKPP has changed since 2007. For final products incorporating

DKP, seven of 12 responding purchasers reported that demand had not changed; three purchasers reported

that demand had increased; one purchaser reported that demand had fluctuated; and one purchaser

reported that demand had decreased. For final products incorporating MKP, five of 12 purchasers

reported an increase in demand, four purchasers reported that demand remained unchanged, two

purchasers reported fluctuating demand, and one purchaser reported decreasing demand. Six of 17
 35 A witness for ICL reported a substantial increase in demand in the fertilizer market in 2008, but observed that,

with lower crop prices since 2009, farmers have reduced some of the chemicals that they add into their applications,

creating a lower consumption of fertilizer. Hearing transcript, pp. 56-57 (Schewe).

 36 Innophos’s Form 10-K Annual Report for the period ending 12/31/09, submitted in respondents’ prehearing

brief as exh. 4.

II-12

purchasers reported that demand for final goods incorporating TKPP had not changed, six purchasers

reported decreased demand, four purchasers reported that demand had fluctuated, and one purchaser

reported that demand had increased. Commodity prices, fluctuating availability of raw materials, global

economic conditions, and reformulation of final products were the primary factors affecting demand

trends.35

Cost Share

Phosphate salts are used in many different applications with wide ranging cost shares, as shown

in table II-3. Three importers and U.S. producer *** reported cost shares of DKP in their end uses, seven

importers and U.S. producers *** reported cost shares of MKP in their end uses, and five importers and

*** reported cost shares for TKPP. Innophos reported that, “our specialty chemical products are often

critical ingredients in the formulation of our customers’products, and typically represent only a small

percentage of their total production costs. As a result, we believe that the risks associated with our

customers switching suppliers often outweigh the potential gains.”36
II-13

Table II-3

DKP, MKP, and TKPP: Products for which phosphate salts are used and share of the cost of these

end products as reported by U.S. producers and importers

Phosphate

salt End Use

Cost share of

phosphate salt in

end use 

DKP Antifreeze 5%

Baked goods 5%

Meat processing 1-8%

Dairy (coffee creamers, processed cheese, evaporated milk) 1-5%

Buffering agent in compounding formulas 10%

Metal treatment N/A

MKP Cement 34%

Buffering agent in compounding formulas 10%

Refractories 25%

Food & beverage (yeast, food nutrient) 1-10%

Chemical processing 1-15%

Dog food 5%

Fertilizer 18-50%

Metal finishing 50%

Paints and architectural coating 70%

TKPP Detergents, industrial cleaners, surfactants (cleaning products) 3-30%

Food 1%

Water treatment 1-60%

Metal finishing 3-65%

Paints and architectural coatings 1%

Pulp and paper 5%

Household and industrial type products 6-47%

Buffering agent in compounding formulas 5-15%

Fertilizer, boiler descaling, dyeing, preservative N/A

Note.–N/A is reported if none of the responding firms reported cost share.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Business Cycle

Demand for phosphate salts tends to fluctuate from period to period depending on the general

business cycle of the end-use market. One of four responding U.S. producers and 11 of 34 importers

reported that there are specific business cycles for certain potassium phosphate salts. One firm reported

competition around the world for sources of DKP. Six importers reported that MKP used in fertilizers

were subject to seasonal demand. One producer and one importer reported that TKPP used in industrial

water treatment was subject to seasonal demand. One importer reported that between October to

February, China has less hydroelectric power available which leads to higher phosphate pricing during

this period. Furthermore, five of 13 responding importers reported changes in the business cycles and
II-14

conditions of competition for certain potassium phosphate salts since January 1, 2007; and indicated that

domestic shortages of DKP, MKP, and TKPP, raw material shortages, and the global recession all had

affected conditions of competition. 

Five of 22 responding purchasers reported that DKP is subject to business cycles or conditions of

competition; nine of 23 purchasers reported that MKP is subject to business cycles or conditions of

competition; and six of 28 responding purchasers reported that TKPP is subject to business cycles or

conditions of competition. Six purchasers reported that the seasonal supply and demand of fertilizers

affected business cycles and conditions of competition for DKP and MKP. Purchasers also reported the

availability of imported DKP, MKP, and TKPP, the availability of raw materials, agricultural commodity

prices, and the economic recession affected business cycles and conditions of competition for certain

potassium phosphate salts.

Purchasing Patterns

 

 Purchasers were asked how frequently they purchased DKP, MKP, or TKPP. Of the 26

responding purchasers, nine purchased DKP monthly, eight purchased quarterly, four purchased annually,

three purchased DKP on an as-needed basis, one purchased biweekly, and one purchased DKP 2-4 times

annually. Fourteen responding purchasers bought MKP on a monthly basis, nine on a quarterly basis, and

one purchased MKP annually. Fourteen of 33 firms purchased TKPP monthly, six purchased weekly,

five purchased quarterly, four purchased annually, two purchased bimonthly, and two purchased TKPP on

an as-needed basis.

Additionally, purchasers were asked how to characterize their purchasing patterns for certain

potassium phosphate salts during the last three years, as shown in table II-4.

Table II-4

Purchasing patterns of DKP, MKP, and TKPP by source, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Increased No Change Decreased Fluctuated

DKP

United States 3 7 2 5

China 2 5 3 2

Nonsubject Countries 2 4 2 3

MKP

United States 3 5 4 4

China 4 6 3 5

Nonsubject Countries 2 4 4 5

TKPP

United States 5 6 9 11

China 1 7 5 3

Nonsubject Countries 2 4 2 2

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 37 *** purchaser questionnaire response.

II-15

DKP– Seven of 17 responding purchasers reported that their level of domestic product purchases

had remained constant; five reported fluctuating purchases; three reported increased purchases; and two

reported decreased levels. Purchasers noted the Canadian mining strike, prices, and fluctuating customer

demands affecting their purchasing levels of domestic product. 

Five of 12 purchasers reported that their level of purchases from Chinese sources had remained

the same in the last three years, three firms reported decreased Chinese purchases, two firms reported an

increase, and two reported fluctuating purchasing levels. Purchasers identified high tariffs, steady

customer demand, competitive pricing, and the mining strike in Canada as factors that affected their levels

of purchases from China. 

Four of eleven purchasers reported that their purchasing levels from nonsubject countries had

remained the same, three reported fluctuating levels, two firms reported an increase, and two firms

reported a decrease in purchasing levels from other countries in the last three years. 

MKP– Five of 16 responding purchasers reported that their level of domestic product purchases

had remained constant, four firms reported decreased levels, four firms reported fluctuated levels, and

three firms reported increased purchases. Purchasers reported availability and customer demand as

factors that affected their purchasing levels in the United States. One purchaser noted that U.S. product

was not offered by their suppliers, and that they only use suppliers who will ship less-than-pallet orders.37

Six of 18 purchasers reported that their level of purchases from Chinese sources had remained the

same in the last three years, five reported fluctuating levels, four reported increased purchases, and three

reported decreased levels of Chinese purchases in the last three years. Purchasers identified high tariffs,

customer demands, and pricing as factors that affected their levels of purchases from China.

Five of 15 purchasers reported that their purchasing levels from nonsubject countries had

fluctuated, four purchasers reported that their purchase levels had remained the same, four purchasers

reported a decrease, and two purchasers reported an increase in the level of purchases made from other

countries in the last three years.

TKPP– Eleven of 31 responding purchasers reported that their level of domestic purchases had

fluctuated, nine purchasers reported decreased purchases, six purchasers reported a constant level, and

five purchasers reported an increase in domestic purchases in the last three years. Purchasers reported

fluctuating customer demand and industrial activity, raw material shortages, pricing, and customer

reformulation changes as factors that affected their domestic purchasing levels. 

Seven of 16 purchasers reported that their level of purchases from Chinese sources had remained

the same in the last three years, five purchasers reported decreased purchasing levels, three purchasers

reported fluctuating levels, and one purchaser reported increased purchases in the last three years. 

Purchasers reported customer demands, increased lead times, and domestic shortages pricing as factors

that affected their levels of purchases from China. Of those that reported fluctuating purchasing levels,

one purchaser reported that TKPP from China was more readily available in 2008, and another purchaser

reported immediate shipment availability, demand fluctuation, and cost as factors that affected its

purchasing levels from China.

Four of 10 purchasers reported that their purchasing levels from nonsubject countries had

remained constant, two purchasers reported an increased level, two purchasers reported a decrease, and

two purchasers reported fluctuating purchasing levels from nonsubject countries in the last three years. 

Substitute Products

Producers and importers were asked to list substitutes and the applications in which they are used.

***, while seven importers and six purchasers identified nine chemicals as substitutes for DKP, MKP, or

TKPP as reported in table II-5. None of the producers, importers, or purchasers identified DKP as a
II-16

substitute for MKP or TKPP; MKP as a substitute for DKP or TKPP; or TKPP as a substitute for DKP or

MKP.

Table II-5

DKP, MKP, and TKPP: Potential substitute products as reported by producers, importers, and

purchasers

Product

Producers Importers Purchasers

Yes No Yes No Yes No Substitute products reported

DKP *** *** 5 11 4 16

Potassium hydroxide, phosphoric acid, sulfate

of potash, monoammonium phosphate (MAP),

potassium nitrate, potassium carbonate,

potassium metabisulfite, ammonia

bicarbonate, sodium chloride, and

combinations

MKP *** *** 6 15 5 15

Monoammonium phosphate (MAP),

diammonium phosphate (DAP), and white

phosphorous acid, potassium lactate,

potassium chloride, potassium hydroxide, and

potassium metabisulfite

TKPP 2 2 5 16 5 19

TSPP, STPP, sodium acid pyrophosphate;

surfactant (ethylene derived) combinations;

citrates, combination of polymers and sodium

carbonate (in laundry and dish-wash

detergents), sodium hexametaphosphate,

potassium metabisulfite

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Most producers and most importers reported that changes in the price of substitutes had not

affected the price of certain phosphate salts, as shown in table II-6.

Table II-6

DKP, MKP, and TKPP: Effect of price changes of substitutes on phosphate salts, as reported by

producers, importers, and purchasers

DKP MKP TKPP

Producer Substitutes affect price *** *** 0

Substitutes do not affect price *** *** 4

Importer Substitutes affect price 1 2 1

Substitutes do not affect price 13 18 15

Purchaser Substitutes affect price 0 2 0

Substitutes do not affect price 15 16 20

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

One importer reported that end users can use monoammonium phosphate (MAP) as a substitute

for MKP at some sacrifice of function and with a two-month changeover period. Another importer
 38 Conference transcript, p. 72 (Cannon), 163 (Metzger), and p. 203 (Wei).

 39 ***.

 40 Respondent’s Prehearing brief, p. 3.

 41 Conference transcript, p. 159 (Metzger) and ***.

 42 One major purchaser of food-grade MKP, ***, stated that, “We carried out two audits on a Chinese Supplier

(***). The first in January, 2007 and the second in March, 2009. On both occasions we found their quality

standards not up to *** requirements and hence did not approve them. We are currently ***.” E-mail from ***,

June 9, 2010.

II-17

reported that large end users typically make their own MKP from potassium hydroxide and phosphoric

acid, while a third reported that if MKP prices increase, end users increase the cost of their products. 

Most responding importers *** reported that substitutes had not changed since 2007. Two of 17

responding importers, however, reported that substitutes changed for DKP and one of 21 responding

importers reported substitutes changed for MKP and TKPP. One firm reported that polymers were new

substitutes for TKPP for sequestration.

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported products depends upon such factors as

relative prices, quality, and conditions of sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, lead times between order and

delivery dates, payment terms, product services, etc.). Based on the available information, staff believes

that on the whole, there is likely to be a high degree of substitution between the potassium phosphate salts

produced in the United States and those produced in China. Technical-grade potassium phosphate salts

are likely to have a higher degree of substitution than food-grade potassium phosphate salts, since stricter

guidelines apply to the food-grade products and, therefore, fewer Chinese factories are currently capable

of producing them. Food-grade potassium phosphate salts can be substituted for technical-grade

phosphate salts, but not vice versa.38 ***.39 Food-grade phosphate salts must use food-grade phosphoric

acid and soda ash or caustic in the production process and meet a more narrow range of specifications set

by the Food Chemicals Codex.40 For food-grade phosphate salts there is reportedly a long qualification

process, estimated to be about one year or more.41 42

U.S. producers and importers were asked how much of their MKP produced is Kosher certified. 

***. Twenty-one of 28 importers reported that they do not import Kosher-certified MKP. Four importers

reported that all their MKP produced is Kosher certified, while two importers reported that 5 to 20

percent of their MKP is Kosher certified.

Purchasers were asked if they required MKP to be Kosher certified. Seventeen of 29 responding

purchasers reported that they do not require Kosher-certified MKP. Eight purchasers reported that all

their purchases of MKP are Kosher certified, four purchasers reported that 10 to 50 percent of all their

purchased MKP is Kosher certified.

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked how frequently anhydrous DKP, MKP, or

TKPP was substitutable for DKP, MKP, or TKPP in solution. U.S. producers *** reported that

anhydrous form was “rarely” substitutable for solution for all three potassium phosphate salts. ***

specifically reported that “anhydrous MKP and DKP are more expensive to produce than MKP or DKP in

solution...as a result, most end users that are capable of using solution in their production process have set

up their facilities to receive and utilize liquid MKP and DKP. Such end-users rarely will use anhydrous.”

*** reported that anhydrous TKPP was “frequently” substitutable for TKPP in solution, and *** reported

that anhydrous TKPP was “sometimes” substitutable for TKPP in solution. *** reported “anhydrous

TKPP has replaced TKPP in solution at many customer accounts. Roughly *** of end-users of TKPP
II-18

either buy solution or put TKPP into a solution in their process. Relatively few end-users therefore can

only use anhydrous TKPP.”

Eight of 14 importers reported that DKP in anhydrous form is “rarely” or “never” substitutable

for solution, and six reported that anhydrous DKP is “sometimes” or “frequently” substituted for solution. 

Thirteen of 18 importers reported that MKP and TKPP in anhydrous form is “rarely” or “never”

substitutable for solution, and five reported that anhydrous MKP or TKPP is “sometimes” or “frequently”

substituted for solution. The primary factors cited included the additional costs of putting the anhydrous

salts back into solution, additional transportation costs, and formulation restrictions.

Sixteen of 23 purchasers reported that anhydrous DKP was “rarely” or “never” substitutable for

DKP in solution, four reported that “sometimes” the two forms are substitutable, two reported “always”

and one purchaser reported DKP anhydrous is “frequently” substitutable for solution. Eighteen of 22

purchasers reported that anhydrous MKP was “rarely” or “never” substitutable for MKP in solution, three

reported “always” and two purchaser reported MKP anhydrous is “sometimes” substitutable in solution. 

Twenty-one of 29 purchasers reported that anhydrous TKPP was “rarely” or “never” substitutable for

TKPP in solution, seven reported that “sometimes” the two forms are substitutable, and one purchaser

reported that TKPP anhydrous is “frequently” substitutable for solution. Purchasers reported

reformulation costs as a limiting factor of switching between the two forms.

Lead Times

All four responding producers reported selling *** percent of their phosphate salts from

inventories, and the remaining *** percent on a produced-to-order basis. Producers’ lead times when

selling out of inventory ranged from *** days to *** weeks, while lead times for produced-to-order

phosphate salts ranged from *** days to *** weeks. Seventeen of the 22 responding importers selling

from U.S. inventories reported selling most their product from U.S. inventories, with 13 of these selling

more than 80 percent from U.S. inventories. Lead times from importer inventories ranged from 1 day to 2

weeks, with 12 importers reporting lead times of three days or less. Seventeen importers reported sales

from overseas inventories, with ten of these importers making more than 75 percent of their sales from

overseas inventories, and the remaining seven selling less than half from overseas inventories. Lead times

from importers’ overseas inventories ranged from 30 days to 10 weeks, with 15 importers reporting lead

times ranging from 4 to 8 weeks. Nine importers reported selling product that is produced to order; five

of these sold the majority of their product produced to order. Importers’ lead times for produced-to-order

phosphate salts ranged from 4 to 12 weeks, with six importers reporting lead times of 8 weeks or longer.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Table II-7 summarizes purchasers’ responses concerning the top three factors they reported

considering in their purchasing decisions. As indicated in the table, quality was cited most frequently as

the primary factor in buying decisions. Availability was the most frequently cited second factor, and

price was the most frequently cited third factor. When first and second factor responses are combined,

price was cited most frequently (27), followed by quality (26) and availability (23).
II-19

Table II-7

Certain potassium phosphate salts: Ranking factors used in purchasing decisions by U.S.

purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Number one factor Number two factor Number three factor

Quality 18 8 11

Price1 13 14 18

Availability 7 16 8

Traditional supplier 2 0 0

Delivery 0 1 1

Contract 2 1 0

Reliability 3 2 1

Other2 34 1

 1 One firm reported both price and availability for the first factor; both responses are included in the table. 2 Other factors include logistics, vendor relationship, and qualified manufacturer for first factor; lead time,

products (water soluble fertilizer), service, and volume for second factor; packaging, service, and terms for third

factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were asked how often each of the potassium phosphate salts met minimum quality

specification when domestically produced as well as when imported from China (tables II-8a-c).

Table II-8a

DKP: Ability to meet purchasers’ minimum quality specifications, by source

Country

Number of firms reporting

Always or Frequently Sometimes Never

 United States 22 0 2

 China 14 2 2

 Israel 6 0 0

 Germany 2 0 0

 Mexico 1 0 0

 France 1 0 0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
II-20

Table II-8b

MKP: Ability to meet purchasers’ minimum quality specifications, by source

Country

Number of firms reporting

Always or Frequently Sometimes Never

 United States 19 1 3

 China 17 2 1

 Israel 9 1 0

 Germany 1 0 0

 Mexico 1 1 0

 France 2 0 0

 Belgium 2 0 0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table II-8c

TKPP: Ability to meet purchasers’ minimum quality specifications, by source

Country

Number of firms reporting

Always or Frequently Sometimes Never

 United States 28 0 3

 China 19 2 3

 Israel 4 1 0

 Germany 2 0 0

 Mexico 2 0 0

 France 2 0 0

 Belgium 2 0 0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

DKP– Twenty-two of 24 responding purchasers reported that domestically produced DKP

“always” or “frequently” meets minimum quality specifications. Fourteen of 18 responding purchasers

reported that the Chinese DKP “always” or “frequently” meets minimum quality specifications. Six

purchasers reported that DKP imported from Israel “always” or “frequently” meets minimum quality

specifications.

MKP– Nineteen of 23 responding purchasers reported that domestically produced MKP “always”

or “frequently” meets minimum quality specifications. Seventeen of 20 responding purchasers reported

that the Chinese MKP “always” or “frequently” meets minimum quality specifications. Nine purchasers

reported Israeli MKP “always” or “frequently” meets minimum quality specifications.

TKPP– Twenty-eight of 31 responding purchasers reported that domestically produced TKPP

“always” or “frequently” meets minimum quality specifications. Nineteen of 24 responding purchasers

reported that TKPP imported from China “always” or “frequently” meets minimum quality specifications. 

Israel was listed by three purchasers, and Germany, Mexico, France, and Belgium were listed by two

purchasers as sources of TKPP that “always” or “frequently” meets minimum quality specifications.

Purchasers were also asked to rate the importance of 15 factors in their purchasing decisions for

DKP, MKP, and TKPP (table II-9). For DKP, 28 of 29 responding purchasers rated availability as very
II-21

important, 27 firms reported quality exceeding industry standards as very important, 25 firms rated

product consistency as very important, and 24 firms rated price and reliability of supply as very

important. For MKP, 25 of 26 responding purchasers rated availability, product consistency, and quality

exceeding industry standards as very important, 21 firms reported price and reliability of supply as very

important. For TKPP, 31 of 33 responding purchasers ranked availability and quality exceeding industry

standards as very important, 28 firms reported product consistency as very important, and 27 firms ranked

price and reliability of supply as very important. 

Table II-9

Certain potassium phosphate salts: Importance of purchase factors, as reported by U.S.

purchasers 

Factor

DKP MKP TKPP

VSNVSNVSN

Number of firms responding

Availability 28 0 1 25 1 0 31 1 1

Delivery terms 12 14 1 9 15 1 11 18 2

Delivery time 18 7 2 12 12 1 16 13 2

Discounts offered 8 16 3 5 15 5 6 20 5

Extension of credit 6 15 6 3 14 8 10 15 6

Minimum quantity requirements 12 9 5 5 7 13 7 18 6

Packaging 6 19 2 6 17 2 7 22 2

Price 24 4 1 21 5 0 27 6 0

Product consistency 25 2 0 25 1 0 28 4 0

Product range 5 11 10 4 10 11 8 13 10

Quality meets industry standards 6 19 2 6 16 4 6 20 6

Quality exceeds industry standards 27 1 0 25 1 0 31 2 0

Reliability of supply 24 1 1 21 4 0 27 3 1

Technical support/service 6 16 4 5 11 8 5 18 8

U.S. transportation costs 10 14 2 7 14 3 16 14 2

Note.– Not all purchasers responded for each factor.

