U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4060 January 2009

Washington, DC 20436

Barium Carbonate from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1020 (Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman 

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman 

Deanna Tanner Okun 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert A. Rogowsky

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Director of Operations

Cynthia Trainor, Investigator 

Charles St. Charles, Attorney-advisor 

James McClure, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4060 January 2009

Barium Carbonate from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1020 (Review)

i

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

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

The original investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

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

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

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds 

to affected domestic producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

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

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

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

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

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

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

Pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

The industry in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

U.S. imports and apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Antidumping actions outside the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

The industry in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Operations in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Appendixes

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

B. Statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

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

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

asterisks.

 1

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

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-1020 (Review)

BARIUM CARBONATE FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

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

International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of

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

China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United

States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this review on September 2, 2008 (73 F.R. 51315) and determined on

December 8, 2008 that it would conduct an expedited review (73 F.R. 77058, December 18, 2008). 

The Commission transmitted its determination in this review to the Secretary of Commerce on

January 30, 2009. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4060 (January

2009), entitled Barium Carbonate from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1020 (Review).

By order of the Commission.

Marilyn R. Abbott

Secretary to the Commission

Issued:

 2

 See Barium Carbonate from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1020 (Final), USITC Pub. 3631 (Sep. 2003); see also 68

Fed. Reg. 55653 (Sept. 26, 2003).

 3

 68 Fed. Reg. 56619 (Oct. 1, 2003).

 4

 73 Fed. Reg. 51315 (Sep. 2, 2008).

 5

 CPC’s Response to Notice of Institution (Oct. 22, 2008).

 6

 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3).

 7

 See Confidential Staff Report (“CR”) and Public Staff Report (“PR”) at Appendix B.

 8

 The statute authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a determination when

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

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

significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to section 782(i) of the

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

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

Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification procedures for the evidence before it, or provided

a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of a Commission investigation.”).

 9

 Commissioner Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year

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

a whole in making its determination. 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

(continued...)

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

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

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

China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United

States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

I. BACKGROUND

In September 2003, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was

materially injured by reason of imports of barium carbonate from China sold at less than fair value.2

 On

October 1, 2003, Commerce published an antidumping duty order covering barium carbonate from

China.3

On September 2, 2008, the Commission instituted this five-year review to determine whether

revocation of the antidumping duty order on barium carbonate from China would likely lead to the

continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable

time.4

 Chemical Products Corporation (“CPC”), a domestic producer accounting for virtually all

domestic production of barium carbonate, filed a response to the notice of institution.5

 No respondent

interested party filed a response. 

On December 8, 2008, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group

response to its notice of institution was adequate but that the respondent interested party group response

was inadequate. In the absence of an adequate respondent interested party group response or other factors

warranting a full review, the Commission determined to conduct an expedited review pursuant to section

751(c)(3) of the Act.6 7

 CPC filed comments on the record on January 7, 2009. No respondent interested

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

on the facts available on the record, which consist primarily of information from the original

investigation, as well as information collected in this five-year review, including information submitted

by CPC.8 9
 9

 (...continued)

automatically accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless 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.” The Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Statement of Administrative Action, H.R.

Doc. No. 103-316, Vol. 1 at 186 (1994) (“SAA”) at 869.

 10 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 11 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. United

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

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

(1979).

 12 See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and the United

Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-380 to 382 and 731-TA-797 to 804 (Review), USITC Pub. 3788 at 6 (July 2005);

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

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

 13 CR at I-7, PR at 1-6.

 14 CR at I-8 - I-10, PR at 1-7.

4

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

A. Domestic Like Product

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

product” and the “industry.”10 The Act defines the “domestic like product” as “a product which is like, or

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

under this subtitle.”11 In five-year reviews, the Commission looks to the domestic like product definition

from the original determination and any previous reviews and considers whether the record indicates any

reason to revisit that definition.12

In this five-year review, Commerce has defined the imported merchandise within the scope of the

antidumping duty order as “[b]arium carbonate, regardless of form or grade.”13 This scope definition is

unchanged from that in the original investigation. 