Note.– “V” = Very important, “S” = Somewhat important, “N” = Not important.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were asked for a country-by-country comparison on the same 15 factors (tables II10a-c). For U.S.-produced DKP compared to Chinese DKP, most purchasers reported that the U.S.

product was comparable with regard to delivery terms, discounts offered, extension of credit, minimum

quantity requirements, packaging, product range, and quality meets industry standards. Most purchasers

reported Chinese DKP was superior on price, and inferior on availability, delivery time, quality exceeds

industry standards, reliability of supply, technical support, and U.S. transportation costs.
 43 For the factor “U.S. transportation costs,” 11 purchasers reported that U.S. product was superior, and 11

reported that U.S. and Chinese products were comparable.

II-22

For U.S.-produced MKP compared to Chinese MKP, most purchasers reported that the U.S.

product was comparable with regard to delivery terms, discounts offered, extension of credit, minimum

quantity requirements, packaging, product consistency, product range, quality meets and exceeds industry

standards, and reliability of supply. Most purchasers reported China was superior on price, and inferior

on availability, delivery time, technical support, and U.S. transportation costs.

For U.S.-produced TKPP compared to Chinese TKPP, most purchasers reported that the U.S.

product was comparable with regard to delivery terms, discounts offered, extension of credit, minimum

quantity requirements, packaging, product range, and quality meets industry standards.43 Most

purchasers reported Chinese TKPP was superior on price, and inferior on availability, delivery time,

product consistency, quality exceeds industry standards, reliability of supply, and technical support. 

Table II-10a

DKP: Comparisons between U.S.-produced and imported DKP as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

U.S. vs China

U.S. vs

nonsubject 

China vs

nonsubject

S C I S C I S C I

Availability 11 6 1 0 4 1 0 2 0

Delivery terms 7 8 2 1 3 1 0 1 1

Delivery time 13 4 1 0 3 2 0 1 1

Discounts offered 2 10 6 0 4 1 1 1 0

Extension of credit 8 8 1 0 4 1 0 0 1

Price1 2 4 12 0 3 2 1 1 0

Minimum quantity requirements 7 9 2 0 3 2 0 2 0

Packaging 4 13 1 0 3 2 0 2 0

Product consistency 8 9 1 0 3 2 0 1 1

Product range 7 10 1 1 3 1 0 2 0

Quality meets industry standards 5 11 1 0 3 2 0 1 1

Quality exceeds industry standards 9 7 2 0 4 1 0 1 1

Reliability of supply 10 6 2 0 3 2 0 0 2

Technical support/service 13 4 1 0 3 2 0 0 2

U.S. transportation costs1 9 7 1 0 3 2 0 1 1

 1 A rating of superior means that price/U.S. transportation cost is generally lower. For example, if a firm reported

“U.S. superior”, it meant that the price of the U.S. product was generally lower than the price of the imported

product.

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed country’s

product is inferior. Not all purchasers responded for all factors. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
II-23

Table II-10b

MKP: Comparisons between U.S.-produced and imported MKP as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

U.S. vs China

U.S. vs

nonsubject 

China vs

nonsubject

S C I S C I S C I

Availability 8 6 1 0 6 1 1 5 0

Delivery terms 6 8 1 1 5 1 1 5 0

Delivery time 9 5 1 0 5 2 1 2 3

Discounts offered 1 8 6 0 5 2 1 5 0

Extension of credit 6 8 1 0 6 1 1 3 2

Price1 1 4 10 0 5 2 1 3 2

Minimum quantity requirements 6 7 1 0 6 1 1 5 0

Packaging 5 9 1 0 7 0 1 5 0

Product consistency 6 8 1 0 6 1 1 2 3

Product range 5 9 1 1 6 0 1 3 2

Quality meets industry standards 3 11 1 0 6 1 1 2 3

Quality exceeds industry standards 5 8 2 0 6 1 1 2 3

Reliability of supply 6 7 2 0 6 1 1 2 3

Technical support/service 9 5 1 0 6 1 1 3 2

U.S. transportation costs1 9 5 1 0 6 1 1 5 0

 1 A rating of superior means that price/U.S. transportation cost is generally lower. For example, if a firm reported

“U.S. superior”, it meant that the price of the U.S. product was generally lower than the price of the imported

product.

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed country’s

product is inferior. One firm provided comparisons among two nonsubject countries. These responses are not

included in the table. Not all purchasers responded for all factors. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 44 *** purchaser questionnaire response, section IV-6.

II-24

Table II-10c

TKPP: Comparisons between U.S.-produced and imported TKPP as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

U.S. vs China

U.S. vs

nonsubject 

China vs

nonsubject 

S C I S C I S C I

Availability 12 8 2 1 3 1 0 0 1

Delivery terms 9 12 1 0 4 1 0 1 0

Delivery time 16 4 2 2 2 1 0 1 0

Discounts offered 2 15 5 0 3 1 0 0 1

Extension of credit 7 11 3 0 4 1 0 0 1

Price1 4 7 11 0 4 1 0 0 1

Minimum quantity requirements 9 12 1 0 4 1 0 1 0

Packaging 7 13 2 0 4 1 0 1 0

Product consistency 13 8 1 0 4 1 0 1 0

Product range 7 14 1 1 3 1 0 1 0

Quality meets industry standards 10 11 1 1 3 1 0 1 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 12 8 2 1 3 1 0 1 0

Reliability of supply 12 9 1 0 3 2 0 0 1

Technical support/service 14 6 2 0 3 1 0 0 1

U.S. transportation costs1 11 11 1 1 3 1 0 0 1

 1 A rating of superior means that price/U.S. transportation cost is generally lower. For example, if a firm reported

“U.S. superior”, it meant that the price of the U.S. product was generally lower than the price of the imported

product.

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed country’s

product is inferior. Not all purchasers responded for all factors. No purchasers responded for factors comparing

China and nonsubject countries for TKPP.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

When comparing U.S.-produced product to nonsubject product, most purchasers reported that

domestically produced DKP, MKP, and TKPP was comparable in terms of all factors. Two purchasers

reported that Chinese produced DKP was comparable to nonsubject product in most factors, but was

inferior with regard to reliability of supply and technical support. When comparing Chinese product with

nonsubject product, three purchasers reported that Chinese MKP was inferior to nonsubject MKP in terms

of delivery times, product consistency, quality meets and exceeds industry standards, and reliability of

supply, but a majority considered Chinese MKP comparable in the remaining factors. One purchaser,

***, reported that U.S.-produced MKP was inferior to MKP produced in Mexico in terms of

granulation.44 One purchaser reported that Chinese produced TKPP was comparable to nonsubject

product in most factors, but was inferior in terms of discounts offered, extension of credit, price,

reliability of supply, technical support, and U.S. transportation costs.
II-25

When asked if certain grades/types/sizes of certain potassium phosphate salts were available from

only a single source, all 26 responding purchasers reported “no” for both DKP and MKP. However, two

of 29 firms reported “yes,” for TKPP; one firm reported that it required granular low-iron TKPP, and the

other reported that it only has qualified TKPP 60 percent solution from ***. 

Twelve of 46 responding purchasers reported that they or their customers had preferences for

product from one country over other possible sources. Seven of these purchasers reported preferences for

U.S. product, two firms did not specifically identify the preferred country source, and the remaining 3

firms reported preferences for multiple countries. Other country sources mentioned include: China (two

purchasers), Israel (two purchasers), and Mexico (one purchaser).

Purchasers were asked to rate the importance as a purchasing factor of buying domestically

produced phosphate salts. Thirty-two of 46 purchasers reported that buying domestic product was not

important. Eight purchasers reported that some domestic purchases were required by their firm or by

their customers, and involved 5 to 100 percent of their purchases. For five of these purchasers, over 80

percent of their purchases were domestic. Six purchasers reported buying domestically produced product

for other reasons, and that domestic purchases included 30 to 100 percent of their total purchases, with

four of these purchasers buying 100 percent domestically. The reasons purchasers bought domestically

produced product included approved and preferred supplier, and the breadth of the product line.

Purchasers were also asked if they made purchasing decisions based on the country of origin of

certain potassium phosphate salts. Twenty-seven purchasers indicated “never,” 16 indicated

“sometimes,” 3 indicated “usually,” and 1 reported “always.” Of those that reported “never,” three firms

reported that quality, price, delivery, and ability to meet specifications were the important factors when

determining the source. Of those that reported “sometimes,” price, supply, and lead times were the

primary factors when choosing a source. 

Purchasers were also asked if their customers made purchasing decisions based on the country of

origin of certain potassium phosphate salts. Twenty-six purchasers indicated “never,” 15 indicated

“sometimes,” and 1 indicated “usually.”

Thirty of 47 responding purchasers reported that they required their suppliers to become certified

or pre-qualified for all products, and 17 firms did not require certification or pre-qualification. Eighteen

purchasers reported requiring a sample and spec sheet to be approved by the technical department. Other

requirements mentioned include third-party audit, payment terms, insurance, state registration, reliability

of supply, and financial stability. Thirty purchasers reported the time required for certification or prequalification, which ranged from 3 to 355 days. The majority reported qualification times of 30-90 days. 

When purchasers were asked what characteristics they consider when determining the quality of

certain potassium phosphate salts, 14 of 37 responding purchasers mentioned meeting quality and

industry standards, 14 purchasers mentioned solubility and particle size, and 9 firms mentioned purity

levels. Other factors noted by purchasers that determined quality included: product consistency, Kosher

certification, packaging, certificate of analysis, absence of heavy metals, lack of clumping, meeting FCC

standards, appearance, flow properties, and price.
II-26

Comparisons of Domestic Products and Subject Imports

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to assess the interchangeability of DKP, MKP,

or TKPP produced in the United States, China, and nonsubject countries; responses are presented in Table

II-11. 

Table II-11

DKP, MKP, and TKPP: U.S. firms’ perceived degree of interchangeability of products produced in

the United States and in other countries1

Country comparison

DKP

U.S. producers U.S. importers U.S. purchasers

AFS N AFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. China *** *** *** *** 3 12 6 0 5 5 7 1

U.S. vs. other countries *** *** *** *** 22502461

China vs. other countries *** *** *** *** 21501441

MKP

U.S. producers U.S. importers U.S. purchasers

AFS N AFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. China *** *** *** *** 4 7 5 2 7 5 5 0

U.S. vs. other countries *** *** *** *** 24517340

China vs. other countries *** *** *** *** 32612330

TKPP

U.S. producers U.S. importers U.S. purchasers

AFS N AFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. China 0 3 0 0 2 9 6 0 6 6 7 1

U.S. vs. other countries 0 3 0 0 23504551

China vs. other countries 0 3 0 0 13602431

 1 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if certain phosphate salts produced in the United States and

in other countries are used interchangeably and to what degree.

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, and “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 45 *** reported that “products are frequently interchangeable, but costs for higher grade/quality of U.S. products

often make the purchase of U.S. products not possible. Many applications do not require the higher quality of U.S.

products and companies cannot afford the unnecessary additional cost.” U.S. importer questionnaire response,

section III-26.

 46 *** importer questionnaire responses, section III-27.

II-27

***. ***.

Most responding importers reported that all DKP, MKP, and TKPP from all sources were either

“frequently” or “sometimes” interchangeable. Importers typically reported that factors such as particle

size, solubility, granulation, and packaging limited interchangeability.45 Additionally, three importers

reported that U.S. producers do not produce technical-grade MKP, and one of these importers stated that

food-grade MKP can not be used by most fertilizer customers.46

U.S. purchasers’ responses varied widely from “always” interchangeable to “sometimes”

interchangeable from all sources. Purchasers primarily reported quality, lead times, FCC standards, and

supply as important factors for interchangeability. 

In addition, producers and importers were asked to assess how often differences other than price

were significant in sales of phosphate salts from the United States, China, and nonsubject countries (table

II-12). ***. The majority of importers reported that differences other than price were “sometimes”

important for DKP when comparing the United States and China. For comparisons involving nonsubject

countries, half the importers reported that differences other than price were “always” significant, and the

other half of importers reported that differences other than price were “sometimes” significant in their

sales of DKP. Responses varied widely for both MKP and TKPP with all country pairs. Differences

reported include: lead times, logistics problems, technical support, European or Israeli product being of

equal or better quality than U.S. product, variation in quality among the Chinese producers, product

requiring qualification, solubility concerns, consistency, shipments, granulation size, and U.S. MKP is

food grade while Chinese MKP is technical grade which can not be used by many customers. 
II-28

Table II-12

DKP, MKP, and TKPP: U.S. producers’ and importers’ perceived importance of factors other than

price in sales of product produced in the United States and in other countries1

Country comparison

DKP

U.S. producers U.S. importers

A FSNAFSN

U.S. vs. China *** *** *** *** 3 0 14 2

U.S. vs. other countries *** *** *** *** 3031

China vs. other countries *** *** *** *** 3021

MKP

U.S. producers U.S. importers

A FSNAFSN

U.S. vs. China *** *** *** *** 6 0 6 6

U.S. vs. other countries *** *** *** *** 2052

China vs. other countries *** *** *** *** 3042

TKPP

U.S. producers U.S. importers

A FSNAFSN

U.S. vs. China 0 0 3 0 4 1 9 3

U.S. vs. other countries 0 0202042

China vs. other countries 0 0202060

 1 Producers and importers were asked if certain phosphate salts produced in the United States and in other

countries are used interchangeably and to what degree.

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, and “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 47 This section discusses elasticity estimates. Parties were encouraged to provide comments in their prehearing

briefs. No parties provided comments. The elasticity responses in this section refer to changes that could occur

within 12 months, unless otherwise indicated.

 48 Based on the available information, the elasticity of substitution between U.S.-produced MKP and imported

MKP is likely to be in the lower end of this range.

II-29

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES47

U.S. Supply Elasticity

The domestic supply elasticity for certain potassium phosphate salts measures the sensitivity of

the quantity supplied by U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price for certain potassium

phosphate salts. The elasticity of domestic supply depends on several factors, including the level of

excess capacity, the existence of inventories, and the availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced

potassium phosphate salts. Previous analysis of these factors suggests that the U.S. industry may have a

relatively high ability to increase or decrease shipments to the U.S. market based principally on unused

capacity and large share to export markets. An estimate in the range of 3 to 6 is suggested for each of the

potassium phosphate salts at issue in this proceeding.

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for certain potassium phosphate salts measures the sensitivity of the

overall quantity demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of certain potassium phosphate salts. This

estimate depends on factors discussed earlier such as the existence, availability, and commercial viability

of substitute products, as well as the component share of certain potassium phosphate salts in the final

cost of end-use products in which it is used. Because of a limited number of broadly accepted substitutes

and the low share of the final cost of end-use products, it is likely that the aggregate demand for each of

the potassium phosphate salts at issue in this proceeding is moderately inelastic, with suggested values

ranging between -0.25 to -0.75. 

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between domestic

and imported certain potassium phosphate salts. Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such

factors as quality and condition of sale (availability, delivery, etc.). Based on available information

indicating that the domestic and imported products can frequently be used interchangeably, the elasticity

of substitution between U.S.-produced DKP, MKP, and TKPP and imported DKP, MKP, and TKPP salts

is likely to be in the range of 3 to 5.48 

 1

 In addtion, *** certified to the Commission that it does not produce any of the products subject to these

investigations.

 2

 PCS produces TKPP ***. Approximately *** percent of PCS’ production of TKPP is produced as ***.

III-1

PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND

EMPLOYMENT

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making injury determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §§

1677(7)(B) and 1677(7)(C)). Information on the subsidy and dumping margins was presented earlier in

this report and information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented

in Parts IV and V. Information on the other factors specified is presented in this section and/or Part VI

and (except as noted) is based on the questionnaire responses of all known U.S. producers of the

potassium phosphate salts at issue in this proceeding during 2009.

U.S. PRODUCERS

The petition identified four U.S. producers of the phosphate salts at issue in this proceeding. The

Commission sent producer questionnaires to the companies identified in the petition as well as eight

companies listed as possible producers in ***. The Commission received completed questionnaire

responses from the four companies identified in the petition.1

Presented in table III-1 is a list of current domestic producers of DKP, MKP, and TKPP, as well

as each company’s position on the petition, production location(s), firm ownership, and share of reported

production of phosphate salts in 2009.2

Table III-1

DKP, MKP, and TKPP: U.S. producers, positions on the petition, firm ownership, U.S. production locations,

and quantities and shares of 2009 reported U.S. production

Firm

Position

on

petition

Firm

ownership

U.S.

production

location(s)

Quantities and share of production

DKP MKP TKPP

1,000

lbs. %

1,000

lbs. %

1,000

lbs. %

ICL Petitioner

Israel Chemical

Limited

Lawrence, KS

St. Louis, MO

Carteret, NJ1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Innophos *** *** (2

) --- --- --- --- (2) (2)

PCS *** *** (2) --- --- *** *** *** ***

Prayon Petitioner Prayon, S.A. Augusta, GA --- --- --- --- *** ***

Totals *** 100.0 *** 100.0 *** 100.0

 1 ***. ***. ***. Petitioners’ prehearing brief, p. 69.

 2

 PCS produces TKPP in Cincinnati, OH ***. In 2009, Innophos reported total shipments of ***.

Note.–Because of rounding, shares may not total to 100.0 percent.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 3

 U.S. Producers’ Questionnaire (question I-6).

 4

 In the final phase of these investigations, the Commission received a producer questionnaire response from PCS

indicating that ***. Staff telephone interviews with ***, April 22, 2010 and April 26, 2010. 

 5

 ***. Petitioners’ prehearing brief, pp. 14 and 43.

 6

 Email from ***, May 20, 2010.

III-2

Three U.S. producers are related to foreign producers of potassium phosphate salts at issue in this

proceeding3

 but none are related to U.S. importers of DKP, MKP, or TKPP from China. ICL is a

subsidiary of Israel Chemical Limited of Israel. Israel Chemical Limited is a primary producer of MKP

(production in 2009 was *** pounds) and is a large supplier to the United States of MKP (supplied ***

pounds in 2009). Innophos is affiliated with Innophos Mexicana in Mexico which produces MKP

(production in 2009 was *** pounds) and is a supplier of MKP to the United States (supplied *** pounds

in 2009). Prayon is a subsidiary of Prayon SA of Belgium. Prayon SA also has operations in France. 

Prayon SA is a leading producer of MKP in Belgium (production in 2009 was *** pounds) and is a

supplier of MKP to the United States (supplied *** pounds in 2009). Prayon SA is a leading producer in

France of DKP and TKPP (production in 2009 was *** pounds, respectively, and is a supplier of DKP

and TKPP to the United States (supplied *** pounds, respectively, in 2009). In addition, as discussed in

greater detail below, three U.S. producers directly import certain potassium phosphate salts and one

purchases certain potassium phosphate salts from U.S. importers.

U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization data for DKP, MKP, and TKPP are

presented in tables III-2 through III-4, respectively.4 5

 As noted by ICL in its questionnaire response,

“***.” 

With respect to plant capacity, ICL explained that ***.6

Table III-2

DKP: U.S. producer’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2007-09, January-June 2009,

and July-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table III-3

MKP: U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2007-09, January-June 2009,

and July-December 2009

* * * * * * *
 7

 U.S. producers do not report any barriers to trade. The principal export market for DKP is ***. The principal

export markets for MKP are ***. The principal export markets for TKPP are Australia, Canada, China, Honduras,

Japan, Mexico, Panama, South Korea, and Taiwan.

 8

 Email from ***, June 9, 2010.

 9

 Ibid.

III-3

Table III-4

TKPP: U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2007-09, January-June 2009,

and July-December 2009 1 2 3

Item

Calendar year

JanuaryJuneJulyDecember

2007 2008 2009 2009 2009

Capacity (1,000 lbs. dry weight) 72,176 62,072 60,453 31,489 28,964

Production (1,000 lbs. dry weight) 41,076 36,211 23,553 11,676 11,877

Capacity utilization (percent) 56.9 58.3 39.0 37.1 41.0

 1 ***. Email from ***, May 20, 2010. With respect to the decrease in capacity from 2007 to 2008, this can be

attributed to both ***. ***. Email from ***, June 9, 2010.

 2

 ***.

 3

 ***. Prayon’s preliminary phase questionnaire response.

Note.–TKPP production declined by 12.7 million pounds from 2008 to 2009. The decrease in production reflects the

TKPP operations of ***, which saw its production decline by *** percent from 2008 to 2009.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS

Data on U.S. producers’ shipments of DKP, MKP, and TKPP are presented in tables III-5 through

III-7. More than 98 percent of U.S. shipments were commercial shipments, rather than transfers to related

firms or internal consumption. The quantity of U.S. shipments of DKP, MKP, and TKPP declined by ***

percent, *** percent, and 40.0 percent, respectively, during the period for which data were collected. The

value of U.S. shipments of DKP, MKP, and TKPP increased by *** percent, *** percent, and 16.3

percent, respectively. The quantity of export shipments of DKP increased by *** percent from 2007 to

2009, whereas the quantity of export shipments of MKP and TKPP decreased by *** percent and ***

percent, respectively, during the same period. The value of export shipments of DKP and MKP increased

during the period for which data were collected by *** percent and *** percent, respectively, whereas the

value of export shipments of TKPP decreased by *** percent.7

 The quantity of total shipments of DKP

increased by *** percent during the period for which data were collected. In contrast, the quantity of

total shipments of MKP and TKPP decreased by *** percent and *** percent, respectively, over the

period for which data were collected. Average unit values for U.S. shipments of DKP, MKP, and TKPP

all increased between 2007 and 2009, despite declining in the second half of 2009. The average unit

values for U.S. shipments of DKP are higher than the average unit values for export shipments of DKP.

*** explained the pricing difference is related to ***.8

 The average unit values for U.S. shipments of

MKP are lower than the average unit values for export shipments of MKP. *** explained the pricing

difference is due to ***; its export accounts are *** than its domestic accounts. ***.9
III-4

Table III-5

DKP: U.S. producer’s shipments, by types, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table III-6

MKP: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table III-7

TKPP: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December 2009

Item

Calendar year

JanuaryJuneJulyDecember

2007 2008 2009 2009 2009

Quantity (1,000 lbs. dry weight)

U.S. shipments 39,162 32,763 23,489 10,653 12,835

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. shipments 23,538 31,793 27,365 13,701 13,663

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value (per pound dry weight)

U.S. shipments $0.60 $0.97 $1.17 $1.29 $1.06

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 10 At the hearing, ICL stated that its U.S.-made MKP competes in the fertilizer market, at accounts such as Miller

Chemical and Fertilizer Corp. Hearing transcript, p. 33 (Schewe). However, at the present time there are no reports

of U.S.-made MKP being sold for use in the fertilizer industry. Valudor stated at the hearing that it was not aware

that ICL sold to Miller Chemical and Fertilizer Corp. Valudor testified that it sold to Miller Chemical and Fertilizer

Corp. in 2005 and 2006. However, Miller Chemical and Fertilizer Corp. “complained bitterly” about Chinese MKP. 

In 2008 and 2009 Valudor’s sales to Miller Chemical and Fertilizer Corp. were a fraction of its sales in 2006. 

Hearing transcript, pp. 144-145 (Melamed).

III-5

U.S. SHIPMENTS BY GRADE/PURITY AND END USES

Table III-8 presents U.S. shipments by grade/purity and table III-9 presents U.S. shipments by

end uses. The majority of DKP and MKP produced and sold in the United States is food grade and the

majority of the TKPP produced and sold in the United States is technical grade. This is consistent with

the largest end uses reported for DKP, MKP, and TKPP. The largest end use reported for DKP is meat

processing. The largest end uses reported for MKP are split between food & beverage (yeast, food

nutrient) and buffering agent in compounding formulas.10 The largest end use reported for TKPP is water

treatment. 

Table III-8

Potassium phosphate salts: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, by grade/purity, 2009

Potassium phosphate salt

Share of potassium phosphate salt

grade/purity (percent)

DKP:

 Food grade ***

 Technical grade ***

 Other ***

 Total 100.0

MKP:

 Food grade ***

 Technical grade ***

 Other ***

 Total 100.0

TKPP:

 Food grade ***

 Technical grade ***

 Other ***

 Total 100.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
III-6

Table III-9

Potassium phosphate salts: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, by end use, 2009

Potassium phosphate salt

Share of potassium phosphate salt end use

(percent)

DKP:

 Antifreeze ***

 Baked goods ***

 Buffering agent in compounding formulas ***

 Dairy (coffee creamers, processed cheese,

 evaporate milk) ***

 Meat processing ***

 Chemical processing ***

 Other1 ***

 Total 100.0

MKP:

 Buffering agent in compounding formulas ***

 Cement ***

 Chemical processing ***

 Dog food ***

 Fertilizer ***

 Food & beverage (yeast, food nutrient) ***

 Fungicide ***

 Refractories ***

 Other1 ***

 Total 100.0

TKPP:

 Boiler descaling, dyeing, non-food 

 preservative ***

 Buffering agent in compounding formulas ***

 Detergents, industrial cleaners, surfactants

 (cleaning products) ***

 Fertilizer2 ***

 Food ***

 Household and industrial type products ***

 Metal finishing ***

 Paints ***

 Pulp and paper ***

 Water treatment ***

 Other1 3 ***

 Total 100.0

 1 “Other” is reported distribution. *** reported that most of its DKP, MKP, and TKPP sold to distributors go into stock and thus,

*** does not know into what industry it goes. In some cases *** is able to identify the end user because the product is sold to a

distributor, but shipped directly to an end user. *** reported that in general ***. Email from ***, May 20, 2010. *** reported that it

did not know to whom its distributors sold TKPP to, but that it would surmise that the majority of its distributors sold to end users

for water treatment. Email from ***, May 10, 2010.

 2 *** reported *** percent of its TKPP production is sold for use in fertilizer. Specifically, it sells to *** who uses it to make

specialty fertilizer products for turf. Email from ***, May 20, 2010.

 3

 ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Tables III-10 through III-12 present end-of-period inventories for DKP, MKP, and TKPP,

respectively. Inventories of DKP decreased throughout the period for which data were collected. 
 11 ***. Petitioners’ prehearing brief, p. 45. ICL’s parent company is Israel Chemicals Limited of Israel. In 2009,

imports of MKP from China were *** pounds while ICL reported importing *** pounds from Israel. In 2008,

imports of MKP from China were *** pounds while ICL reported importing *** pounds from Israel. In 2007,

imports of MKP from China were *** pounds while ICL reported importing *** pounds from Israel.

III-7

Conversely, with respect to MKP and TKPP, inventories peaked in 2008 and declined overall for MKP

and increased overall for TKPP.

Table III-10

DKP: U.S. producer’s end-of-period inventories, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December

2009

* * * * * * *

Table III-11

MKP: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December

2009

* * * * * * *

Table III-12

TKPP: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December

2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases are presented in tables III-13 through III-15. ***. ***. 

***.11 ***. ***. ***. ***.

Table III-13

DKP: U.S. producers’ imports and purchases, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December

2009

* * * * * * *

Table III-14

MKP: U.S. producers’ imports and purchases, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December

2009

* * * * * * *

Table III-15

TKPP: U.S. producers’ imports and purchases, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December

2009

* * * * * * *
III-8

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

The U.S. producers’ aggregate employment data for DKP, MKP, and TKPP are presented in

tables III-16 through III-18. Employment for the production of DKP in terms of workers and hours

worked trended upwards between 2007 and 2009, as did hourly and total wages, although a declining

trend in productivity contributed to rising unit labor costs (most pronounced in the first half of 2009). 

Employment for the production of MKP fluctuated between *** and *** employees during the period for

which data were collected. Wages paid fluctuated over the period despite hourly wages increasing

throughout the period for which data were collected. Hours worked per employee generally increased as

did unit labor costs, while productivity decreased throughout the period. Employment for the production

of TKPP decreased between 2007 and 2009, as did wages paid (despite higher hourly wages). 

Productivity peaked in 2008 before declining by nearly one-third in 2009, contributing to a sharp increase

in unit labor costs. 

Table III-16

DKP: U.S. producer’s employment-related data, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December

2009

* * * * * * *

Table III-17

MKP: U.S. producers’ employment-related data, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December 

2009

* * * * * * *

Table III-18

TKPP: U.S. producers’ employment-related data, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December

2009

Item

Calendar year

JanuaryJuneJulyDecember

2007 2008 2009 2009 2009

Production and related workers (PRWs) 60 52 46 50 43

Hours worked by PRWs (1,000 hours) 117 98 94 50 44

Hours worked per PRW 1,950 1,885 2,043 1,000 1,023

Wages paid to PRWs (1,000 dollars) 4,205 3,656 3,637 1,883 1,754

Hourly wages $35.95 $37.48 $38.79 $37.64 $40.10

Productivity (lbs. dry weight produced per hour) 351.2 371.2 251.2 233.4 271.6

Unit labor costs (per lb. dry weight) $0.10 $0.10 $0.15 $0.16 $0.15

Note.–*** PCS’ employment data were used in this table.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 1

 The Commission sent questionnaires to those firms identified in the petition and firms identified through a

review of data provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”).

 2

 “Heading 2835.24.00, HTSUS, includes MKP and DKP, as well as another potassium phosphate, Tri-potassium

phosphate (“TKP”). MKP and DKP are the most significant imports. The petitioners have not encountered imports

of TKP from China in the market, and ships’ manifest data indicate that there have been only erratic, small-volume

imports. All or nearly all imports of potassium phosphate from China are therefore MKP or DKP.” Petition, p. 18.

 3

 *** reported importing approximately *** pounds more than appear in Customs’ data. *** reported

approximately *** pounds more than appear in Customs’ data. 

 4

 At least one importer of TKPP, ***, reported importing TKPP under a different HTS subheading (***).

 5

 “Heading 2835.39.1000, HTSUS, includes TKPP, as well as Potassium tri-polyphosphate (“KTPP”). However,

TKPP is the more important potassium polyphosphate in commercial terms. Indeed, TKPP is the only potassium

polyphosphate known to be imported from China.” Petition, pp. 17-18.

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT CONSUMPTION, AND

MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

The Commission issued importer questionnaires to 109 firms believed to import subject

potassium phosphate salts, as well as to all U.S. producers of potassium phosphate salts.1

 Thirty-seven

companies provided usable questionnaire responses. The reported quantities of DKP and MKP imports

from China were equivalent to 84 percent of total imports from China entering under HTS subheading

2835.24.002

 during 2007-09, while imports from nonsubject sources substantially exceeded the volumes

recorded in official import statistics.3

 With respect to TKPP, imports from China substantially exceeded

the volumes recorded in official import statistics during 2007-09,4

 while imports from nonsubject sources

were equivalent to 40 percent of imports from sources other than China entering under HTS subheading

2835.39.10.5

 With respect to imports from nonsubject countries, companies representing the large

majority of imports entering under the relevant HTS subheading responded to the Commission’s

questionnaires, confirming that a substantial portion of the nonsubject import volume consisted of the

nonsubject chemical KTPP. Accordingly, Staff believes that importer coverage for all three potassium

phosphate salts is substantially complete. Table IV-1 lists all responding U.S. importers of DKP, MKP,

and TKPP from China and other sources.

Table IV-1 

DKP, MKP, and TKPP: U.S. importers, January 2007-December 2009 aggregated

Firm

Phosphate salt

DKP MKP TKPP

American International Chemical Co. *** *** ***

BK Giulini *** *** ***

Brenntag North America, Inc. *** *** ***

Budenheim USA, Inc. *** *** ***

Cascade Columbia Distribution *** *** ***

Chem One Ltd. *** *** ***

Chemical Specialty Group *** *** ***

ChemSol, LLC *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
IV-2

Table IV-1-- Continued

DKP, MKP, and TKPP: U.S. importers, January 2007-December 2009 aggregated

Firm

Phosphate salt

DKP MKP TKPP

Compass Chemical International LLC *** *** ***

Connell Brothers Company, Division

of Wilbur Ellis *** *** ***

CST-SurTec, Inc. *** *** ***

Global Chemical Resources, Inc. *** *** ***

Graham Chemical Corp. *** *** ***

Great Earth Chemical LLC *** *** ***

Grow More, Inc. *** *** ***

Haifa Nutritech, Inc. *** *** ***

ICL Premium Fertilizers NA (f/k/a

Rotem BKG LLC) *** *** ***

Innophos, Inc. *** *** ***

K.G. International, Inc. *** *** ***

Kaltron-Pettibone *** *** ***

Laszlo Corporation *** *** ***

Lidochem, Inc. *** *** ***

Omni Agri Trade Group, LLC *** *** ***

Omni-Chem 136, LLC *** *** ***

PepsiCo, Inc. *** *** ***

Prayon, Inc. *** *** ***

S and G Resources, Inc. *** *** ***

Sampco, Inc. *** *** ***

SBC Group, Inc. (Nutrichem) *** *** ***

Silver Fern Chemical, Inc. *** *** ***

Univar USA, Inc. *** *** ***

V.L. Clark Chemical Co., Inc. *** *** ***

Valudor Products Inc. *** *** ***

Wego Chemical and Mineral Corp. *** *** ***

Wenda America, Inc. *** *** ***

White Cross Laboratories, Inc. *** *** ***

Zhong Ya Chemical (USA) Ltd. *** *** ***

Note.–*** and ***, responded to the Commission’s questionnaires for these investigations, but did not supply usable

data. Both importers account for *** percent of imports in any given year for any given potassium phosphate salt at

issue in this proceeding.

Note.–*** erroneously reported imports of TKPP to the Commission. However, the company subsequently

confirmed that its imports ***. Thus, ***’s data have been removed from the data set. Email from ***, June 9, 2010.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
 6

 Critical circumstances were alleged at Commerce, but subsequently withdrawn by petitioners. On June 1, 2010,

Commerce terminated its critical circumstances investigations. Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the

People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Termination of Critical

Circumstances Inquiry, 75 FR 30375, June 1, 2010 and Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s

Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Termination of Critical

Circumstances Inquiry, 75 FR 30377, June 1, 2010.

IV-3

U.S. IMPORTS

Tables IV-2 through IV-4 present data for U.S. imports of DKP, MKP, and TKPP, respectively,

from China and all other sources. The quantity of imports of DKP, MKP, and TKPP from China

increased from 2007 to 2009 as did the average unit value of all three potassium phosphate salts at issue

in this proceeding. The average unit values of imports from China were lower than those from nonsubject

sources for every chemical and period except for ***. U.S. imports of DKP and MKP from China

accounted for a growing share of total imports between 2007 and 2009. With respect to TKPP, subject

imports from China accounted for the majority of all TKPP imports.6

Table IV-2

DKP: U.S. imports, by sources, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table IV-3

MKP: U.S. imports, by sources, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December 2009

Source

Calendar year

JanuaryJuneJulyDecember

2007 2008 2009 2009 2009

Quantity (1,000 lbs. dry weight)

China *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject2 *** *** *** *** ***

Total 45,651 44,893 37,207 17,196 20,013

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

China *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject2 *** *** *** *** ***

Total 19,176 39,618 29,078 15,280 13,797

Unit value (per pound dry weight)

1

China $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Nonsubject2 *** *** *** *** ***

Average 0.42 0.88 0.78 0.89 0.69

Share of quantity (percent)

China *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject2 *** *** *** *** ***

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

China *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject2 *** *** *** *** ***

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Landed, U.S. port of entry, duty-paid. 

 2

 The majority of nonsubject imports of MKP are imported from Israel and Mexico, followed by Belgium.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
IV-4

Table IV-4

TKPP: U.S. imports, by sources, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December 2009

Source

Calendar year

JanuaryJuneJulyDecember

2007 2008 2009 2009 2009

Quantity (1,000 lbs. dry weight)

China *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject2 *** *** *** *** ***

Total 4,423 4,946 6,055 2,382 3,653

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

China *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject2 *** *** *** *** ***

Total 2,303 4,647 5,339 2,319 3,000

Unit value (per pound dry weight)

1

China $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Nonsubject2 *** *** *** *** ***

Average 0.52 0.94 0.88 0.97 0.82

Share of quantity (percent)

China *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject2 *** *** *** *** ***

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

China *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject2 *** *** *** *** ***

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Landed, U.S. port of entry, duty-paid. 

 2

 The majority of nonsubject imports of TKPP are imported from Israel.

Note.– Questionnaire responses were not received from ***, which imported in aggregate *** pounds of product

from China entered under HTS subheading 2835.39.10 in 2009 compared with *** pounds in 2008 according to

Customs. A questionnaire response was received from *** for TKPP; however, it reported importing TKPP under

HTS subheading ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 7

 Sections 703(a)(1), 705(b)(1), 733(a)(1), and 735(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a)(1), 1671d(b)(1),

1673b(a)(1), and 1673d(b)(1)).

 8

 Section 771(24) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)).

IV-5

NEGLIGIBILITY

The statute requires that an investigation be terminated without an injury determination if imports

of the subject merchandise are found to be negligible.7

 Negligible imports are generally defined in the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, as imports from a country of merchandise corresponding to a domestic

like product where such imports account for less than 3 percent of the volume of all such merchandise

imported into the United States in the most recent 12-month period for which data are available that

precedes the filing of the petition or the initiation of the investigation. However, if there are imports of

such merchandise from a number of countries subject to investigations initiated on the same day that

individually account for less than 3 percent of the total volume of the subject merchandise, and if the

imports from those countries collectively account for more than 7 percent of the volume of all such

merchandise imported into the United States during the applicable 12-month period, then imports from

such countries are deemed not to be negligible.8

 Based on data collected in the preliminary phase of these

investigations for the period July 2008-June 2009, U.S. imports from China accounted for *** percent of

total imports of DKP by quantity, *** percent of total imports of MKP by quantity, and *** percent of

total imports of TKPP by quantity. For full-year 2009 (a period that includes three months after the filing

of the petition) imports from China continued to account for a substantial share for each of the potassium

phosphate salts at issue in this proceeding. For 2009, U.S. imports from China accounted for *** percent

of total imports of DKP by quantity, *** percent of total imports of MKP by quantity, and *** percent of

total imports of TKPP by quantity.

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Data concerning apparent U.S. consumption of DKP, MKP, and TKPP are shown in tables IV-5

through IV-7, respectively. The quantity of apparent U.S. consumption of DKP increased from 2007 to

2009, whereas the quantity of apparent U.S. consumption of MKP and TKPP decreased over the same

period. However, the value of apparent U.S. consumption of DKP, MKP, and TKPP increased from 2007

to 2009. The quantity and value of apparent U.S. consumption of DKP and MKP peaked in 2008,

whereas the quantity of apparent U.S. consumption of TKPP peaked in 2007, although the value of

apparent U.S. consumption of TKPP peaked in 2008.

Table IV-5

DKP: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. shipments of imports, and apparent U.S.

consumption, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December 2009

* * * * * * *
IV-6

Table IV-6

MKP: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. shipments of imports, and apparent U.S.

consumption, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December 2009

Item

Calendar year

JanuaryJuneJulyDecember

2007 2008 2009 2009 2009

Quantity (1,000 lbs. dry weight)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments of imports from–

China *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries *** *** *** *** ***

Total U.S. imports 37,461 42,042 34,054 21,422 12,633

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments of imports from--

China *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries *** *** *** *** ***

Total U.S. imports 17,990 38,940 31,949 22,193 9,755

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Note.–The pronounced difference in the first half of 2009 versus the second half of 2009 volumes for MKP from

China and nonsubject sources is consistent with its use in fertilizer applications. Hearing transcript, p. 152

(Melamed). Domestic shipments did not share in this difference.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
IV-7

Table IV-7

TKPP: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. shipments of imports, and apparent U.S.

consumption, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December 2009

Item

Calendar year

JanuaryJuneJulyDecember

2007 2008 2009 2009 2009

Quantity (1,000 lbs. dry weight)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 39,162 32,763 23,489 10,653 12,835

U.S. shipments of imports from–

China *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries *** *** *** *** ***

Total U.S. imports 4,101 4,593 5,261 2,444 2,817

Apparent U.S. consumption 43,263 37,356 28,750 13,097 15,652

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 23,538 31,793 27,365 13,701 13,663

U.S. shipments of imports from--

China *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries *** *** *** *** ***

Total U.S. imports 2,684 5,368 5,749 3,059 2,810

Apparent U.S. consumption 26,222 37,161 33,114 16,760 16,473

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. MARKET SHARES

U.S. market share data for DKP, MKP, and TKPP are presented in tables IV-8 through IV-10. 

U.S. producers’ share of apparent U.S. consumption (quantity) of DKP and TKPP decreased from 2007 to

2009 while the Chinese share and nonsubject countries’ share increased over the same period. U.S.

producers’ share of apparent U.S. consumption (quantity) of MKP decreased, as did nonsubject countries’

share, while the Chinese share of apparent U.S. consumption (quantity) of MKP increased throughout the

period examined.

Table IV-8

DKP: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table IV-9

MKP: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December 2009

* * * * * * *
IV-8

Table IV-10

TKPP: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December

2009

Item

Calendar year

JanuaryJuneJulyDecember

2007 2008 2009 2009 2009

Quantity (1,000 lbs. dry weight)

Apparent U.S. consumption 43,263 37,356 28,750 13,097 15,652

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent U.S. consumption 26,222 37,161 33,114 16,760 16,473

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 90.5 87.7 81.7 81.3 82.0

U.S. shipments of imports from--

China *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries *** *** *** *** ***

All countries 9.5 12.3 18.3 18.7 18.0

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 89.8 85.6 82.6 81.8 82.9

U.S. shipments of imports from--

China *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries *** *** *** *** ***

All countries 10.2 14.4 17.4 18.2 17.1

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

RATIO OF IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Information concerning the ratio of imports to U.S. production of DKP, MKP, and TKPP is

presented in tables IV-11 through IV-13, respectively.