Barium carbonate is a heavy, odorless, white-to-cream colored chemical with the chemical

formula BaCO3. It is found naturally in the mineral witherite, although most barium carbonate sold

commercially is produced synthetically. Barium carbonate is sold in granular, powder, or high-purity

form. The granular and powdered forms of barium carbonate, which typically contain at least 98 percent

barium carbonate, have essentially the same chemical composition and similar physical properties,

differing principally in their particle size. Granular barium carbonate consists of relatively large particles

of barium carbonate (average particle in excess of 105 microns). Powdered barium carbonate consists of

smaller particles (average particle of 3-5 microns or less). CPC produces a specialized, spray-dried form

of powdered barium carbonate, Micro-FloTM, the flow characteristics of which facilitate its feeding into

production lines. High-purity barium carbonate contains a smaller percentage of impurities than the

forms described above, with a barium carbonate content in excess of 99.5 percent, and is used in the

production of ***.14

During the original investigation, a significant amount of domestic consumption of barium

carbonate was for U.S. production of glass used in cathode-ray tubes for televisions and computers. This
 15 CR at I-9, PR at 1-7. See also discussion of demand for barium carbonate under Conditions of Competition and

the Business Cycle, infra. 

 16 CR at I-9, PR at 1-7. In the original investigation, the Commission identified other uses for barium carbonate,

including production of other barium chemicals, and hard ferrite magnets used in direct current motors, TV tubes,

speakers and telephones. USITC Pub. 3631 at 5 n.15. During the period examined in the original investigation, ***

produced a small quantity of high-purity barium carbonate used in the production of ***. USITC Pub. 3631 at 5

n.15, CR at I-8 - I-9 (note: all citations to the original determination are to Pub. 3631, from which the referenced

business proprietary information has been deleted). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 18 USITC Pub. 3631 at 5-6 (Sep. 2003), citing Barium Carbonate From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1020

(Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3561 at 4-7 (Nov. 2002). 

 19 CPC’s Response to Notice of Institution at 15, CPC’s Comments (Jan. 7, 2009) at 4. 

 20 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 21 See United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 673, 682-83 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d

1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

 22 USITC Pub. 3631 at 6. During the period examined in the original investigation, CPC accounted for ***

percent and Osram Sylvania for less than *** percent of domestic production. Id. at 6 n. 25. 

5

glass is no longer manufactured in the United States.15 The remaining major end uses for barium

carbonate are in the manufacture of bricks, tiles, and other clay products; fit for glazing of porcelain or

ceramics; and production of specialty glass (e.g., reflective glass beads for road signs).16

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

Commission’s like product determination in the original determination.17 In that determination the

Commission found no clear dividing line between the forms of the product and accordingly defined the

domestic like product as all barium carbonate, coextensive with the scope of subject merchandise.18

In this five-year review, CPC agrees with the Commission’s domestic like product definition

from the original investigation.19 No new facts have been presented to warrant a different conclusion. 

Accordingly, we find, based on the available information, that there is one domestic like product

consisting of barium carbonate, regardless of form or grade, coextensive with the scope of the order.

B. Domestic Industry and Related Parties

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

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

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”20 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, provided that adequate production-related activity is conducted in the United States.21 

In the original investigation, the Commission defined the domestic industry to encompass the

only two domestic producers of barium carbonate during the period examined: CPC, by far the larger

producer, and Osram Sylvania.22 CPC does not object to this definition of the domestic industry, and no

new facts have been presented to warrant a different conclusion. Accordingly, consistent with our
 23 The related parties provision, 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B), allows for the exclusion of certain domestic producers

from the domestic industry for the purposes of an injury determination. There is no evidence that any domestic

producer qualifies as a related party in this review. CPC’s Response to Notice of Institution at 11-12. 

 24 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

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

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

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

that were never completed.” SAA at 883. 

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

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

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

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

SAA at 884.