Table IV-11

DKP: U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratios of imports to U.S. production, 2007-09, JanuaryJune 2009, and July-December 2009

* * * * * * *
IV-9

Table IV-12

MKP: U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratios of imports to U.S. production, 2007-09, JanuaryJune 2009, and July-December 2009

Item

Calendar year

JanuaryJuneJulyDecember

2007 2008 2009 2009 2009

Quantity (1,000 lbs. dry weight)

U.S. production *** *** *** *** ***

Imports from:

China *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports 45,651 44,893 37,207 17,196 20,013

Ratio of U.S. imports to production (percent)

Imports from:

China *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries *** *** *** *** ***

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

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table IV-13

TKPP: U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratios of imports to U.S. production, 2007-09, JanuaryJune 2009, and July-December 2009

Item

Calendar year

JanuaryJuneJulyDecember

2007 2008 2009 2009 2009

Quantity (1,000 lbs. dry weight)

U.S. production 41,076 36,211 23,553 11,676 11,877

Imports from:

China *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports 4,423 4,946 6,055 2,382 3,653

Ratio of U.S. imports to production (percent)

Imports from:

China *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports 10.8 13.7 25.7 20.4 30.8

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 9

 *** importers from China, *** reported imports of MKP for the food & beverage (yeast, food nutrient) end use.

*** reported *** percent of its MKP imports went to the food & beverage end use, whereas *** reported ***

percent of its MKP imports went to the food & beverage end use. Commission staff contacted *** and confirmed

that *** percent of its MKP imports from China were used in the food & beverage industry. Staff telephone

interview with ***, June 3, 2010. In 2009, *** reported imports of *** pounds and *** reported imports of ***

pounds. Total imports of MKP from China in 2009 were *** pounds. A *** importer from China, *** reported

imports of MKP for the food & beverage (yeast, food nutrient) end use, but is not included in table IV-15 because it

did not import MKP in 2009. In ***’s importer questionnaire response it reported importing *** pounds of MKP

from China in 2008. *** percent of its Chinese MKP was used as a buffering agent in compounding formulas. The

remaining *** percent was used in the food & beverage industry.

 10 *** of the larger importers, *** of subject product from China were not able to break their imports out by end

use. *** reported importing *** pounds of MKP from China in 2009; *** of its imports were technical grade. ***

reported importing *** pounds of MKP from China in 2009; *** of its imports were food grade.

IV-10

U.S. IMPORTERS’ IMPORTS BY GRADE/PURITY AND END USES

Table IV-14 presents U.S. imports by grade/purity from China and all other countries and table

IV-15 presents U.S. imports by end uses from China and all other countries. Almost all imports of DKP

from China and all other countries were food grade, whereas imports of MKP and TKPP were primarily

technical grade. The end uses reported by importers consistent with the importation of food grade DKP. 

For example, the majority of DKP imports from China are used in dairy products while the majority of

DKP imports from all other countries are used in baked goods, dairy products, and meat processing. The

largest reported end use for imports of MKP from China and all other countries is fertilizer.9 10 The

largest reported end uses for imports of TKPP from China and from all other countries are

detergents/industrial cleaners/surfactants and fertilizer (for imports from China) or food applications (for

imports from all other sources). These end uses are consistent with the importation of relatively larger

volumes of technical grade MKP and TKPP.

Table IV-14

Potassium phosphate salts: U.S. importers’ imports, by grade, 2009

* * * * * * *

Table IV-15

Potassium phosphate salts: U.S. importers’ imports, by end use, 2009

* * * * * * *
 1

 *** uses purified phosphoric acid which is made from green acid or MGA, while Chinese producers use thermal

phosphoric acid. Although purified phosphoric acid is less expensive to produce, it has a higher level of impurities

than thermal acid. Hearing transcript, pp. 26 (Schewe). 

 2 See, e.g., Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 16-17 and exh. 12, and 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic

Acid (HEDP) from China and India, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1146-1147 (Final), USITC Publication 4072, April 2009, p.

14.

 3

 Hearing transcript, p. 30 (Schewe). 

 4

 Hearing transcript, p. 36 (Allen).

 5

 Conference transcript, pp. 101-102 (Schewe).

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

 Raw Material Costs

The primary raw materials used in the production of potassium phosphate salts are phosphoric

acid and potassium hydroxide.1 In addition, energy is needed to heat the chemical mixture to bring about

the proper chemical reactions necessary to produce the phosphate salts. As discussed in greater detail in

Part VI of this report, these chemicals and other raw materials accounted for *** percent of the total cost

of goods sold (COGS) in 2007 for DKP, *** percent for MKP, and *** percent for TKPP. Raw materials

as a percentage of the total cost of goods sold increased for all three subject potassium phosphate salts in

both 2008 and 2009, and accounted for *** percent of COGS in 2009 for DKP, *** percent for MKP, and

*** percent for TKPP.

The price of phosphoric acid began rising in 2008, partly due to increased demand for phosphates

used in corn and soybean fertilizer as federal biofuel mandates came into effect, but has fallen sharply

starting in early 2009.2 In May 2008, the price of phosphoric acid increased by 400 percent.3 Prices for

potassium hydroxide began rising in the first half of 2008 and increased by 300 percent between the third

quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2009 (figure V-1).4 A three-month potassium miners’ strike in

Canada in late 2008 greatly reduced ICL’s potassium phosphate production and in response, ICL

imported finished product from sister companies in Brazil and Europe, as well as from China.5 
 6

 Questionnaire respondents were requested to separate their answers if their responses differed by product;

unless noted, responses were generally applicable for each of the three chemicals.

 7

 The final importer reported that the Chinese supplier arranged transportation, apparently referring to its

international shipment.

V-2

Figure V-1

Indexed monthly prices of merchant grade phosphoric acid and potassium hydroxide, January

2007-December 2009

Source: Compiled from data submitted by ***, Green Markets (phosphoric acid), and CMAI (potassium hydroxide).

Email from ***, May 5, 2010.

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs6

The four responding U.S. producers reported that U.S. inland transportation costs ranged from

*** percent of the total delivered cost of phosphate salts. Importers reported U.S. inland transportation

costs that ranged from 0 to 50 percent, with 24 of 33 responding importers reporting that U.S. inland

transportation costs ranged between 1 to 5 percent of the total delivered cost of phosphate salts.

The four responding U.S. producers reported that *** arranged delivery. Twenty-three of 33

responding importers reported that they arranged delivery, nine reported that the purchaser did so, one

importer reported that it and the purchaser arranged transportation.7

GEOGRAPHIC MARKETS

*** responding U.S. producers, and 11 importers reported selling potassium phosphate salts

nationwide; five of these importers imported subject potassium phosphate salts from China. Of the

remaining 23 importers, four importers only sell to the Midwest, two importers only sell to the Southeast,

two importers only sell to the Pacific Coast, and one importer only sells to the Northeast. Fourteen

importers supply to two or more regions, mainly to the Midwest (11), the Northeast (8), and the Pacific

Coast (8). Details regarding the geographic presence of U.S. producers and importers of DKP, MKP, and

TKPP appear in table V-1.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

Jan-07

Jun-07

Nov-07

Apr-08

Sep-08

Feb-09

Jul-09

Dec-09

Index (Jan.-Mar. 2007=100)

Merchant-grade phosphoric acid Potassium hydroxide
V-3

Table V-1

Geographic markets of DKP, MKP, and TKPP by source, as reported by U.S. producers and

importers

U.S.-produced Imported from China

Imported from

nonsubject countries

DKP MKP TKPP DKP MKP TKPP DKP MKP TKPP

Nationwide *** *** 4 1 4 5 5 6 2

Northeast1 *** *** 0 5 5 4 1 2 2

Midwest2 *** *** 0 6 8 7 1 2 2

Southeast3 *** *** 0 4 5 5 1 2 1

Central Southwest4 *** *** 0 1 2 3 0 0 0

Mountains5 *** *** 0 0 2 1 0 0 0

Pacific Coast6 *** *** 0 3 5 4 0 1 1

Other7 *** *** 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 1 Includes CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, and VT.

 2

 Includes IL, IN, IA, KS, MI, MN, MO, NE, ND, OH, SD, and WI.

 3

 Includes AL, DE, DC, FL, GA, KY, MD, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, and WV.

 4

 Includes AR, LA, OK, and TX.

 5

 Includes AZ, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, UT, and WY.

 6

 Includes CA, OR, and WA.

 7

 Includes all other markets in the United States not previously listed, including AK, HI, PR, and VI, among others.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Three of the four responding domestic producers reported shipping *** percent of their phosphate

salts less than 100 miles, *** percent between 101 and 1,000 miles, and *** percent more than 1,000

miles. The other domestic producer, ***, reported shipping *** percent of its phosphate salts less than

100 miles, and the remaining *** percent between 101 and 1,000 miles. Thirty-four importers reported

shipping distances. Thirty-two responding importers reported selling within 100 miles of their U.S. point

of shipment, with 14 selling the majority within 100 miles. Twenty-seven responding importers sold

phosphate salts between 101 and 1,000 miles of their point of shipment, with 18 selling the majority of

their salts in this range. Sixteen importers reported selling phosphate salts over 1,000 miles from their

U.S. point of shipment, of which two firms sold the majority of their salts in this range. 

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

Three of the four domestic producers reported selling phosphate salts *** as well as by using ***. 

The remaining producer, ***, sold using ***. Most responding importers (31 of the 35) reported

transaction-by-transaction negotiations, 7 reported contracts, and 6 reported price lists, reflecting the use

of multiple pricing methods by the same importers. 

*** reported selling under ***. None of the 33 responding importers reported selling via longterm contracts of 12 months or longer. Sixteen importers reported selling via short-term contracts, with
 8

 U.S. importer, ***, reported that short-term contracts of one month in length could not be renegotiated, but three

month long contracts could be renegotiated. U.S. importer questionnaire response, section IV-8.

 9

 U.S. importer, ***, reported that six month contracts fix both price and quantity, while contracts 12 months in

length could be renegotiated in terms of price, but fixed quantity. U.S. importer questionnaire response, section IV8.

V-4

nine of these selling half or more using short-term contracts. The majority of importers (32) reported

selling on the spot market, with 24 of these selling the majority of their product this way.

U.S. producers *** reported typical terms for their long-term contracts. *** reported that their

long-term contracts averaged 2 years or more, and could be renegotiated during the contract period. ***

reported that price was fixed by the contract, while *** reported that both price and quantity were fixed

by the contract. U.S. producer *** reported the existence of meet-or-release clauses in its long-term

contracts, while *** reported that its long-term contracts did not contain meet-or-release clauses.

*** reported their short-term contracts were typically *** in length. Sixteen importers reported

the length of their short-term contracts, ranging from one month to twelve months. *** 9 of 16

responding importers reported that short-term contracts could be renegotiated.8

 Two importers reported

that their contracts fix price only, and two importers reported that quantity was fixed by the contract,

while *** 13 importers reported that contracts fixed both price and quantity.9

 U.S. producers *** and 7

of 16 responding importers reported the existence of meet-or-release clauses in their short-term contracts,

while the remaining 9 importers reported that their short-term contracts typically do not contain these

clauses.

 Sales Terms and Discounts

 Two of the four responding producers and eight of 34 responding importers reported using

discounts for their sales of certain potassium phosphate salts. Two produce

rs and six importers reported offering quantity discounts, two producers and three importers reported

offering annual total volume discounts, two producers reported a discount offered to distributors, and one

importer offers early payment discounts. All four responding producers and 17 of the 30 responding

importers reported that the majority of their sales are from domestic inventory, while 9 importers reported

that more than 75 percent of their sales are from foreign manufacturer’s inventory. Six importers reported

that 70 percent or more of their sales was produced to order. Producers reported lead times of 2-14 days

from inventory or 2-4 weeks for sales of product which is made to order. Importers reported lead times of

1-10 days for domestic inventory, 4-10 weeks for foreign manufacturer’s inventory, and 4-12 weeks for

sales of product which is made to order.

PRICE DATA

The Commission asked U.S. producers and importers of phosphate salts to provide quarterly data

for the total quantity and f.o.b. value of phosphate salts that was shipped to unrelated customers in the

U.S. market during the period January 2007 to December 2009. The products for which pricing data were

requested are as follows:

Product 1.--Dipotassium phosphate (DKP), anhydrous, food grade, whether granular or 

powder and regardless of packaging size

Product 2.--Dipotassium phosphate (DKP), anhydrous, technical grade, whether granular

or powder and regardless of packaging size

Product 3.--Monopotassium phosphate (MKP), anhydrous, food grade, whether granular 

or powder and regardless of packaging size
 10 ***.

 11 Data reported on a quantity basis.

 12 Data for commercial shipments of TKPP includes both anhydrous and solution form, but pricing data was

requested for TKPP in anhydrous form only to insure price comparability.

 13 Due to the large share of sales of imports from nonsubject sources in these markets, quantity data for

nonsubject countries as well as China and the United States are presented graphically in appendix D. As discussed

in Part IV of this report, imports from nonsubject countries comprised a substantial share of overall imports. 

V-5

Product 4.--Monopotassium phosphate (MKP), anhydrous, technical grade, whether 

granular or powder and regardless of packaging size

Product 5.--Tetrapotassium pyrophosphate (TKPP), anhydrous, food grade, whether 

granular or powder and regardless of packaging size

Product 6.--Tetrapotassium pyrophosphate (TKPP), anhydrous, technical grade, whether 

granular or powder and regardless of packaging size

Four U.S. producers provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested products including

one for both DKP and MKP, and three for TKPP.10 Twenty-four importers reported pricing data for sales

of these pricing products from China including 7 for DKP, 14 for MKP, and 17 for TKPP. Ten importers

reported pricing product data for product from nonsubject countries including 7 for DKP, 9 for MKP, and

4 for TKPP. Not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters. Pricing data for the six

products reported by these firms, shown in tables V-2 to V-7 and figures V-2 to V-7, accounted for 99.9

percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of DKP, for 100.0 percent for MKP, and for 47.4 percent for

TKPP.11 12 Pricing data for product from China accounted for 98.4 percent of U.S. imports of DKP from

China from January 2007 to December 2009, for 86.8 percent for MKP, and for 85.7 percent for TKPP.13

Table V-2

DKP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1, and

margins of underselling/(overselling), January 2007-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-3

DKP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2, and

margins of underselling, January 2007-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-4

MKP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3, and

margins of underselling/(overselling), January 2007-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-5

MKP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4, and

margins of underselling/(overselling), January 2007-December 2009

* * * * * * *
V-6

Table V-6

TKPP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 5, and

margins of underselling/(overselling), January 2007-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-7

TKPP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 61

, and

margins of underselling/(overselling), January 2007-December 2009

Period

United States China

Price

(per pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Price

(per pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

2007:

 January-March 0.59 4,554,950 *** *** ***

 April-June 0.58 5,179,050 *** *** ***

 July-September 0.61 4,532,550 *** *** ***

 October-December 0.61 4,280,150 *** *** ***

2008:

 January-March 0.72 4,275,050 *** *** ***

 April-June 0.95 4,458,850 *** *** ***

 July-September 1.23 4,264,350 *** *** ***

 October-December 1.37 2,235,700 *** *** ***

2009:

 January-March 1.49 1,880,000 *** *** ***

 April-June 1.29 1,906,050 *** *** ***

 July-September 1.20 2,463,900 *** *** ***

 October-December 1.14 2,067,200 *** *** ***

 1 Product 6.—Tetrapotassium pyrophosphate (TKPP), anhydrous, technical grade, whether granular or powder

and regardless of packaging size.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Figure V-2

DKP: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 1 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, by quarters, January 2007-December 2009 

* * * * * * *

Figure V-3

DKP: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 2 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, by quarters, January 2007-December 2009 

* * * * * * *
 14 The primary exception to this is food-grade MKP, which fluctuated noticeably in 2007. In particular, the ***

price for food-grade MKP beginning in *** is reflective of ***. Sales to ***. Email from ***, June 4, 2010. ***. 

Further detail regarding *** are presented in the following tabulation:

* * * * * * *

 15 Only four quarters of data are available for product 2, technical-grade DKP, so trends are not available. 

 16 This excludes product 2, food-grade DKP, for which only 2009 data were submitted. 

V-7

Figure V-4

MKP: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 3 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, by quarters, January 2007-December 2009 

* * * * * * *

Figure V-5

MKP: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 4 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, by quarters, January 2007-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-6

TKPP: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 5 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, by quarters, January 2007-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-7

TKPP: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 6,1

 as reported by U.S.

producers and importers, by quarters, January 2007-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Price Trends

Prices of all products increased substantially from their 2007 levels, consistent with higher input

costs. Pricing for the U.S.-produced products typically followed similar patterns.14 Prices generally

fluctuated in 2007, began rising in the first quarter of 2008, accelerated through the second and third

quarters, peaked in late 2008 or early 2009, and decreased in 2009, generally by the second quarter. The

fourth quarter of 2008 corresponds to the potassium miners’ strike in Canada, which is the source for

ICL’s potassium hydroxide. ***. Overall, prices for five of the six products increased from the first

quarter of 2007 to the fourth quarter of 2009, by amounts ranging from *** percent (***) to *** percent

(***). Prices for *** decreased *** percent from the first quarter of 2007 to the fourth quarter of 2009. 

For the most part, prices of phosphate salts products imported from China followed similar trends since

2007.15 Prices for imported Chinese products peaked in the second and third quarters of 2008, and began

decreasing in the first and second quarter of 2009. Unlike pricing for domestically produced food-grade

MKP and food-grade TKPP, prices of both imported products from China more than doubled in the fourth

quarter of 2009. Overall, prices for these six products increased from the first quarter of 2007 to the

fourth quarter of 2009, by amounts ranging from *** percent (***) to *** percent (***).16
V-8

Table V-8

DKP, MKP, and TKPP: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices for products 1-6 from the United

States and China

Item Number of

quarters

Low price 

(per pound)

High price

(per pound)

Change in price1

(percent)

Product 1

United States 12 $*** $*** ***

China 12 *** *** ***

Product 2

United States 12 *** *** ***

China 4 *** *** ***

Product 3

United States 12 *** *** ***

China 12 *** *** ***

Product 4

United States 12 *** *** ***

China 12 *** *** ***

Product 5

United States 12 *** *** ***

China 5 *** *** ***

Product 6

United States 12 0.58 1.49 92.4%

China 12 *** *** ***

 1 Percentage change from the first quarter in which price data were available to the last quarter in which price data

were available, based on unrounded data.

 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Price Comparisons

Subject imports from China undersold the U.S. product in 8 of 12 quarterly comparisons for foodgrade DKP, and in all 4 possible quarterly comparisons for technical-grade DKP. Subject imports from

China undersold the U.S. product of food-grade MKP in 10 of 12 quarterly comparisons, and in 11 of 12

possible quarterly comparisons for technical-grade MKP. Chinese food-grade TKPP undersold U.S.

product in all 5 quarterly comparisons, and in 7 of 12 quarterly comparisons for technical-grade TKPP. 

The largest margins of underselling occurred in comparisons involving technical-grade DKP, with an

average margin of *** percent; technical-grade MKP had the second largest margin of underselling, with

an average margin of *** percent; and food-grade MKP had the third largest margin of underselling, with

an average margin of *** percent. Moreover, technical-grade DKP and both food-grade and technicalgrade MKP exhibited the largest quarterly margins (peaking at over *** percent). Imports of phosphate

salts from China oversold the U.S. product in 12 quarterly comparisons, with margins of overselling

ranging from *** to *** percent. Overselling occurred predominantly in comparisons involving both

food-grade MKP and technical-grade TKPP. A summary of margins of underselling and overselling is

presented in table V-9. 
Table V-9

Certain potassium phosphate salts: Summary of underselling/(overselling) by product and by year

from China, January 2007-December 2009

* * * * * * *

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

In the preliminary and final phases of these investigations, the Commission requested U.S.

producers of certain potassium phosphate salts to report any instances of lost sales or revenues they

experienced due to competition from imports from China. During the preliminary phase of these

investigations, four producers reported having lost sales or revenues due to Chinese import competition

during this time period. During the final phase of these investigations, U.S. producers also reported an

additional 3 lost sales allegations for TKPP and 10 lost revenues allegations for TKPP and MKPP. 

The total value of the lost sales allegations for DKP was $*** involving *** pounds of DKP, for

MKP was $*** involving *** pounds of MKP, and for TKPP17 was $*** involving *** pounds of TKPP. 