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

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

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

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

Dec. 20, 2002) (“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s opinion”; “the court has not

interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. v. United

States, Slip Op. 02-105 at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a likelihood of continuation or

recurrence of injury, not a certainty”); Usinor v. United States, Slip Op. 02-70 at 43-44 (Ct. Int’l Trade July 19,

2002) (“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

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

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

Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-362 (Review)

(continued...)

6

definition of the domestic industry in the original investigation, and our definition of the domestic like

product here, we define the domestic industry to include all domestic producers of barium carbonate.23

III. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF 

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER IS REVOKED

For the reasons stated below, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on

barium carbonate from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to

the domestic industry producing barium carbonate within a reasonably foreseeable time.

A. Legal Standard In a Five-Year Review

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

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

and (2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation of the antidumping duty order “would be

likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”24

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”), states

that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a counter-factual analysis; it must

decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an important change in the status quo –

the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of its restraining effects on volumes and

prices of imports.”25 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in nature.26 The U.S. Court of

International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the five-year review provisions of the Act, means

“probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five-year reviews.27 28 29
 28 (...continued)

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

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

AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004) at 15-17, she does not concur with the U.S. Court of

International Trade’s interpretation of “likely” but she will apply the Court’s standard in this review and all

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

addresses the issue.

 30 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

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

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

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

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

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

 32 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

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

review. See Commerce’s Review Determination, 73 Fed. Reg. 11,868. The statute further provides that the

presence or absence of any factor that the Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive

guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). While the Commission must

consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886.

 34 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 

7

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

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

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

‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.”31

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§ 1675(a)(4).33

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

limited information with respect to the barium carbonate industry in China. Accordingly, as already

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

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

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

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

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”34

In this review, we find several conditions of competition similar to those found in the original

investigation as well as several additional conditions of competition relevant to our analysis. In the

original investigation, the Commission explained that the principal uses for barium carbonate were in the

production of glass, particularly television glass, and bricks and tile. Production of glass then accounted

for approximately 79 percent of total U.S. consumption of barium carbonate. Glass production relied

primarily upon the granular form of the product, and about *** of U.S. producers’ barium carbonate
 35 USITC Pub. 3631 at 7. 

 36 USITC Pub. 3631 at 8.

 37 USITC Pub. 3631 at 8.

 38 USITC Pub. 3631 at 8.

 39 USITC Pub. 3631 at 9. Regarding competition in the powdered form of barium carbonate, the Commission

explained that *** of CPC’s sales of powdered barium carbonate to brick and tile manufacturers were of its MicroFloTM product, for which there were no directly equivalent subject imports. It noted, additionally, that subject

imports in powdered form were sold largely in the western United States, whereas the domestic powdered product

was sold mainly in other parts of the country. Id.

 40 CPC’s Response to Notice of Institution at 13.

 41 CR/PR at Table I-5.

8

shipments in 2002 were of the granular product. The granular product accounted for an increasing

portion of the subject imports from China over the period examined. The Commission found that the

brick and tile industry relied virtually exclusively upon the powdered form of the product.35

The Commission found that, when measured by total apparent domestic consumption, U.S.

barium carbonate demand declined from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2002. Apparent

domestic consumption in interim (January through March) 2003, *** short tons, was higher than that in

interim 2002, *** short tons. It found that the decline in U.S. barium carbonate demand over the period

examined related to a general economic slowdown as well as reduced demand for television glass

resulting from increased imports of finished television sets. The Commission observed that, in general,

there were no substitutes for barium carbonate.36

There were two domestic producers of the domestic like product during the original period of

investigation, with CPC by far the larger producer.37 The Commission noted that domestic supply also

included subject imports from China, as well as nonsubject imports, primarily from Mexico and

Germany. Nonsubject imports declined significantly between 2000 and 2002, while subject imports from

China increased in that period.38 

 The Commission found that there was a moderate to high degree of substitution between

domestic barium carbonate and subject imports, with substitution higher with respect to the granular

form.39

 In this review, we note the absence of any new information that would cause us to reconsider

many of our findings in the original investigation, including that the principal uses for barium carbonate

are in glass, brick, and tile production, that glass production relies primarily on granular barium

carbonate, and that brick and tile production relies primarily on barium carbonate in powdered form. Nor

is there new information that would cause us to reconsider our findings that there are no substitutes for

barium carbonate and that CPC accounts for virtually all production of the domestic like product.

However, while a significant amount of barium carbonate had been used in the production of

glass for cathode-ray tubes for television and computer screens during the original period of investigation,

cathode ray tubes have been largely replaced since that time by flat panel (e.g., LCD or plasma) or

projection screens, which require little or no barium carbonate. As a result, glass for cathode-ray tubes is

no longer manufactured in the United States.40 In the period of review, demand for barium carbonate,

when measured by total apparent domestic consumption, has concomitantly declined sharply from what

was the period of investigation low of *** short tons in 2002 to *** short tons in 2007.41 

The record in this review indicates that the quality of barium carbonate produced in China has

improved since the original period of investigation, the range of barium carbonate produced in China has

expanded, and Chinese producers are now able to compete effectively in the full range of end use
 42 CR at I-12, PR at 1-9.

 43 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 44 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A)-(D).

 45 USITC Pub. 3631 at 9-10.

 46 USITC Pub. 3631 at 10.

 47 Id.

9

applications in the United States.42 Accordingly, we find that the degree of substitution between domestic

barium carbonate and subject imports is even higher than the moderate to high degree of substitution the

Commission found in the original investigation.

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

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

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

significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.43 In

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

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

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

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

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

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

products.44

In the original investigation, the Commission found that the volume of subject imports from

China increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2002, after declining to *** short tons in

2001, and was lower, at *** short tons, in interim 2003 compared with *** short tons in interim 2002. It

found that, from 2000 to 2002, the trend for importers’ shipments of subject imports was similar, but

those shipments did not decline in the interim 2003 period due to sales from importers’ inventories. 

Shipments of subject imports increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2002, after

declining to *** short tons in 2001. Shipments of subject imports in interim 2003, *** short tons, were

higher than in interim 2002, when they were *** short tons.45

The Commission found that, as a share of the volume of apparent U.S. consumption, shipments of

subject imports increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2002, after declining to *** percent

in 2001. In interim 2003, their share of apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent, compared with ***

percent in interim 2002. The Commission found that subject imports increased relative to domestic

production as well. The volume of subject imports was equivalent to *** percent of domestic production

in 2000, *** percent in 2001, and *** percent in 2002; the share was *** percent in interim 2003

compared with *** percent in interim 2002. The ratio of shipments of subject imports to U.S. production

increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2002, after declining to *** percent in 2001. The

ratio of shipments of subject imports to U.S. production in interim 2003, *** percent, was higher than that

in interim 2002, when it was *** percent.46 Consequently, the Commission found the volume of subject

imports to be significant in absolute terms and relative to production and consumption in the United

States.47

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

original period of investigation. Based on official statistics, subject imports declined from *** short tons

in 2002, the final full year of the period of investigation, to 192 short tons in 2003, then declined
 48 CR/PR at Table I-4.

 49 CR/PR at Table I-5.

 50 CR/PR at Table I-6.

 51 CR/PR at Table I-5.

 52 CR at I-20, PR at 1-14; CR/PR at Table I-6. 

 53 CR/PR at Table I-6.

 54 CR/PR at Table I-6. 

 55 See CPC’s Response to Notice of Institution at Exhibit 3 (Chinese barium carbonate exports based on Chinese

customs data).

 56 We also note that the European Union imposed antidumping duties on barium carbonate from China as of July

2005. CR at I-19, PR at I-13; see also 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(C) (barriers to the importation of the subject

merchandise into countries other than the United States is among the factors to be considered in assessment of

whether the volume of subject imports is likely to be significant in the event of revocation). 

10

irregularly to 154 short tons in 2007.48 Shipments of subject imports as a share of apparent U.S.

consumption declined from *** percent in 2002 to *** percent in 2007.49 

For the following reasons, we find that the volume of subject imports would be likely to be

significant if the order were revoked. First, significant production capacity currently exists in China. 