The total value of the lost revenue allegations for TKPP was $*** involving *** pounds of TKPP, for

MKP was $*** involving *** pounds of MKP, and for DKP was $*** involving *** pounds of DKP. 

Staff contacted all purchasers listed in the allegations.18 All of the lost sales and lost revenues allegations

are presented in tables V-10 and V-11. More detail is provided for certain allegations thereafter.

Table V-10

DKP, MKP, and TKPP: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations

* * * * * * *

Table V-11

DKP, MKP, and TKPP: U.S. producers’ lost revenue allegations

* * * * * * *

DKP Lost Sales and Lost Revenues

***.

MKP Lost Sales and Lost Revenues

***.

TKPP Lost Sales and Lost Revenues

***.

 17 *** lost sale allegation is not included in lost sales totals because the quantity was unknown. *** reported a

lost sale of *** per pound, and a rejected U.S. price of ***. 

 18 A number of the allegations involved multiple locations for a given purchaser.

V-9
 19 Neither ***, ***, nor *** was identified in a domestic producer lost sale or lost revenue allegation for MKP.

V-10

General Information on Purchasing Behavior

In addition, purchasers responding to lost sales and lost revenue allegations were asked whether

they shifted their purchases of phosphate salts from U.S. producers to suppliers of phosphate salts from

China and if U.S. producers had reduced their prices because of imported product from China (table V-10). 

One of 24 responding purchasers, ***, reported shifting from U.S. product to Chinese product for both

DKP and MKP because of price; two purchasers, ***, reported shifting from U.S. product to Chinese

product for MKP because of price.19 However, *** reported that “MKP is not an active item for us

currently, our price is still a list price”. One firm, ***, reported that U.S. producers had reduced prices of

DKP, MKP, and TKPP because of imports. *** reported seeing “***”. 

Table V-10

DKP, MKP, and TKPP: Purchasers’ responses to questions about shifting purchases and Chinese

prices influencing U.S. prices, by product

DKP MKP TKPP

yes no yes no yes no

Shifted from U.S. to Chinese product 1 23 3 21 7 18

Shifted because of price 103061

U.S. producers reduced price to compete with China 1 17 1 17 6 12

Source: Compiled from purchasers’ responses to lost sales and lost revenue allegations.

 

*** reported shifting from U.S. to Chinese TKPP product, but reported that the reason for the shift

was not due to price, but in order to support “***”. *** reported shifting TKPP purchases due to price;

however, it reported this shift did not work out because of quality concerns. The other four purchasers

reporting changes did not explain why. ***, responding for TKPP, reported that, without imported product

from China, domestic prices would still be very high.
 1

 All four companies’ fiscal years end on December 31. 

 2

 PCS, which produced TKPP by *** operations, submitted a response for both operations. PCS manufactures

TKPP at its plant in Cincinnati, OH. Approximately *** percent of PCS’s production of TKPP is ***.

 3

 Petition, p. 5.

 4

 PCS manufactured and sold ***.

 5

 Petition, p. 5.

VI-1

PART VI: FINANCIAL CONDITION OF U.S. PRODUCERS

BACKGROUND

ICL, Innophos, PCS, and Prayon1

 provided usable financial results for their individual operations

on DKP, MKP, and TKPP.2

 These firms are believed to account for all of the domestic industry’s sales

and production during 2009.3

 Anhydrous DKP is produced solely by ICL; MKP is produced by ICL and

PCS;4

 and TKPP is produced by ICL and Prayon, as well as by PCS ***.5 *** was the *** to report

internal consumption of MKP and TKPP (*** percent in terms of total aggregate net sales value in 2009).

*** reported transfers to related firms of all three products (*** percent in terms of total aggregate net

sales values in 2009). 

OPERATIONS ON DKP, MKP, and TKPP

Results of the U.S. producers on their DKP, MKP, and TKPP operations are presented in tables

VI-1, VI-2, and VI-3, respectively, which include data on quantity and value bases, as well as per-pound

and operating income (loss) to net sales ratios.

The two chemicals in this proceeding with the smallest volume of domestic sales are DKP and

MKP (tables VI-1 and VI-2). While net sales quantities and values of DKP increased between 2007 and

2009, operating income decreased, declining to an operating loss in 2009, due primarily to the large

increase in per-pound total cost, in spite of an increased per-pound sales values. Operating income was

much lower in July-December (the second half) of 2009 compared to January-June (the first half) of 2009

even though sales quantities and values increased. This was due to the substantial decrease in per-unit

sales price and the simultaneous increase in per-unit cost of goods sold (“COGS”).

Even though net sales quantities of MKP decreased between 2007 and 2009, net sales values and

operating income increased by all measures as the increase in per-pound net sales price was greater than

the increase in per-pound total cost during this period. However, the opposite was true in comparing

results for the second half of 2009 and the first half of 2009, as net sales quantities increased slightly

while net sales values were lower, and per-pound sales values decreased while per-pound total costs

increased, resulting in *** in the second half of 2009. 

Aggregate income-and-loss data for ICL, Innophos, PCS (***), and Prayon on their TKPP

operations are presented in table VI-3. The financial results of the producers on their TKPP operations

improved from 2007 to 2008 (reflecting of a large increase in per-pound net sales ($0.61 to $0.97 per

pound) that exceeded the increase in per-pound total costs (from $0.60 to $0.86 per pound). The results

deteriorated substantially from 2008 to 2009, as an operating income of $3.9 million in 2008 fell to an

operating loss of nearly $2.0 million in 2009. The net sales values slightly decreased despite higher sales

quantities from the first half of 2009 to the second half of 2009, reflecting a decrease of per-pound sales

values which eventually resulted in a deepened operating loss in the second half of 2009 (as the change in

per-pound net sales from $1.29 to $1.07 exceeded the decrease in per-pound total cost from $1.35 to

$1.17.
VI-2

Per-pound average selling prices and per-pound total costs for MKP and DKP were consistently

higher compared to those for TKPP (*** was the highest and *** was the second), and their costs

increased continuously during the period, particularly in 2008, due mainly to the increase of raw material

costs. The operating income and per-pound profitability for all three products fluctuated between 2007

and 2009, but by the second half of 2009, all three products were generating ***. 

Table VI-1

DKP: Results of operations of U.S. producer, fiscal years 2007-09, January-June 2009, and JulyDecember 2009

* * * * * * *

Table VI-2

MKP: Results of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2007-09, January-June 2009, and JulyDecember 2009

* * * * * * *
VI-3

Table VI-3

TKPP: Results of operations of ICL, Innophos, PCS, and Prayon, fiscal years 2007-09, JanuaryJune 2009, and July-December 2009

Item

Fiscal year 2009

2007 2008 2009 Jan-June July-Dec

Net sales: Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Commercial sales 41,320 33,900 24,775 11,251 13,524

Internal consumption 59 46 92 52 40

Related transfers 497 407000

 Total net sales 41,876 34,353 24,867 11,303 13,564

Net sales: Value ($1,000)

Commercial sales 25,085 33,042 28,964 14,492 14,472

Internal consumption 34 31 145 82 63

Related transfers 271 241000

 Total net sales 25,390 33,314 29,109 14,574 14,535

COGS 22,577 26,226 28,085 13,766 14,327

Gross profit 2,813 7,088 1,024 808 208

SG&A expenses 2,675 3,139 2,997 1,461 1,537

Operating income (loss) 138 3,949 (1,973) (653) (1,329)

Interest expense 163 174 78 57 21

Other expense 107 98 10 7 3

Other income 60 14862

Net income (loss) (72) 3,691 (2,053) (711) (1,351)

Depreciation/amortization 899 844 821 433 388

Cash flow 827 4,535 (1,232) (278) (963)

Value (per pound)

Net sales $0.61 $0.97 $1.17 $1.29 $1.07

COGS 0.54 0.76 1.13 1.22 1.06

Gross profit 0.07 0.21 0.04 0.07 0.02

SG&A expenses 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.13 0.11

Operating income (loss) 0.00 0.12 (0.08) (0.06) (0.10)

Ratio to net sales (percent)

COGS 88.9 78.7 96.5 94.5 98.6

Gross profit 11.1 21.3 3.5 5.5 1.4

SG&A expenses 10.5 9.4 10.3 10.0 10.6

Operating income (loss) 0.5 11.9 (6.8) (4.5) (9.1)

Number of firms reporting

Operating losses 20332

Data 44444

Note.–revenue, cost, and income related to PCS’s *** operations appear separately in table VI-9.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 6

 Throughout this section, the per-unit values are presented in three decimal points rather than in the usual two

decimal points because two decimal points may not indicate any changes in the per-unit values due to rounding.

VI-4

Selected financial data, by firm, are presented in table VI-4 for TKPP6 (since, as noted above,

only ICL produces anhydrous DKP and commercial quantities of anhydrous MKP, although PCS 

produced ***). While *** in 2009, *** for the year and, indeed, *** of the period for which data were

collected. ***.

Table VI-4

TKPP: Results of operations of ICL, Innophos, PCS, and Prayon, by firm, fiscal years 2007-09,

January-June 2009, and July-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table VI-5

TKPP: Per-pound costs of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2007-09, January-June 2009, and JulyDecember 2009

Item

Fiscal year 2009

2007 2008 2009 Jan-June July-Dec

COGS: Value (per pound)

 Raw materials $0.345 $0.480 $0.932 $1.002 $0.873

 Direct labor 0.067 0.071 0.083 0.091 0.076

 Factory overhead 0.127 0.212 0.115 0.125 0.107

 Total COGS 0.539 0.763 1.129 1.218 1.056

 SG&A expenses 0.064 0.091 0.121 0.129 0.113

 Total cost 0.603 0.855 1.250 1.347 1.170

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

A variance analysis showing the effects of prices and volume on the producers’ sales of DKP,

MKP, and TKPP, and of costs and volume on their total costs, is shown in tables VI-6, VI-7, and VI-8,

respectively. The analysis is summarized at the bottom of the table. In the case of DKP (table VI-6), the

decrease in operating income between 2007 and 2009 was the result of unit costs/expenses increasing at a

higher rate than unit prices. With respect to MKP (table VI-7), the increase in operating income was the

result of unit prices increasing more than unit costs/expenses. The analysis of TKPP (table VI-8) 

indicates that the decrease in operating income ($2.1 million) between 2007 and 2009 was attributable

mainly to the negative effect of increased costs/expenses ($16.1 million) which was offset by the positive

effect of increased price ($14.0 million).
VI-5

Table VI-6

DKP: Variance analysis of operations of U.S. producer, fiscal years 2007-09, January-June 2009,

and July-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table VI-7

MKP: Variance analysis of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2007-09, January-June 2009,

and July-December 2009

* * * * * * *
VI-6

Table VI-8

TKPP: Variance analysis of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2007-09, January-June 

2009, and July-December 2009

Item

Between fiscal years 2009

2007-09 2007-08 2008-09 1H09-2H09

Value ($1,000)

Net sales:

 Price variance 14,032 12,485 4,994 (2,954)

 Volume variance (10,313) (4,561) (9,199) 2,915

 Total net sales variance 3,719 7,924 (4,205) (39)

Cost of sales:

 Cost variance (14,678) (7,705) (9,101) 2,193

 Volume variance 9,170 4,056 7,242 (2,754)

 Total cost variance (5,508) (3,649) (1,859) (561)

Gross profit variance (1,789) 4,275 (6,064) (600)

SG&A expenses:

 Expense variance (1,409) (945) (725) 216

 Volume variance 1,087 481 867 (292)

 Total SG&A variance (322) (464) 142 (76)

Operating income variance (2,111) 3,811 (5,922) (676)

Summarized as:

 Price variance 14,032 12,485 4,994 (2,954)

 Net cost/expense variance (16,087) (8,650) (9,826) 2,409

 Net volume variance (56) (25) (1,090) (131)

Note.--Unfavorable variances are shown in parentheses; all others are favorable. The data are comparable to

changes in operating income as presented in table VI-3.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

In addition to the TKPP operations discussed above, there is also a *** in which ***. *** TKPP

for *** and also produced ***. Based upon questionnaire responses, *** accounted for approximately

*** percent of the total combined value of TKPP (including *** revenue) in 2009. ***. The incomeand-loss data for *** are presented in table VI-9. The results are in contrast to the *** results contained

in table VI-3. As *** revenues of the *** operations increased from 2007 to 2009, *** operating income

also increased during the same periods, because the increase in *** revenue was greater than the increase

of *** costs.
VI-7

The differences between *** operations becomes evident when the financial results of the

different companies are reviewed. Using 2009 data as an example, the unit sales revenue reported by the

*** producers is $*** per pound for TKPP, while the costs include the cost of phosphoric acid and KOH,

the costs of processing ($*** per pound), and SG&A costs ($*** per pound). These are in contrast to the

financial results reported by ***, where the revenues are *** per pound), and the costs are *** per pound)

and SG&A expenses *** per pound). 

Table VI-9

TKPP: Results of *** operations, fiscal years 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Aggregate income-and-loss data on ICL's, PCS's, and Prayon's production and sales of TKPP are

presented in table VI-10. The data in this table differ from the data in tables VI-3 and VI-4 in that ***. 

The sales, cost of goods sold, and SG&A expense average unit value (“AUV”) data in table VI-10 are

lower than the AUV data in table VI-3 because PCS's data for its *** in table VI-10 ***. While the

period-to-period trends for sales quantities and values are essentially the same for both sets of data (tables

VI-3 and VI-10), the profitability data are quite different. This, in turn, is a reflection of the substitution

of *** (see table VI-9) for *** (see table VI-4).

Table VI-10

TKPP: Results of combined operations of U.S. producers excluding *** and including ***, fiscal

years 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December 2009

* * * * * * *

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES

The responding firms’ aggregate data on capital expenditures and research and development

(R&D) expenses are presented in table VI-11. *** reported capital expenditures for TKPP (***) during

the period for which data were collected. *** reported R&D expenses. Capital expenditures, by firm, for

each product, are presented in table VI-12. Capital expenditures fluctuated over the period, falling *** in

2008, then partially recovering (MKP excepted) in 2009. R&D expenses remained relatively stable over

the period.

Table VI-11

DKP, MKP, and TKPP: Capital expenditures and R&D expenses by U.S. producers, fiscal years

2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table VI-12

DKP, MKP, and TKPP: Capital expenditures by U.S. producers, by products and firms, fiscal years

2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December 2009 

* * * * * * *
VI-8

ASSETS AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

U.S. producers were requested to provide data on their assets used in the production and sales of

DKP, MKP, and TKPP during the period for which data were collected to assess their return on

investment (“ROI”). Because sales values and the allocated assets of DKP and MKP are too small for

meaningful tables for ROI, they are not presented separately. Nonetheless, the trend of ROI over the

period was the same as the trend of the operating income margin to net sales shown in tables VI-1 and VI2. Data on the U.S. producers’ total assets and their ROI for TKPP are presented in table VI-13. 

The value of total assets for TKPP increased from 2007 to 2008, due to the increased values of 

accounts receivable and inventories, and decreased from 2008 to 2009 because the values of accounts

receivable and inventories decreased as did the original cost and net book value of property, plant, and

equipment (“PPE”). The return on investment decreased substantially from 2008 to 2009, from a positive

14.1 percent in 2008 to a negative 9.0 percent in 2009. The trend of ROI for TKPP over the period was

the same as the trend of the operating income margin to net sales in table VI-3.
VI-9

Table VI-13

TKPP: Value of assets and return on investment of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2007-09

Item

Fiscal year

2007 2008 2009

Value of assets: Value ($1,000)

1. Current assets:

 A. Cash and equivalents 688 538 774

 B. Trade receivables (net) 3,802 5,120 3,765

 C. Inventories 3,455 7,443 5,577

 D. All other current 262 2,034 1,166

 Total current 8,207 15,135 11,282

2. Non-current assets:

 A. Productive facilities1 15,961 15,266 14,257

 B. Productive facilities (net)2

 12,413 11,106 9,479

 C. Other non-current 2,257 1,710 1,228

 Total non-current 14,670 12,816 10,707

 Total assets 22,877 27,951 21,989

 Value ($1,000)

Operating income (loss) 138 3,949 (1,973)

Ratio of operating income to total assets (percent)

Return on investment 0.6 14.1 (9.0)

 1 Original cost of property, plant, and equipment (PPE).

 2

 Net book value of PPE (original cost less accumulated depreciation). 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any actual negative effects since January

1, 2007, on their return on investment, growth, investment, ability to raise capital, existing development

and production efforts (including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the

product), or the scale of capital investments as a result of imports of certain phosphate salts from China. 

Their responses for DKP, MKP, and TKPP are as follows:

ICL.–***.

Innophos.–***.

PCS.–***.

Prayon.–***.
VI-10

The Commission also requested U.S. producers to describe any anticipated negative impact of

imports of certain phosphate salts from China. Their responses are as follows:

ICL.–***.

Innophos.–***.

PCS.–***.

Prayon.–***.
PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS AND INFORMATION ON

NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

Section 771(7)(F)(i) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i)) provides that--

In determining whether an industry in the United States is threatened

with material injury by reason of imports (or sales for importation) of the

subject merchandise, the Commission shall consider, among other

relevant economic factors1

--

(I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be

presented to it by the administering authority as to the nature of the

subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a

subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement), and

whether imports of the subject merchandise are likely to increase,

(II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial

increase in production capacity in the exporting country indicating the

likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise

into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export

markets to absorb any additional exports,

(III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of

imports of the subject merchandise indicating the likelihood of

substantially increased imports,

(IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices

that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on

domestic prices, and are likely to increase demand for further imports,

(V) inventories of the subject merchandise,

(VI) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in the

foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise,

are currently being used to produce other products,

(VII) in any investigation under this title which involves imports of both

a raw agricultural product (within the meaning of paragraph (4)(E)(iv))

and any product processed from such raw agricultural product, the

likelihood that there will be increased imports, by reason of product

shifting, if there is an affirmative determination by the Commission 

 1 Section 771(7)(F)(ii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii)) provides that “The Commission shall consider

{these factors} . . . as a whole in making a determination of whether further dumped or subsidized imports are

imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would occur unless an order is issued or a suspension

agreement is accepted under this title. The presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to

consider . . . shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the determination. Such a determination

may not be made on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition.”

VII-1
under section 705(b)(1) or 735(b)(1) with respect to either the raw

agricultural product or the processed agricultural product (but not both),

(VIII) the actual and potential negative effects on the existing

development and production efforts of the domestic industry, including

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

like product, and

(IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability

that there is likely to be material injury by reason of imports (or sale for

importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it is actually

being imported at the time).2

Information on the nature of the subsidies was presented earlier in this report; information on the

volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts IV and V; and information

on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S. producers’ existing development and

production efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on inventories of the subject merchandise; foreign

producers’ operations, including the potential for “product-shifting;” any other threat indicators, if

applicable; and any dumping in third-country markets, follows. Also presented in this section of the

report is information obtained for consideration by the Commission on nonsubject countries and the

global market.

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

The petition identified 60 alleged producers of phosphate salts in China. Tables VII-1 and VII-2

provide information on 13 Chinese firms that supplied usable data.3

Table VII-1

Certain potassium phosphate salts: Chinese firms’ reported 2009 production, exports to the

United States, and share of exports to the United States

* * * * * * *

 2 Section 771(7)(F)(iii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(iii)) further provides that, in antidumping

investigations, “. . . the Commission shall consider whether dumping in the markets of foreign countries (as

evidenced by dumping findings or antidumping remedies in other WTO member markets against the same class or

kind of merchandise manufactured or exported by the same party as under investigation) suggests a threat of material

injury to the domestic industry.”

 3

 *** did not supply usable questionnaire responses (the data sections were left blank). Three additional Chinese

firms reported production of DKP, MKP, or TKPP during the preliminary phase of these investigations and their

responses have been included. During the preliminary phase, data were collected for January-June 2009, projected

2009, and projected 2010. As a result, in the final phase investigations the Commission staff has used projected

2009 data for full-year 2009 data and subtracted January-June 2009 data from projected 2009 for July-December

2009 data. 

VII-2
Table VII-2

DKP, MKP, and TKPP: Chinese firms’ production/exports

Firm DKP MKP TKPP

Lianyungang Mupro Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. X

Mianyang Aostar Phosphorus Chemical Industry Co.,

Ltd. X

Onward International Trade Co., Ltd. X

Reephos Chemical Co., Ltd. X X X

Santai Aostar Phosphate Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. X

SD BNI (CN) Co., Ltd. X X X

Shifang Anda Chemicals Co., Ltd. X

Sichuan Blue Sword Chemical (Group) Co., Ltd. X X X

Sichuan Shifang Jinda Chemical Company Limited X

Sichuan Shifang Juxintai Chemical Co., Ltd. X

Thermphos (China) Food Additive Co., Ltd. X X X

Wenda Co., Ltd. X X

Yunnan Newswift Co. Ltd. X

Total 6 10 6

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

VII-3
In general, responding Chinese foreign producers did not report producing other products on the

same equipment used in the production of the individual potassium phosphate salts that are at issue in this

proceeding. *** reported that it produced DKP and MKP in equal parts on the same equipment. ***

reported that it produces nonsubject products diammonium phosphate (DAP) and monoammonium

phosphate (MAP) on the same equipment that it produces MKP. ***. *** reported that it produced

DKP, as well as sodium acid pyrophosphate (SAPP), on the same equipment.

Coverage of export data reported by foreign producers compared to import data reported for 2009

in Part IV are 99.5 percent for DKP; 48.0 percent for MKP; and 8.2 percent for TKPP. Foreign

producer/exporter questionnaires were not received from the largest four Chinese exporters of goods

under HTS subheading 2835.39.10, TKPP, according to data compiled by Customs. These exporters are

***.

Tables VII-3 through VII-5 present data, by product, for the thirteen responding firms during

2007-09, January-June 2009, July-December 2009, and forecasts for 2010 and 2011. *** were the largest

reporting Chinese producers, accounting for *** and *** percent, respectively of reported Chinese

potassium phosphate salt production. *** were the largest reporting Chinese exporters, accounting for

about *** percent and *** percent, respectively, of reported Chinese potassium phosphate salt exports to

the United States. 

Both the petitioners and respondent provided additional information in their posthearing briefs

addressing which Chinese producers are able to produce certain potassium phosphate salts for food grade

or technical grade. The petitioners identified Thermphos and SD BNI (CN) Co., Ltd. (“SD BNI”) as joint

venture Chinese producers that produce food grade DKP, MKP, and TKPP,4

 ***.5 The respondent

identified ***.6 7

Table VII-3

DKP: Chinese production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2007-09, JanuaryJune 2009, July-December 2009, and projected 2010-11

* * * * * * *

 4 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, part II, pp. 23-24 and exhibits 7 and 8. Petitioners also identified Norwest as a

joint venture Chinese producer that produces food grade MKP. Petitioners’ posthearing brief, part II, p. 24 and

exhibit 9. The Commission did not receive a questionnaire response from Norwest.

 5

 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, part II, p. 27.

 6

 Respondent’s posthearing brief, pp. 11-12. ***. Ibid. 

 7

 The respondent also identified ***. Respondent’s posthearing brief, p. 12. The respondent also provided

correspondence from *** indicating that the *** certificate for *** had been withdrawn in ***. E-mail from ***,

June 17, 2010.

VII-4
Table VII-4

MKP: Chinese production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2007-09, January-June 2009,

July-December 2009, and projected 2010-11

Item

Actual experience Projections 1

2007 2008 2009

JanuaryJuneJulyDecember

20102 2009 2009 2011

Quantity (1,000 lbs. dry weight)

Capacity 69,142 71,126 71,126 34,802 36,324 71,126 (3

)

Production 46,956 53,949 49,673 23,749 25,924 46,130 (3

)

End of period inventories *** *** *** *** *** *** (3

)

Shipments:

Internal consumption 2,274 1,738 1,278 604 674 2,183 (3

)

Home market 15,726 14,713 16,270 8,037 8,233 17,108 (3

)

Exports to--

The United States 4,319 9,713 4,973 2,339 2,635 1,962 (3

)

All other markets 23,874 27,605 27,052 13,157 13,895 25,328 (3

)

Total exports 28,193 37,318 32,025 15,496 16,530 27,290 (3

)

Total shipments 46,193 53,770 49,573 24,137 25,437 46,581 (3

)

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 67.9 75.9 69.8 68.2 71.4 64.9 (3

)

Inventories to production *** *** *** *** *** *** (3

)

Inventories to total

shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** (3

)

Share of total quantity of 

shipments:

Internal consumption 4.9 3.2 2.6 2.5 2.6 4.7 (3

)

Home market 34.0 27.4 32.8 33.3 32.4 36.7 (3

)

Exports to--

The United States 9.3 18.1 10.0 9.7 10.4 4.2 (3

)

All other markets 51.7 51.3 54.6 54.5 54.6 54.4 (3

)

All export

markets 61.0 69.4 64.6 64.2 65.0 58.6 (3

)

 1 According to ***, market demand for MKP is decreasing because of the economic crisis.

 2

 Projected 2010 data was not provided by ***.

 3

 Projected 2011 data was provided by ***. *** projected that it would not produce MKP in 2011. 

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Note.--Data in this table include shipments by the trading company ***. Total shipments have been adjusted to avoid double counting of

domestic shipments by Chinese producers to the trading company as the volume in question was ultimately exported.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table VII-5

TKPP: Chinese production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2007-09, January-June 2009,

July-December 2009, and projected 2010-11

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ CURRENT ORDERS

The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the

importation of certain potassium phosphate salts from China after December 31, 2009.

VII-5
Table VII-6

Certain potassium phosphate salts: U.S. importers’ orders for delivery after December 31, 2009

Item Quantity (1,000 lbs. dry weight) 

DKP ***

MKP ***

TKPP ***

Total 177

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. INVENTORIES OF PHOSPHATE SALTS

U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of U.S. imports as reported are presented in tables VII7 through VII-9. Inventories of Chinese DKP, MKP, and TKPP increased in absolute terms between

2007 and 2009. Inventories of all other sources of DKP and TKPP likewise were higher between 2007

and 2009. All other sources of inventories of DKP peaked in 2008, whereas, all other sources of

inventories of TKPP peaked in 2009. Inventories of MKP from sources other than China declined from

2007 to 2009 with the lowest level of inventories being reported in 2008. 

Inventories of DKP from China were the highest in 2009. *** drove the increase in inventories

(second half 2009 inventories were *** pounds). Inventories of MKP from China increased in the second

half of 2009 as *** increased its holdings to *** pounds. Inventories of TKPP from China were the

highest in 2009, as ***’s inventories increased to *** pounds in the second half of 2009.

Table VII-7

DKP: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and JulyDecember 2009

* * * * * * *

Table VII-8

MKP: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and JulyDecember 2009

Item

Calendar year Jan.-June July-Dec.

2007 2008 2009 2009 2009

China:

Inventories (1,000 lbs. dry weight) *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio of inventories to imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources:

Inventories (1,000 lbs. dry weight) *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio of inventories to imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

All sources:

Inventories (1,000 lbs. dry weight) 9,865 8,154 8,783 2,697 8,783

Ratio of inventories to imports (percent) 21.6 18.2 23.6 7.9 21.9

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 26.3 19.4 25.8 6.3 34.8

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

VII-6
Table VII-9

TKPP: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and

July-December 2009

Item

Calendar year Jan.-June July-Dec.

2007 2008 2009 2009 2009

China:

Inventories (1,000 lbs. dry weight) *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio of inventories to imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources:

Inventories (1,000 lbs. dry weight) *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio of inventories to imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

All sources:

Inventories (1,000 lbs. dry weight) 1,058 1,396 2,167 1,223 2,167

Ratio of inventories to imports (percent) 23.9 28.2 35.8 25.7 29.7

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 25.8 30.4 41.2 25.0 38.5

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY INVESTIGATIONS 

IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

None of the parties to these investigations reported dumping findings or antidumping remedies

imposed on potassium phosphate salts in third-country markets. 

INFORMATION ON NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

Production and Exports of Potassium Phosphates

Presented in table VII-10 are selected foreign producers’ trade data for 2009.

Table VII-10

Potassium phosphate salts: Leading nonsubject foreign producers’ trade data, 2009

* * * * * * *

Shown in table VII-11 are total export data, in metric tons, by leading countries of export, for

ortho potassium phosphates as compiled by the Global Trade Atlas for 2009.8

 Trade data for Israel are

not provided by that publication. ***.9

 Trade data for potassium phosphates exported from France appear

to be in a broad basket category and individual trade data to countries to which France exports potassium

phosphates are not, therefore, available. 

 8 The HS number for the ortho potassium phosphate chemicals in the Global Trade Atlas is 2835.24. These

chemicals are believed to be predominantly MKP and DKP. TKPP is classified in another basket category and is not

included in the tabulation below.

 9

 As noted, Israeli export data are not compiled by the World Trade Atlas. ***.

VII-7
VII-11

Ortho potassium phosphates: Global Trade Atlas exports, by leading country, 20091

Country Exports (metric tons)

China 45,498

Belgium 7,677

Germany 6,566

United States 4,111

France2 4,103

Mexico 4,025

Netherlands 1,991

Singapore 1,784

Czech Rep. 1,131

Lithuania 335

Italy 277

Poland 277

South Korea 250

Japan 224

Hong Kong 218

Spain 217

Malaysia 182

Canada 162

Austria 159

Taiwan 150

UK 105

Thailand 95

Jordan 93

 1 Israeli export data are not compiled by the World Trade Atlas. ***.

 2

 In the Global Trade Atlas, export data for France for the ortho potassium phosphates are not reported. This information can,

however, be obtained indirectly from import data for these chemicals provided by partner countries with France.

Source: Global Trade Atlas (2835.24).

Additional Demand Considerations

In many of the more affluent markets such as the United States, environmental bans and

restrictions have resulted in sharp reductions of consumption of phosphate products. In less affluent

markets, regulations have been less restrictive and consumption of phosphate products for use in cleaning

applications has been growing, especially since population and per capita use has been increasing. 

Demand outside the United States

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked how demand outside the United States has

changed for each of the certain potassium phosphate salts since 2007.

DKP– U.S. producer *** reported that demand for DKP outside the United States had remained

the same. Four of eleven responding importers reported that demand had not changed, three importers

reported that demand had increased, three importers reported that demand fluctuated, and one importer

reported a decrease in demand since 2007. U.S. importer *** stated that the increase is due to the

growing consumption of potassium phosphates in China due to the increase demand in fertilizer.10 

Five of seven responding purchasers reported no change in demand outside the United States, one

reported that demand has increased, and one purchaser reported that demand has decreased. 

 10 *** importer questionnaire responses, section III-19b.

VII-8
MKP– U.S. producer *** reported that demand for MKP outside the United States had remained

the same. Five of 13 responding importers reported that demand had fluctuated, four importers reported

that demand had remained unchanged, three importers reported that demand had increased, and one

importer reported a decrease in demand since 2007. Importers stated that growth in developing countries,

an increased demand for fertilizers, and a global increase in GNP were the factors contributing to

increased demand for MKP outside the United States.

Four of ten responding purchasers reported that demand for MKP has increased, four reported no

change in demand, and two reported that demand outside the United States remained the same. Of the

purchasers that reported an increase in demand outside the United States, increased fertilizer demand and

commodity prices were the principal factors listed. 

TKPP- U.S. producers *** reported that demand for TKPP outside the United States had

remained the same. Six of 14 responding importers reported that demand had not changed, four reported

fluctuating demand, three importers reported an increased demand, and one importer reported that

demand for TKPP had decreased outside the United States. 

Seven of nine responding purchasers reported no change in demand for TKPP, and two reported

an increase in demand outside the United States.

Additional Supply Considerations

As discussed previously, a key trend affecting the global market and industry has been a shortage

of raw materials – especially phosphoric acid in 2008 – resulting in a surge of prices. This price surge

has reportedly subsided somewhat in 2009 but not necessarily to pre-2008 levels.11

Although there are other sources of supply for the potassium phosphate salts that comprise the

subject merchandise in these investigations, the leading nonsubject suppliers to the U.S. and other

markets are Israel, Germany, and France (TKPP), and Israel, Mexico, Germany, and France (DKP and

MKP). Other global suppliers with less of a presence in the U.S. market include Belgium, Japan, and the

United Kingdom.12 

The following information on the leading suppliers to the United States of potassium phosphate

salts is drawn largely from *** 

In Mexico, Innophos and Mexichem produce industrial phosphates. Based on information

provided by ***. Nevertheless, the Global Trade Atlas reported that exports of the potassium phosphates

from Mexico were about 4,000 metric tons in 2009.

There is robust production of MKP, DKP, and TKPP in Western Europe. Western European

producers of the potassium phosphates, include Prayon in Belgium and France; and BK Giulini Chemie,

Chemische Fabrik Budenheim and Thermphos in Germany. ***. ***.13

Israel has become an important participant in the global phosphate industry, taking advantage of

rich phosphate rock deposits located in the Negev.14 Two Israeli companies, Israel Chemicals Limited

(“ICL (Israel)”) and Haifa Chemicals, LTD have emerged as major producers of phosphate specialty

products both technical and food grade. On its web site, Haifa Chemicals lists 25 specialized phosphate

chemicals that it produces including MKP, DKP, and TKPP. In anticipation of potentially strong market

growth, Haifa Chemicals Ltd., has constructed a MKP plant near Haifa, Israel.15 The plant utilizes potash

rather than KOH as a raw material, thereby saving significantly on costs. ***. ICL is a global supplier

 11 ***.

 12 Analysis obtained from trade data provided by the Department of Commerce.

 13 ***.

 14 “http://www.icl-perfproductslp.com,” retrieved October 26, 2009.

 15 BC Insight, http:/bcinsight.com, issue ID=77.

VII-9
and the parent company of ICL Performance Chemicals, headquartered in St. Louis, MO, a leading

producer of phosphate chemicals in the United States. ICL (Israel) through its subsidiaries/partners has

manufacturing and production facilities in other countries as well, including Argentina, Australia, Austria,

Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom. ICL

(Israel) has also continued to expand its operations within Israel itself. 

VII-10
APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

A-1

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices 16509 

1For purposes of these investigations, the 

Department of Commerce has defined the subject 

merchandise as anhydrous Monopotassium 

Phosphate (MKP), anhydrous Dipotassium 

Phosphate (DKP) and Tetrapotassium 

Pyrophosphate (TKPP), whether anhydrous or in 

solution (collectively ‘‘phosphate salts’’). Certain 

Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 12508, March 

16, 2010. 

treatment unless the information has 

already been granted such treatment 

during the proceedings. All such 

requests should be directed to the 

Secretary of the Commission and must 

include a full statement of the reasons 

why the Commission should grant such 

treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents 

for which confidential treatment by the 

Commission is sought will be treated 

accordingly. All nonconfidential written 

submissions will be available for public 

inspection at the Office of the Secretary. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in 

section 210.42–43 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42–43). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: March 25, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7279 Filed 3–31–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[USITC SE–10–005] 

Government in the Sunshine Act 

Meeting Notice 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United 

States International Trade Commission. 

TIME AND DATE: March 31, 2010 at 11 

a.m. 

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 

(202) 205–2000. 

STATUS: Open to the public. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Agenda for future meetings: none. 

2. Minutes. 

3. Ratification List. 

4. Inv. No. 731–TA–1059 (Review) 

(Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof 

from China)—briefing and vote. (The 

Commission is currently scheduled to 

transmit its determination and 

Commissioners’ opinions to the 

Secretary of Commerce on or before 

April 15, 2010.) 

5. Outstanding action jackets: 

(1) Document No. GC–10–028 

concerning Inv. No. 337–TA–644 

(Certain Composite Wear Components 

and Products Containing Same). 

(2) Document No. GC–10–031 

concerning Inv. No. 337–TA–568 

(Certain Products and Pharmaceutical 

Compositions Containing Recombinant 

Human Erythropoietin). 

(3) Document No. GC–10–034 

concerning Inv. No. 337–TA–668 

(Certain Non-Shellfish Derived 

Glucosamine and Products Containing 

Same). 

In accordance with Commission 

policy, subject matter listed above, not 

disposed of at the scheduled meeting, 

may be carried over to the agenda of the 

following meeting. Earlier notification 

of this meeting was not possible. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: March 29, 2010. 

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7403 Filed 3–30–10; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigations Nos. 701–TA–473 (Final) and 

731–TA–1173 (Final)] 

Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts 

From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of the final phase of 

countervailing duty and antidumping 

investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of the final 

phase of countervailing duty 

investigation No. 701–TA–473 (Final) 

under section 705(b) of the Tariff Act of 

1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) (the Act) and 

the final phase of antidumping 

investigation No. 731–TA–1173 (Final) 

under section 735(b) of the Act (19 

U.S.C. 1673d(b)) to determine whether 

an industry in the United States is 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury, or the establishment of 

an industry in the United States is 

materially retarded, by reason of 

subsidized and less-than-fair-value 

imports from China of certain potassium 

phosphate salts, provided for in 

subheadings 2835.24.00 and 2835.39.10 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States.1

For further information concerning 

the conduct of this phase of the 

investigations, hearing procedures, and 

rules of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: March 16, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Angela M. W. Newell (202–708–5409), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—The final phase of 

these investigations is being scheduled 

as a result of affirmative preliminary 

determinations by the Department of 

Commerce that certain benefits which 

constitute subsidies within the meaning 

of section 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1671b) are being provided to 

manufacturers, producers, or exporters 

in China of certain potassium phosphate 

salts, and that such products are being 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value within the meaning of section 733 

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The 

investigations were requested in a 

petition filed on September 29, 2009, by 

ICL Performance Products, LP, St. Louis, 

MO and Prayon, Inc. Augusta, GA. 

Participation in the investigations and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the final phase of these 

investigations as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

section 201.11 of the Commission’s 

rules, no later than 21 days prior to the 

hearing date specified in this notice. A 

party that filed a notice of appearance 

during the preliminary phase of the 

investigations need not file an 

additional notice of appearance during 

this final phase. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the investigations. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

16510 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 62 / Thursday, April 1, 2010 / Notices 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in the final phase of these 

investigations available to authorized 

applicants under the APO issued in the 

investigations, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days prior to the hearing date specified 

in this notice. Authorized applicants 

must represent interested parties, as 

defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are 

parties to the investigations. A party 

granted access to BPI in the preliminary 

phase of the investigations need not 

reapply for such access. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Staff report.—The prehearing staff 

report in the final phase of these 

investigations will be placed in the 

nonpublic record on May 18, 2010, and 

a public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing.—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the final 

phase of these investigations beginning 

at 9:30 a.m. on June 2, 2010, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building. Requests to appear at the 

hearing should be filed in writing with 

the Secretary to the Commission on or 

before May 26, 2010. A nonparty who 

has testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the hearing. All parties and 

nonparties desiring to appear at the 

hearing and make oral presentations 

should attend a prehearing conference 

to be held at 9:30 a.m. on May 28, 2010, 

at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Oral testimony 

and written materials to be submitted at 

the public hearing are governed by 

sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 

207.24 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Written submissions.—Each party 

who is an interested party shall submit 

a prehearing brief to the Commission. 

Prehearing briefs must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.23 of the 

Commission’s rules; the deadline for 

filing is May 25, 2010. Parties may also 

file written testimony in connection 

with their presentation at the hearing, as 

provided in section 207.24 of the 

Commission’s rules, and posthearing 

briefs, which must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.25 of the 

Commission’s rules. The deadline for 

filing posthearing briefs is June 9, 2010; 

witness testimony must be filed no later 

than three days before the hearing. In 

addition, any person who has not 

entered an appearance as a party to the 

investigations may submit a written 

statement of information pertinent to 

the subject of the investigations, 

including statements of support or 

opposition to the petition, on or before 

June 9, 2010. On June 23, 2010, the 

Commission will make available to 

parties all information on which they 

have not had an opportunity to 

comment. Parties may submit final 

comments on this information on or 

before June 25, 2010, but such final 

comments must not contain new factual 

information and must otherwise comply 

with section 207.30 of the Commission’s 

rules. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of section 

201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even 

where electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in II 

(C) of the Commission’s Handbook on 

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 

68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

investigations must be served on all 

other parties to the investigations (as 

identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Authority: These investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: March 29, 2010. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7312 Filed 3–31–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

JOINT BOARD FOR THE 

ENROLLMENT OF ACTUARIES 

Meeting of the Advisory Committee; 

Meeting 

AGENCY: Joint Board for the Enrollment 

of Actuaries. 

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory 

Committee meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Executive Director of the 

Joint Board for the Enrollment of 

Actuaries gives notice of a closed 

meeting of the Advisory Committee on 

Actuarial Examinations. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

April 30, 2010, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

Towers Watson, One Alliance Center, 

3500 Lenox Road, 9th Floor, Atlanta, 

GA 30326. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick W. McDonough, Executive 

Director of the Joint Board for the 

Enrollment of Actuaries, 202–622–8225. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Notice is hereby given that the 

Advisory Committee on Actuarial 

Examinations will meet at Towers 

Watson, One Alliance Center, 3500 

Lenox Road, 9th Floor, Atlanta, GA on 

April 30, 2010, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.. 

The purpose of the meeting is to 

discuss topics and questions that may 

be recommended for inclusion on future 

Joint Board examinations in actuarial 

mathematics, pension law and 

methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. 

1242(a)(1)(B). 

A determination has been made as 

required by section 10(d) of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., 

that the subject of the meeting falls 

within the exception to the open 

meeting requirement set forth in Title 5 

U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public 

interest requires that such meeting be 

closed to public participation. 