Production capacity of nine producers of barium carbonate in China was reportedly *** short tons as of

August 2008.50 This production capacity dwarfs apparent U.S. consumption, which was *** short tons in

2007.51 It also reflects a substantial increase from production capacity reported in the original

investigation by the two responding Chinese producers, which accounted for *** percent of subject

imports in 2002. Their capacity increased during the period of investigation from *** short tons in 2000

to *** short tons in 2002.52 We also find the substantial level of Chinese producers’ total exports of

barium carbonate, described below, to be further evidence that significant production capacity exists in

China.

The barium carbonate industry in China is export oriented and the volume of its total exports has

increased substantially since the original investigation. Total exports for the Chinese producers

responding in the original investigation increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2002,

and those exports accounted for approximately *** of the responding Chinese producers’ total shipments

during that period. The record shows that total exports of all Chinese producers ranged over the review

period from *** short tons in 2004 to *** short tons in 2007.53 We find therefore that subject producers

in China are focused on exports to a significant degree.

We also find that Chinese producers would be able to increase exports to the United States in the

event of revocation by shifting exports from other markets to the United States. The ease with which

such a shift would occur is indicated by the increase, rather than decrease, in total exports of the Chinese

producers following the steep drop in Chinese exports to the United States after the antidumping duty

order was issued.54 The Chinese producers’ ability to shift volumes among export markets – and,

therefore, their ability to shift exports to the United States in the event of revocation of the antidumping

duty order – is also indicated by the magnitude of the annual fluctuations of export volumes among their

numerous export markets during the period of review.55 

We find that producers in China have the capability to increase exports to the United States and

would have sufficient incentive to do so, particularly in light of recent limitations on Chinese producers'

ability to sell in European markets,56 if the order were revoked. Accordingly, we find that imports of

barium carbonate from China would be likely to be significant in the reasonably foreseeable future if the

antidumping duty order were revoked. 
 57 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in considering

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

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

at 886.

 58 USITC Pub. 3631 at 10-11.

 59 USITC Pub. 3631 at 11.

 60 USITC Pub. 3631 at 12.

 61 USITC Pub. 3631 at 13.

 62 CR/PR at Tables I-3, I-4 (the 2007 AUVs of the domestic like product and subject imports were $*** and

$391.31, respectively). We note that, as a general rule, we do not place great weight on AUVcomparisons where 

product mix issues exist. In this instance, however, because of the lack of respondent party participation in this

review, we must rely on the facts available. 

11

D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

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

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

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

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

price of the domestic like product.57

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

subject imports were substantially interchangeable and used in the same applications, that the quality of

subject imports was generally comparable to that of the domestic like product, that there was a moderate

to high degree of substitutability between the subject imports and the domestic like product, and that price

was a significant factor in purchasing decisions.58 The Commission found that the subject imports in

granular form undersold the domestic like product in 7 of 13 comparisons, with margins ranging from 0.1

percent to 9.1 percent, with the most *** underselling in the final four quarters of the period, when the

volume of subject imports increased by ***. The Commission noted that subject imports of the powdered

form of barium carbonate, which accounted for a smaller portion of the market than did the granular form,

undersold the domestic product in all 13 comparisons, with margins ranging from 10.7 percent to 36.0

percent. The Commission found these margins of underselling to be significant.59

The Commission found that, overall, domestic producer prices for the granular and powdered

product declined between the first and final quarters of the period examined and that domestic producer

prices, accordingly, were significantly depressed by the subject imports over the period of investigation.60

The Commission also found that the prices of the Chinese product had suppressed domestic prices to a

significant degree by preventing the domestic industry from increasing prices sufficiently to cover

increased costs of goods sold. Additionally, the Commission found that several lost sales and lost

revenue allegations had been verified and that other record evidence *** also tended to confirm a

significant degree of negative price effects due to the subject imports.61

In this five-year review, we find that subject imports would likely have a significant adverse

impact on prices for the domestic like product were the order to be revoked. As noted above, new

information obtained in this review indicates that the quality of subject imports is now more comparable

to that of the domestic like product than during the original investigation and that they are now more

competitive in a greater range of applications.