Dated: March 17, 2010. 

Patrick W. McDonough, 

Executive Director, Joint Board for the 

Enrollment of Actuaries. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7268 Filed 3–31–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Submission for OMB Review: 

Comment Request 

March 26, 2010. 

The Department of Labor (DOL) 

hereby announces the submission of the 

following public information collection

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 30375 

1See Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment 

of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with 

Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 75 FR 

10466 (March 8, 2010) (Preliminary Determination). 

2Because the critical circumstances allegation 

was not filed until April 6, 2010, we were not able 

to issue our determination before the due date for 

case briefs. We did not receive any requests to 

extend the due date. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–963] 

Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Termination of 

Critical Circumstances Inquiry 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 1, 2010. 

SUMMARY: On March 8, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (Department) 

published its preliminary affirmative 

determination in the countervailing 

duty investigation of certain potassium 

phosphate salts from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC).1 The period of 

investigation (POI) is January 1, 2008 

through December 31, 2008. We invited 

interested parties to comment on our 

Preliminary Determination, and 

received comments from the domestic 

industry. We have made no changes for 

the final determination. We determine 

that countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

certain potassium phosphate salts from 

the PRC. For information on the 

estimated countervailing duty rates, 

please see the ‘‘Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section, below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Hoadley, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street, and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–3148. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the announcement of the 

Preliminary Determination, which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 8, 2010. ICL Performance 

Products LP and Prayon, Inc. 

(Petitioners) filed a critical 

circumstances allegation on April 6, 

2010. Subsequently, on April 29, 2010, 

the Department issued a preliminary 

affirmative critical circumstances 

determination. See Certain Potassium 

Phosphate Salts from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances in the Countervailing 

Duty Investigation, 75 FR 24575, 24577 

(May 5, 2010). 

On April 27, 2010, we received a case 

brief from Petitioners. We received no 

other case briefs and no rebuttal briefs. 

Petitioners’ brief simply notes its 

agreement with the Department’s 

preliminary countervailing duty 

determination, and reiterates its 

arguments in favor of an affirmative 

critical circumstances determination.2

Petitioners put forth no arguments for 

revisions to our adverse facts available 

(AFA) methodology or to any other 

aspect of our determinations. On May 

18, 2010, Petitioners withdrew their 

critical circumstances allegation. 

Injury Test 

Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the meaning 

of section 701(b) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), the U.S. 

International Trade Commission (ITC) is 

required to determine pursuant to 

section 701(a)(2) of the Act whether 

imports of the subject merchandise from 

the PRC materially injure, or threaten 

material injury to, a United States 

industry. On November 23, 2009, the 

ITC published its preliminary 

determination that there is a reasonable 

indication that an industry in the 

United States producing 

monopotassium phosphate (MKP) is 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury, and industries in the 

United States producing dipotassium 

phospate (DKP) and tetrapotassium 

pyrophosphate (TKPP) are threatened 

with material injury by reason of 

allegedly subsidized imports from the 

PRC of subject merchandise. See 

Investigations Nos. 701–TA–473 and 

731–TA–1173 (Preliminary), Certain 

Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts 

from China, 74 FR 61173 (November 23, 

2009). The ITC found that there is no 

reasonable indication that an industry 

producing sodium tripolyphosphate 

(STPP) is materially injured by reason of 

imports alleged to be subsidized by the 

PRC. Id. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The phosphate salts covered by this 

investigation include anhydrous 

monopotassium phosphate (MKP), 

anhydrous dipotassium phospate (DKP) 

and tetrapotassium pyrophosphate 

(TKPP), whether anhydrous or in 

solution (collectively ‘‘phosphate salts’’). 

TKPP, also known as normal 

potassium pyrophosphate, diphosphoric 

acid or tetrapotassium salt, is a 

potassium salt with the formula K4P2O7. 

The CAS registry number for TKPP is 

7320–34–5. TKPP is typically 18.7% 

phosphorus and 47.3% potassium. It is 

generally greater than or equal to 43.0% 

P2O5 content. TKPP is classified under 

heading 2835.39.1000, Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS). 

MKP, also known as potassium 

dihydrogen phosphate, KDP, or 

monobasic potassium phosphate, is a 

potassium salt with the formula 

KH2PO4. The CAS registry number for 

MKP is 7778–77–0. MKP is typically 

22.7% phosphorus, 28.7% potassium 

and 52% P2O5. MKP is classified under 

heading 2835.24.0000, HTSUS. 

DKP, also known as dipotassium salt, 

dipotassium hydrogen orthophosphate 

or potassium phosphate, dibasic, has a 

chemical formula of K2HPO4. The CAS 

registry number for DKP is 7758–11–4. 

DKP is typically 17.8% phosphorus, 

44.8% potassium and 40% P2O5

content. DKP is classified under heading 

2835.24.0000, HTSUS. 

The products covered by this 

investigation include the foregoing 

phosphate salts in all grades, whether 

food grade or technical grade. The 

products covered by this investigation 

include anhydrous MKP and DKP 

without regard to the physical form, 

whether crushed, granule, powder or 

fines. Also covered are all forms of 

TKPP, whether crushed, granule, 

powder, fines or solution. 

For purposes of the investigation, the 

narrative description is dispositive, not 

the tariff heading, American Chemical 

Society, CAS registry number or CAS 

name, or the specific percentage 

chemical composition identified above. 

Period of Investigation 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies, i.e., the period of 

investigation, is January 1, 2008 through 

December 31, 2008. 

Comments on the Preliminary 

Determination 

As noted above, the Department 

received a case brief from Petitioners 

only, and no rebuttal briefs. Petitioners’ 

brief simply states their agreement with 

the Department’s preliminary AFA 

determination, and reiterates their 

arguments for finding critical 

circumstances, but does not offer any 

arguments or suggestions for modifying 

our determinations or methodologies in 

any manner. Moreover, Petitioners’ 

affirmative statements regarding critical 

circumstances have become moot now 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
30376 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 

3See e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Termination of 

Critical-Circumstances Investigation: Electrolytic 

Manganese Dioxide from Australia, 73 FR 47586, 

47586–87 (August 14, 2008), granting a postpreliminary determination request to withdraw a critical circumstances allegation. 

that they have withdrawn their 

allegation (see below). Therefore, given 

Petitioners’ complete concurrence with 

the Department’s positions, we have not 

addressed their comments specifically. 

Use of Facts Available and Adverse 

Facts Available 

For purposes of this final 

determination, we relied on AFA in 

accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) 

of the Act to determine the total 

countervailable subsidy rates. The 

government of the PRC and the three 

mandatory company respondents did 

not respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire. Because of the failure to 

provide requested information, we 

determine that the use of facts otherwise 

available is required, pursuant to 

section 776(a)(2)(C), and that, because of 

this lack of cooperation, the application 

of an adverse inference is also 

warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act. In determining appropriate 

AFA rates for the programs under 

investigation, we applied the 

methodology developed in prior CVD 

investigations. A full discussion of our 

decision to apply AFA, and the 

methodology we followed, is presented 

in the Preliminary Determination in the 

section ‘‘Application of Facts Otherwise 

Available,’’ and a detailed explanation 

of the AFA rates determined for each 

program can be found in Memorandum 

to the File, ‘‘Application of Adverse 

Facts Available Rates for Preliminary 

Determination,’’ March 1, 2010. There is 

no new information or more recently 

calculated rates in final CVD 

determinations involving the PRC 

which warrant any revisions to the rates 

assigned in the Preliminary 

Determination. 

Critical Circumstances 

As noted above, Petitioners withdrew 

their critical circumstances allegation 

on May 18, 2010. Pursuant to this 

withdrawal, and because the 

Department has not ‘‘expended 

significant resources’’ in examining the 

allegation,3 the Department determines 

there is no need to make a critical 

circumstances determination in this 

investigation and is terminating the 

critical circumstances inquiry. We will, 

therefore, instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) to terminate the 

suspension of liquidation, refund any 

cash deposits, and release any bond or 

other security previously posted, for 

entries from December 8, 2009 until 

March 8, 2010, the publication date of 

the Preliminary Determination, 

effectively rescinding our instructions to 

CBP pursuant to the preliminary 

affirmative critical circumstances 

determination. 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have 

assigned a subsidy rate to each of the 

three producers/exporters of the subject 

merchandise that were selected as 

mandatory company respondents in this 

CVD investigation. With respect to the 

all-others rate, section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of 

the Act provides that if the 

countervailable subsidy rates 

established for all exporters and 

producers individually investigated are 

determined entirely in accordance with 

section 776 of the Act, the Department 

may use any reasonable method to 

establish an all-others rate for exporters 

and producers not individually 

investigated. In this case, the rate 

calculated for the three investigated 

companies is based entirely on facts 

available under section 776 of the Act. 

There is no other information on the 

record upon which to determine an allothers rate. As a result, we have used 

the AFA rate assigned to the three 

mandatory respondents as the all-others 

rate. This method is consistent with the 

Department’s past practice. See, e.g., 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products From 

Argentina, 66 FR 37007, 37008 (July 16, 

2001); see also, Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination: 

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand 

From India, 68 FR 68356 (December 8, 

2003); Sodium Nitrite from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination, 73 

FR 38981 (July 8, 2008). 

As a result, we have determined the 

following subsidy rates. 

Producer/Exporter Subsidy rate 

Lianyungang Mupro Import Export Co Ltd ............................................... 109.11 percent ad valorem. 

Mianyang Aostar Phosphate Chemical Industry Co. Ltd ......................... 109.11 percent ad valorem. 

Shifang Anda Chemicals Co. Ltd ............................................................. 109.11 percent ad valorem. 

All-Others .................................................................................................. 109.11 percent ad valorem. 

In accordance with section 

703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we directed 

CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries 

of the subject merchandise from the 

PRC, which are entered or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after March 8, 2010, the date of 

publication of the Preliminary 

Determination. After the preliminary 

affirmative critical circumstances 

determination, we directed CBP to 

suspend liquidation of all entries on or 

after December 8, 2009 (encompassing 

the retroactive 90-day period) pursuant 

to section 703(e)(2) of the Act. As noted 

above, however, we will now instruct 

CBP to remove the suspension of 

liquidation for the 90-day prepreliminary determination period, to 

refund any cash deposits and release 

any bond or other security previously 

posted within the 90-day period, but to 

continue collecting bonds or cash 

deposits on all entries, entered or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after March 8, 2010. 

If the ITC issues a final affirmative 

injury determination, we will issue a 

countervailing duty order under section 

706(a) of the Act, and instruct CBP to 

require cash deposits of the estimated 

countervailing duties. If the ITC 

determines that material injury to, threat 

of material injury to, or material 

retardation of, the domestic industry 

does not exist, this proceeding will be 

terminated and all estimated duties 

deposited or securities posted as a result 

of the suspension of liquidation will be 

refunded or canceled. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 705(d) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and non-proprietary 

information related to this investigation. 

We will allow the ITC access to all 

privileged and business proprietary 

information in our files, provided the 

ITC confirms that it will not disclose 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 30377 

1See Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 

FR 12508 (March 16, 2010) (‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’). 

2See Letter from Petitioners to the Department; 

regarding Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from 

the People’s Republic of China: Allegation of 

Critical Circumstances; dated April 2, 2010. 

3See Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation, 75 FR 24572 (May 

5, 2010) (‘‘Prelim Critical Circumstances 

Determination’’). 

4See letter to the Department from Petitioners, 

regarding Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from 

the People’s Republic of China: Withdrawal of 

Allegation of Critical Circumstances, dated May 18, 

2010. 

such information, either publicly or 

under an Administrative Protective 

Order (APO), without the written 

consent of the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

In the event that the ITC issues a final 

negative injury determination, this 

notice will serve as the only reminder 

to parties subject to an APO of their 

responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 705(d) 

and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: May 24, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13070 Filed 5–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–962] 

Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Termination of 

Critical Circumstances Inquiry 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 2010. 

SUMMARY: On March 16, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published its notice of 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the 

antidumping investigation of certain 

potassium phosphate salts (‘‘salts’’) from 

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).1

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2009. 

We invited interested parties to 

comment on our preliminary 

determination of sales at LTFV. We 

made no changes for the final 

determination. We determine that salts 

from the PRC are being, or are likely to 

be, sold in the United States at LTFV as 

provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The 

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 

shown in the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katie Marksberry or Irene Gorelik, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–7906 or (202) 482– 

6905, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The Department published its 

Preliminary Determination on March 16, 

2010. On April 2, 2010, Petitioners filed 

an allegation of critical circumstances.2

On April 15, 2010, we received a case 

brief from Petitioners. We did not 

receive any case or rebuttal briefs from 

any other interested parties. On May 5, 

2010, we published the preliminary 

affirmative determination of critical 

circumstances.3 On May 18, 2010, 

Petitioners withdrew their allegation of 

critical circumstances.4

Tolling of Administrative Deadlines 

As explained in the memorandum 

from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, the Department 

has exercised its 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 segment of 

the proceeding have been extended by 

seven days. The revised deadline for 

this final determination is now May 24, 

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. 

Scope of Investigation 

The phosphate salts covered by this 

investigation include anhydrous 

Monopotassium Phosphate (MKP), 

anhydrous Dipotassium Phosphate 

(DKP) and Tetrapotassium 

Pyrophosphate (TKPP), whether 

anhydrous or in solution (collectively 

‘‘phosphate salts’’). 

TKPP, also known as normal 

potassium pyrophosphate, 

Diphosphoric acid or Tetrapotassium 

salt, is a potassium salt with the formula 

K4P2O7. The CAS registry number for 

TKPP is 7320–34–5. TKPP is typically 

18.7% phosphorus and 47.3% 

potassium. It is generally greater than or 

equal to 43.0% P2O5 content. TKPP is 

classified under heading 2835.39.1000, 

HTSUS. 

MKP, also known as Potassium 

dihydrogen phosphate, KDP, or 

Monobasic potassium phosphate, is a 

potassium salt with the formula 

KH2PO4. The CAS registry number for 

MKP is 7778–77–0. MKP is typically 

22.7% phosphorus, 28.7% potassium 

and 52% P2O5. MKP is classified under 

heading 2835.24.0000, HTSUS. 

DKP, also known as Dipotassium salt, 

Dipotassium hydrogen orthophosphate 

or Potassium phosphate, dibasic, has a 

chemical formula of K2HPO4. The CAS 

registry number for DKP is 7758–11–4. 

DKP is typically 17.8% phosphorus, 

44.8% potassium and 40% P2O5

content. DKP is classified under heading

2835.24.0000, HTSUS. 

The products covered by this 

investigation include the foregoing 

phosphate salts in all grades, whether 

food grade or technical grade. The 

product covered by this investigation 

includes anhydrous MKP and DKP 

without regard to the physical form, 

whether crushed, granule, powder or 

fines. Also covered are all forms of 

TKPP, whether crushed, granule, 

powder, fines or solution. 

For purposes of the investigation, the 

narrative description is dispositive, and 

not the tariff heading, American 

Chemical Society, CAS registry number 

or CAS name, or the specific percentage 

chemical composition identified above. 

Comments on the Preliminary 

Determination 

On April 15, 2010, Petitioners 

submitted a case brief in which they 

agreed with the decisions the 

Department made in the Preliminary 

Determination and stated that the 

Department’s use of adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’) in the Preliminary 

Determination was warranted and 

appropriate. No other interested party 

commented on the Preliminary 

Determination. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 30377 

1See Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 

FR 12508 (March 16, 2010) (‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’). 

2See Letter from Petitioners to the Department; 

regarding Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from 

the People’s Republic of China: Allegation of 

Critical Circumstances; dated April 2, 2010. 

3See Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation, 75 FR 24572 (May 

5, 2010) (‘‘Prelim Critical Circumstances 

Determination’’). 

4See letter to the Department from Petitioners, 

regarding Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from 

the People’s Republic of China: Withdrawal of 

Allegation of Critical Circumstances, dated May 18, 

2010. 

such information, either publicly or 

under an Administrative Protective 

Order (APO), without the written 

consent of the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

In the event that the ITC issues a final 

negative injury determination, this 

notice will serve as the only reminder 

to parties subject to an APO of their 

responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 705(d) 

and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: May 24, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13070 Filed 5–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–962] 

Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Termination of 

Critical Circumstances Inquiry 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 2010. 

SUMMARY: On March 16, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published its notice of 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the 

antidumping investigation of certain 

potassium phosphate salts (‘‘salts’’) from 

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).1

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2009. 

We invited interested parties to 

comment on our preliminary 

determination of sales at LTFV. We 

made no changes for the final 

determination. We determine that salts 

from the PRC are being, or are likely to 

be, sold in the United States at LTFV as 

provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The 

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 

shown in the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katie Marksberry or Irene Gorelik, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–7906 or (202) 482– 

6905, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The Department published its 

Preliminary Determination on March 16, 

2010. On April 2, 2010, Petitioners filed 

an allegation of critical circumstances.2

On April 15, 2010, we received a case 

brief from Petitioners. We did not 

receive any case or rebuttal briefs from 

any other interested parties. On May 5, 

2010, we published the preliminary 

affirmative determination of critical 

circumstances.3 On May 18, 2010, 

Petitioners withdrew their allegation of 

critical circumstances.4

Tolling of Administrative Deadlines 

As explained in the memorandum 

from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, the Department 

has exercised its 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 segment of 

the proceeding have been extended by 

seven days. The revised deadline for 

this final determination is now May 24, 

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. 

Scope of Investigation 

The phosphate salts covered by this 

investigation include anhydrous 

Monopotassium Phosphate (MKP), 

anhydrous Dipotassium Phosphate 

(DKP) and Tetrapotassium 

Pyrophosphate (TKPP), whether 

anhydrous or in solution (collectively 

‘‘phosphate salts’’). 

TKPP, also known as normal 

potassium pyrophosphate, 

Diphosphoric acid or Tetrapotassium 

salt, is a potassium salt with the formula 

K4P2O7. The CAS registry number for 

TKPP is 7320–34–5. TKPP is typically 

18.7% phosphorus and 47.3% 

potassium. It is generally greater than or 

equal to 43.0% P2O5 content. TKPP is 

classified under heading 2835.39.1000, 

HTSUS. 

MKP, also known as Potassium 

dihydrogen phosphate, KDP, or 

Monobasic potassium phosphate, is a 

potassium salt with the formula 

KH2PO4. The CAS registry number for 

MKP is 7778–77–0. MKP is typically 

22.7% phosphorus, 28.7% potassium 

and 52% P2O5. MKP is classified under 

heading 2835.24.0000, HTSUS. 

DKP, also known as Dipotassium salt, 

Dipotassium hydrogen orthophosphate 

or Potassium phosphate, dibasic, has a 

chemical formula of K2HPO4. The CAS 

registry number for DKP is 7758–11–4. 

DKP is typically 17.8% phosphorus, 

44.8% potassium and 40% P2O5

content. DKP is classified under heading 

2835.24.0000, HTSUS. 

The products covered by this 

investigation include the foregoing 

phosphate salts in all grades, whether 

food grade or technical grade. The 

product covered by this investigation 

includes anhydrous MKP and DKP 

without regard to the physical form, 

whether crushed, granule, powder or 

fines. Also covered are all forms of 

TKPP, whether crushed, granule, 

powder, fines or solution. 

For purposes of the investigation, the 

narrative description is dispositive, and 

not the tariff heading, American 

Chemical Society, CAS registry number 

or CAS name, or the specific percentage 

chemical composition identified above. 

Comments on the Preliminary 

Determination 

On April 15, 2010, Petitioners 

submitted a case brief in which they 

agreed with the decisions the 

Department made in the Preliminary 

Determination and stated that the 

Department’s use of adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’) in the Preliminary 

Determination was warranted and 

appropriate. No other interested party 

commented on the Preliminary 

Determination. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
30378 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving non–marketeconomy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the 

Department begins with a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the country are subject to government 

control and, thus, should be assigned a 

single antidumping duty deposit rate. It 

is the Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate. See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as 

amplified by Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’), and 

Section 351.107(d) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that Wenda Co., Ltd., Yunnan 

Newswift Company Ltd., Tianjin 

Chengyi International Trading Co., Ltd., 

and Snow–Apple Group Limited, 

demonstrated their eligibility for, and 

were hence assigned, separate rate 

status. No party has commented on the 

eligibility of these companies for 

separate rate status. Therefore, for the 

final determination, we continue to find 

that the evidence placed on the record 

of this investigation by these companies 

demonstrates both a de jure and de facto 

absence of government control with 

respect to their exports of the 

merchandise under investigation. Thus, 

we continue to find that they are eligible 

for separate rate status. 

Use of Facts Available, Adverse Facts 

Available and The PRC–Wide Rate 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that if an interested party: (A) withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the Department; (B) fails to provide such 

information in a timely manner or in the 

form or manner requested, subject to 

subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; 

(C) significantly impedes a 

determination under the antidumping 

statute; or (D) provides such information 

but the information cannot be verified, 

the Department shall, subject to 

subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination. 

Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that if an interested party ‘‘promptly 

after receiving a request from {the 

Department} for information, notifies 

{the Department} that such party is 

unable to submit the information in the 

requested form and manner, together 

with a full explanation and suggested 

alternative form in which such party is 

able to submit the information,’’ the 

Department may modify the 

requirements to avoid imposing an 

unreasonable burden on that party. 

Section 782(d) of the Act provides 

that, if the Department determines that 

a response to a request for information 

does not comply with the request, the 

Department will inform the person 

submitting the response of the nature of 

the deficiency and shall, to the extent 

practicable, provide that person the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If that person submits 

further information that continues to be 

unsatisfactory, or this information is not 

submitted within the applicable time 

limits, the Department may, subject to 

section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all 

or part of the original and subsequent 

responses, as appropriate. 

Section 782(e) of the Act states that 

the Department shall not decline to 

consider information deemed 

‘‘deficient’’ under section 782(d) if: (1) 

the information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability; and (5) 

the information can be used without 

undue difficulties. 

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act 

states that if the administering authority 

finds that an interested party has not 

acted to the best of its ability to comply 

with a request for information, the 

administering authority may, in 

reaching its determination, use an 

inference that is adverse to that party. 

The adverse inference may be based 

upon: (1) the petition, (2) a final 

determination in the investigation under 

this title, (3) any previous review under 

section 751 or determination under 

section 753, or (4) any other information 

placed on the record. 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department found that SiChuan Blue 

Sword Import & Export Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘SiChuan Blue Sword’’) did not 

respond to our requests for information 

and was therefore part of the PRC–wide 

entity. Additionally, in the Preliminary 

Determination, the Department found 

that SD BNI(LYG) Co. Ltd. (‘‘SD BNI’’), 

who was selected as a mandatory 

respondent and failed to submit the 

information required, would not receive 

a separate rate and would remain part 

of the PRC–wide entity. In the 

Preliminary Determination we treated 

PRC exporters/producers, that did not 

respond to the Department’s request for 

information as part of the PRC–wide 

entity because they did not demonstrate 

that they operate free of government 

control. No additional information has 

been placed on the record with respect 

to these entities, SiChuan Blue Sword, 

or SD BNI after the Preliminary 

Determination. 

The PRC–wide entity has not 

provided the Department with the 

requested information; therefore, 

pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the 

Act, the Department continues to find 

that the use of facts available is 

appropriate to determine the PRC–wide 

rate. As noted above, section 776(b) of 

the Act provides that, in selecting from 

among the facts otherwise available, the 

Department may employ an adverse 

inference if an interested party fails to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with requests for 

information. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cold–Rolled Flat– 

Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel Products 

from the Russian Federation, 65 FR 

5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). See also, 

Statement of Administrative Action 

accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 

103–316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’). 

We find that, because the PRC–wide 

entity did not respond to our request for 

information, it has failed to cooperate to 

the best of its ability. Therefore, the 

Department finds that, in selecting from 

among the facts otherwise available, an 

adverse inference is appropriate for the 

PRC–wide entity. 

Because we begin with the 

presumption that all companies within 

a NME country are subject to 

government control and because only 

the companies listed under the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below 

have overcome that presumption, we are 

applying a single antidumping rate - the 

PRC–wide rate - to all other exporters of 

subject merchandise from the PRC. Such 

companies did not demonstrate 

entitlement to a separate rate. See, e.g., 

Synthetic Indigo from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000). 

The PRC–wide rate applies to all entries 

of merchandise under consideration 

except for entries from Wenda Co., Ltd., 

Yunnan Newswift Company Ltd., 

Tianjin Chengyi International Trading 

Co., Ltd., and Snow–Apple Group 

Limited, which are listed in the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below. 

Corroboration 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information, rather than on 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 30379 

5See SAA at 870. 

6See id. 

7See id. 

8See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered 

Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 

(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 

and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 

(March 13, 1997). 

9See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain 

Sodium and Potassium Phosphate Salts from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated September 24, 

2009. 

10See Certain Sodium and Potassium Phosphate 

Salts from the People’s Republic of China: Initiation 

of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74 FR 54024 

(October 21, 2009), (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

11See Antidumping Investigation Initiation 

Checklist: Certain Sodium and Potassium 

Phosphate Salts (‘‘Initiation Checklist’’). 

12See id. 

13See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Termination of CriticalCircumstances Investigation: Electrolytic 

Manganese Dioxide from Australia, 73 FR 47586, 

47586-87 (August 14, 2008), granting a postpreliminary determination request to withdraw a 

critical circumstances allegation. 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation as facts available, it must, 

to the extent practicable, corroborate 

that information from independent 

sources reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is described in 

the SAA as ‘‘information derived from 

the petition that gave rise to the 

investigation or review, the final 

determination concerning subject 

merchandise, or any previous review 

under section 751 concerning the 

subject merchandise.’’5 The SAA 

provides that to ‘‘corroborate’’ means 

simply that the Department will satisfy 

itself that the secondary information to 

be used has probative value.6 The SAA 

also states that independent sources 

used to corroborate may include, for 

example, published price lists, official 

import statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation.7 To corroborate secondary 

information, the Department will, to the 

extent practicable, examine the 

reliability and relevance of the 

information used.8

As total AFA the Department 

preliminarily selected the rate of 95.40 

from the Petition.9 Petitioners’ 

methodology for calculating the export 

price and normal value (‘‘NV’’) in the 

Petition is discussed in the Initiation 

Notice.10 At the Preliminary 

Determination, because there were no 

margins calculated for the mandatory 

respondents, to corroborate the 95.40 

percent margin used as AFA for the 

China–wide entity, to the extent 

appropriate information was available, 

we affirmed our pre–initiation analysis 

of the adequacy and accuracy of the 

information in the petition.11 During our 

pre–initiation analysis, we examined 

evidence supporting the calculations in 

the petition and the supplemental 

information provided by Petitioners 

prior to initiation to determine the 

probative value of the margins alleged 

in the petition. During our pre– 

initiation analysis, we examined the 

information used as the basis of export 

price and normal value (‘‘NV’’) in the 

petition, and the calculations used to 

derive the alleged margins. Also during 

our pre–initiation analysis, we 

examined information from various 

independent sources provided either in 

the petition or, based on our requests, in 

supplements to the petition, which 

corroborated key elements of the export 

price and NV calculations.12

Similarly, for the final determination, 

we have also corroborated our AFA 

margin by affirming our pre–initiation 

analysis. Because no parties commented 

on the selection of the PRC–wide rate, 

we continue to find that the margin of 

95.40 percent has probative value. 

Accordingly, we find that the rate of 

95.40 percent is corroborated within the 

meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. 

Critical Circumstances 

On April 2, 2010, Petitioners 

submitted an allegation of critical 

circumstances with respect to the 

merchandise under consideration. On 

March 5, 2010, we issued the 

Preliminary Critical Circumstances 

Determination, stating that we had 

reason to believe or suspect critical 

circumstances exist with respect to 

imports of salts from the PRC. As noted 

above, Petitioners withdrew their 

critical circumstances allegation on May 

18, 2010. Pursuant to this withdrawal, 

and because the Department has not 

‘‘expended significant resources’’ in 

examining the allegation,13 the 

Department determines there is no need 

to make a critical circumstances 

determination in this investigation and 

is terminating the critical circumstances 

inquiry. We will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to 

terminate the suspension of liquidation 

and refund any cash deposits and 

release any bond or other security 

previously posted for all imports of 

subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption between December 16, 

2009, which is 90 days prior to the date 

of publication of the Preliminary 

Determination, and March 15, 2010. 

Final Determination Margins 

We determine that the following 

percentage weighted–average margins 

exist for the following entities for the 

POI: 

Exporter Supplier 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

Snow–Apple Group Limited ............................................................... Chengdu Long Tai Biotechnology Co., Ltd. 69.58 

Tianjin Chengyi International Trading (Tianjin) Co., Limited ............. Zhenjiang Dantu Guangming Auxiliary Material Factory 69.58 

Tianjin Chengyi International Trading (Tianjin) Co., Limited ............. Sichuan Shifang Hongsheng Chemicals Co., Ltd. 69.58 

Wenda Co., Ltd. ................................................................................. Thermphos (China) Food Additive Co., Ltd 69.58 

Yunnan Newswift Company Ltd. ....................................................... Guangxi Yizhou Yisheng Fine Chemicals Co., Ltd. 69.58 

Yunnan Newswift Company Ltd. ....................................................... Mainzhu Hanwang Mineral Salt Chemical Co., Ltd. 69.58 

Yunnan Newswift Company Ltd. ....................................................... Sichuan Shengfeng Phosphate Chemical Co., Ltd. 69.58 

PRC–Wide14 ...................................................................................... .................................................................................................... 95.40 

14The PRC-wide rate includes Sichuan Blue Sword Import and Export Co., Ltd., and SD BNI (LYG) Co., Ltd. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
30380 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing 

CBP to continue to suspend liquidation 

of all imports of subject merchandise 

entered or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption for the PRC–wide 

entity and the Separate Rate Recipients 

on or after March 16, 2010. We will 

instruct CBP to continue to require a 

cash deposit or the posting of a bond for 

all companies based on the estimated 

weighted–average dumping margins 

shown above. 

These suspension of liquidation 

instructions will remain in effect until 

further notice. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

of our final determination of sales at 

LTFV. As our final determination is 

affirmative, in accordance with section 

735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the 

ITC will determine whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the merchandise under 

investigation. If the ITC determines that 

material injury or threat of material 

injury does not exist, the proceeding 

will be terminated and all securities 

posted will be refunded or canceled. If 

the ITC determines that such injury 

does exist, the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

imports of the merchandise under 

investigation entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the effective date of the suspension 

of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This determination and notice are 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: May 24, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13071 Filed 5–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[Docket No. 100513224–224–01 I.D. GF001] 

NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration 

and Research; Fiscal Year 2011 Ocean 

Exploration of the Aleutian Trench 

AGENCY: Office of Ocean Exploration 

and Research (OER) Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Research (OAR), National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of funding availability. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Ocean 

Exploration and Research (OER) is 

seeking pre-proposals and full proposals 

to support its mission, consistent with 

NOAA’s Strategic Plan, to search, 

investigate, and document poorlyknown and unknown areas of the 

Aleutian Trench, through 

interdisciplinary exploration, and to 

advance and disseminate knowledge of 

the ocean environment and its physical, 

chemical, and biological resources. 

Competitive Ocean Exploration 

proposals will be bold, innovative and 

interdisciplinary in their approach. 

NOAA OER anticipates a total of 

approximately $1,000,000 will be 

available through this announcement. 

DATES: Completed pre-proposals must 

be received by 5 pm (EDT) on July 1, 

2010. Full proposal submissions must 

be received by 5 p.m. (EDT) on 

September 10, 2010. Applications 

received after the above deadlines will 

not be considered. 

ADDRESSES: Pre-proposals must be 

submitted by either (1) e-mail at 

OAR.OE.FAQ@noaa.gov, or (2) hardcopy to ATTN: Dr. Nicolas Alvarado, 

NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration & 

Research, SSMC III, 10th Floor, 1315 

East West Highway, Silver Spring, 

Maryland 20910. For e-mail 

submissions, please put your last name 

in the subject heading along with ‘‘OE 

Pre-proposal,’’ e.g., ‘‘Smith OE Preproposal.’’ Adobe PDF format is 

preferred. No facsimile pre-proposals 

will be accepted. 

Full proposals must be submitted 

through Grants.gov. Applicants without 

Internet access may submit hard-copies 

to: ATTN: Dr. Nicolas Alvarado, NOAA 

Office of Ocean Exploration & Research, 

SSMC III, 10th Floor, 1315 East West 

Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 

20910. No e-mail or facsimile full 

proposal submissions will be accepted 

from applicants. 

The required cover sheet for preproposals may be obtained through the 

OER Office Web site at: http:// 

www.explore.noaa.gov/researchfunding-opportunities. Application 

forms for full proposals are available 

through http://www.Grants.gov. For 

applicants without Internet access, hard 

copies of the cover sheet and the full 

proposal application package can be 

obtained via mail at NOAA Office of 

Ocean Exploration and Research, 1315 

East West Highway, SSMC III, 10th 

Floor, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, or 

requested by phone at (301) 734–1015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information contact the NOAA 

Office of Ocean Exploration and 

Research at (301) 734–1015 or submit 

inquiries via e-mail to the Frequently 

Asked Questions address: 

OAR.OE.FAQ@noaa.gov. E-mail 

inquiries should include the Principal 

Investigator’s name in the subject 

heading. Inquiries can be mailed to: 

ATTN: Dr. Nicolas Alvarado, NOAA 

Office of Ocean Exploration and 

Research, 1315 East-West Highway 

SSMC III, 10th Floor, R/OER Silver 

Spring, Maryland 20910. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic 

Access: The full text of the full funding 

opportunity (FFO) announcement for 

this program can be accessed via the 

Grants.gov Web site at http:// 

www.grants.gov. The announcement 

will also be available by contacting the 

program officials identified under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Applicants must comply with all 

requirements contained in the FFO 

announcement. 

Statutory Authority: 33 U.S.C. 3403(a)(4). 

Program Description: The Office of 

Ocean Exploration and Research (OER) 

is seeking pre-proposals and full 

proposals to support its mission, 

consistent with NOAA’s Strategic Plan, 

to search, investigate, and document 

poorly-known and unknown areas of the 

Aleutian Trench, through 

interdisciplinary exploration, and to 

advance and disseminate knowledge of 

the ocean environment and its physical, 

chemical, and biological resources. 

Competitive Ocean Exploration (OE) 

proposals will be bold, innovative and 

interdisciplinary in their approach. 

Specifically, the OER program intends 

to provide 60 days of UNOLS Global 

Class ship-time for operations in the 

Aleutian Trench. These 60 days will 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
 
APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES

B-1

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade

Commission’s hearing:

Subject: Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from China

Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-473 and 731-TA-1173 (Final)

Date and Time: June 2, 2010 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with these investigations in the Main Hearing Room (room

101), 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

OPENING REMARKS:

Petitioners (James R. Cannon, Jr., Williams Mullen)

Respondents (Joanna M. Ritcey-Donohue, White & Case LLP)

In Support of the Imposition of

 Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders:

Williams Mullen

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

ICL Performance Products, LP

Prayon, Inc.

Angie Schewe, Business Director, Industrial,

Phosphates, ICL Performance Products, LP

Nancy Stachiw, Director, Technical Service and

Applications, ICL Performance Products, LP

Anthony J. Repaso, Corporate Counsel, ICL

Performance Products, LP

B-3
In Support of the Imposition of

 Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders (continued):

Allen Sexton, Vice President – Sales, Prayon, Inc.

Beth Allen, Vice President – Finance and Procurement,

Prayon, Inc.

James R. Cannon, Jr. )

) – OF COUNSEL

Benjamin Arden )

In Opposition to the Imposition of

 Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders:

White & Case LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Valudor Products, Inc. (“Valudor”)

Semyon Melamed, President, Valudor

Deirdre Maloney, Senior Trade Advisor,

White & Case LLP

Joanna Ritcey-Donohue )

Kristine Zissis ) – OF COUNSEL

David Quayat )

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

Petitioners (James R. Cannon, Jr., Williams Mullen)

Respondents (Kristina Zissis, White & Case LLP)

B-4
APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-1

Table C-1

DKP: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2007-09

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound;

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2007 2008 2009 2007-09 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments of imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (pounds per hour) . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Undefined.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis.

Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-3
Table C-2

MKP: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2007-09

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound;

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2007 2008 2009 2007-09 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1): 

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments of imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,461 42,042 34,054 -9.1 12.2 -19.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,990 38,940 31,949 77.6 116.5 -18.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.48 $0.93 $0.94 95.4 92.9 1.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 9,866 8,154 8,783 -11.0 -17.4 7.7

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (pounds per hour) . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis.

Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-4
Table C-3

TKPP: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2007-09

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound;

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2007 2008 2009 2007-09 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,263 37,356 28,750 -33.5 -13.7 -23.0

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . 90.5 87.7 81.7 -8.8 -2.8 -6.0

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5 12.3 18.3 8.8 2.8 6.0

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,222 37,161 33,114 26.3 41.7 -10.9

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . 89.8 85.6 82.6 -7.1 -4.2 -2.9

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 14.4 17.4 7.1 4.2 2.9

U.S. shipments of imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,101 4,593 5,261 28.3 12.0 14.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,684 5,368 5,749 114.2 100.0 7.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.65 $1.17 $1.09 67.0 78.6 -6.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 1,058 1,396 2,167 104.8 31.9 55.3

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . 72,176 62,072 60,453 -16.2 -14.0 -2.6

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . 41,076 36,211 23,553 -42.7 -11.8 -35.0

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . 56.9 58.3 39.0 -18.0 1.4 -19.4

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39,162 32,763 23,489 -40.0 -16.3 -28.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,538 31,793 27,365 16.3 35.1 -13.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.60 $0.97 $1.17 93.8 61.5 20.1

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . 60 52 46 -23.3 -13.3 -11.5

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . . 117 98 94 -19.8 -16.6 -3.9

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . 4,205 3,656 3,637 -13.5 -13.0 -0.5

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $35.95 $37.48 $38.79 7.9 4.3 3.5

 Productivity (pounds per hour) . . 351.2 371.2 251.2 -28.5 5.7 -32.3

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.10 $0.10 $0.15 50.8 -1.4 52.9

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,876 34,353 24,867 -40.6 -18.0 -27.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,390 33,314 29,109 14.6 31.2 -12.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.61 $0.97 $1.17 93.1 59.9 20.7

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . 22,577 26,226 28,085 24.4 16.2 7.1

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . 2,813 7,088 1,024 -63.6 152.0 -85.6

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,675 3,139 2,997 12.0 17.3 -4.5

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . . 138 3,949 (1,973) (2) 2,761.6 (2)

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.54 $0.76 $1.13 109.5 41.6 47.9

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . $0.06 $0.09 $0.12 88.7 43.0 31.9

 Unit operating income or (loss) . $0.003 $0.11 ($0.08) (2) 3,388.3 (2)

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88.9 78.7 96.5 7.6 -10.2 17.8

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 11.9 (6.8) -7.3 11.3 -18.6

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Undefined.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis.

Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Note.--Revenue, cost, and income related to PCS' tolling operations appear separately in table VI-9.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-5
Table C-4

DKP, MKP, and TKPP: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2007-09

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound;

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2007 2008 2009 2007-09 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments of imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (pounds per hour) . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Undefined.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis.

Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Note.--Revenue, cost, and income related to PCS' tolling operations appear separately in table VI-9.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-6
D-1

APPENDIX D

QUARTERLY DOMESTIC AND 

NONSUBJECT-COUNTRY PRICE DATA

D-3

Presented graphically below in figures D-1 through D-6 are quarterly pricing and quantity data

for potassium phosphate salts from the United States, China, and nonsubject countries. Nonsubject

pricing data were received from Belgium, Canada, Germany, France, Israel, Mexico, and Taiwan. 

When comparing domestic pricing data to pricing data from all nonsubject sources, there were

*** possible pricing comparisons, in which domestic potassium phosphate salts were priced *** in ***. 

Domestically produced DKP was priced *** than nonsubject DKP in *** possible comparisons. 

Domestically produced MKP was priced *** than nonsubject product in *** possible comparisons. 

Domestically produced TKPP was priced *** than nonsubject product in *** possible comparisons. 

When comparing Chinese pricing data to pricing data from all nonsubject sources, there were ***

possible pricing comparisons, in which Chinese potassium phosphate salts were priced *** in ***. 

Imported Chinese DKP was priced *** than nonsubject DKP in *** possible comparisons. Chinese MKP

was priced *** than MKP imported from nonsubject sources in *** possible comparison. Chinese TKPP

was priced *** than nonsubject TKPP in *** possible comparisons. A summary of margins of

underselling and overselling is presented in table D-1. 

Table D-1

Certain potassium phosphate salts: Summary of underselling/(overselling) by product and by

 year from nonsubject countries, January 2007-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure D-1

DKP: Average prices and quantities for product 1, January 2007-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure D-2

DKP: Average prices and quantities for product 2, January 2007-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure D-3

MKP: Average prices and quantities for product 3, January 2007-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure D-4

MKP: Average prices and quantities for product 4, January 2007-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure D-5

TKPP: Average prices and quantities for product 5, January 2007-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure D-6

TKPP: Average prices and quantities for product 6, January 2007-December 2009

* * * * * * *

APPENDIX E

SUPPLEMENTAL END USE TABLE (U.S. PRODUCERS’ U.S. SHIPMENTS

AND IMPORTERS’ IMPORTS, BY END USE)

E-1

Table appendix E

Potassium phosphate salts: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and U.S. importers’ imports, by end

use, 2009

* * * * * * *

E-3