The only data on prices in this expedited review are average unit values (“AUVs”). In 2007, the

AUV of subject imports was *** percent lower than the AUV of domestic producer shipments.62 In light

of the significantly reduced current volume of subject imports and the significant volume in the original

investigation, we find that subject imports would be priced aggressively to regain market share if the

order were revoked. Thus, the pricing patterns observed in the original investigation, and the evidence of
 63 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 64 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the magnitude

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

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

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

19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887. In its expedited review of the order, Commerce has concluded

that were the antidumping duty order to be revoked, dumping would likely recur at the rate of 34.44 percent for

Qingdao Red Star Chemical and a rate of 81.30 percent China-wide. 74 Fed. Reg. 882 (Jan. 9, 2009). 

Section 751(a)(4) of the Act requires Commerce, if requested by a party in an administrative review, to

determine whether a foreign producer or importer of subject merchandise has absorbed antidumping duties. 19

U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Commerce has not conducted any administrative reviews under the order and, therefore, has

not made a duty absorption finding. 

 65 USITC Pub. 3631 at 14-15.

 66 Id.

12

continued low prices with the order in place, indicate that the subject imports would likely undersell the

domestic like product if the order were removed.

As noted above, we find that relatively low priced subject imports are likely to increase

significantly in the reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping duty order is revoked. We conclude

that, at these likely volumes, the subject imports would be likely to have significant depressing or

suppressing effects on the prices of the domestic like product.

E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

like product.63 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the business cycle

and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry.64 As instructed by the statute, we

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

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

In the original investigation, the Commission found that subject imports had a significant adverse

impact on the domestic industry.65 The Commission found that the adverse impact of subject imports was

most evident in the domestic industry’s prices, which the industry cut in the face of import competition in

order to maintain sales and production volumes. Thus, the primary effect of subject imports on the

domestic industry was reflected in its financial indicators. In that regard, the Commission found that the

industry’s operating income had declined as suppression and depression of domestic prices translated into

a decline in the AUV of the domestic industry’s net sales.66 

In this five-year review, we note that there is limited information on the record concerning the

current condition of the domestic industry, in particular its current financial condition. This limited

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

continuation or recurrence of material injury if the antidumping duty order were to be revoked. We

recognize however that, due largely to declining demand for barium carbonate in what was previously its
 67 Domestic industry production declined from *** short tons in 2002 to *** short tons in 2007. CR/PR at Table

I-3. Domestic industry shipments declined from *** short tons in 2002 to *** short tons in 2007, as apparent U.S.

consumption declined, as noted above, from *** short tons in 2002 to *** short tons in 2007. CR/PR at Tables I-3,

I-5. 

 68 The domestic industry’s shipments as a share of apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent in 2007, whereas

its market share ranged from *** to *** percent in the original period of investigation. CR/PR at Tables I-5. The

AUV of domestic industry shipments was $*** per short ton in 2007, whereas AUVs ranged from $*** to $*** per

short ton during the original period of investigation. CR/PR at Table I-3. 

 69 CR/PR at Table I-2. 

13

principal end use, apparent U.S. consumption has declined since the original investigation, as have

domestic production and shipments.67

We find that the domestic industry has experienced positive effects as a result of the order. 

Domestic industry shipments as a share of apparent U.S. consumption, as well as the AUV of domestic

industry shipments, were higher in 2007 than in any year of the original period of investigation.68 We

also find it likely that subject import volumes would have been higher, and domestic producers’ market

share and prices lower, absent the order.69 Moreover, CPC has been able to sell its barium carbonate at

prices that cover its costs and provide it with a reasonable return due to the effects of the antidumping

duty order.

As discussed above, revocation of the antidumping duty order on barium carbonate from China

would likely result in a significant increase in subject import volumes, significant subject import

underselling, and significant price suppression or depression. We find that the intensified subject import

competition likely after revocation of the order would likely have a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry. Specifically, the domestic industry would likely lose market share to subject imports,

which would adversely impact the industry’s production, shipments, sales, revenues, and employment. 

Declining production, sales and revenues, as well as depressed or suppressed prices for the domestic like

product, would adversely impact the domestic industry’s profitability, as well as its ability to raise capital

and make and maintain necessary capital investments. 

Given the likelihood of significant subject import volume and adverse price effects absent the

order, we conclude that revocation of the order would likely have a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on barium

carbonate from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the U.S.

barium carbonate industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

 1

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

 2

 73 FR 51315, September 2, 2008. All interested parties were requested to respond to this notice by submitting

the information requested by the Commission. The Commission’s notice of institution is presented in app. A.

 3

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

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

notice of institution. 73 FR 51275, September 2, 2008.

 4

 The domestic producer, Chemical Products Corp. (“CPC”), submitted the only response to the Commission’s

notice of institution for the subject review. CPC is represented by the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. 

CPC indicated in its response that it is the only commercial producer of barium carbonate in the United States in

2008, and, for purposes of the antidumping law, constitutes the “Domestic Industry.” Response of CPC to the notice

of institution (“Response,” October 22, 2008), p. 2. 

 5

 The Commission’s statement on adequacy is presented in app. B.

 6

 10 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3).

 7

 73 FR 77058, December 18, 2008. The Commission’s notice of scheduling of the expedited review appears in

app. A.

 8

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

presented in app. A.

I-3

 INTRODUCTION

On September 2, 2008, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(“the act”),1

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

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

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

foreseeable time.2 3

 On December 8, 2008, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party

response to the notice of institution was adequate;4

 the Commission also determined that the respondent

interested party response was inadequate. The Commission found no other circumstances that would

warrant conducting a full review.5

 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct an

expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.6 7

 The Commission voted on this review on

January 21, 2009, and notified Commerce of its determination on January 30, 2009. Selected information

relating to the schedule of this review is presented below:8

Effective date Action

September 2, 2008 Commission’s institution of five-year review (73 FR 51315, September 2, 2008)

September 2, 2008 Commerce’s notice of initiation (73 FR 51275, September 2, 2008)

December 8, 2008 Commission’s determination to conduct expedited five-year review and scheduling

of expedited review (73 FR 77058, December 18, 2008).

December 31, 2008 Commerce’s final result due for expedited five-year review

January 21, 2009 Commission’s vote

January 30, 2009 Commission’s determination transmitted to Commerce

The Original Investigation

On September 30, 2002, a petition was filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an

industry in the United States was materially injured and threatened with further material injury by reason
 9

 The petition was filed by counsel on behalf of Chemical Products Corp. (“CPC”), Cartersville, GA. Barium

Carbonate From China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1020 (Final), USITC Publication 3631, September 2003

(“Publication 3631”), p. I-1.

 10 68 FR 55653, September 26, 2003.

 11 68 FR 55653, September 26, 2003, and 68 FR 56619, October 1, 2003.

I-4

of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of barium carbonate (regardless of form or grade) from China.9

On August 6, 2003, Commerce made an affirmative final LTFV determination regarding barium

carbonate from China.10 The Commission completed its original investigation concerning barium

carbonate from China on September 19, 2003, determining that an industry in the United States was

materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of barium carbonate from China, and Commerce issued an

antidumping duty order on imports of barium carbonate from China.11

Commerce’s Original Determination and Subsequent Review Determination

Commerce has not conducted any annual administrative reviews or changed-circumstances

reviews concerning barium carbonate from China. There have been no duty absorption findings or scope

rulings on the subject merchandise covered by the order. The order remains in effect for all

manufacturers, producers, and exporters of barium carbonate from China. Information on Commerce’s

final determination, antidumping duty order, and requests for administrative review is presented in 

table I-1.

Table I-1

Barium carbonate: Commerce’s final determination and antidumping duty order

Period of review

Type of proceeding and date

results published Margin (percent)

1/1/2002-6/30/2002 Final determination and

antidumping duty order

(68 FR 46577, August 6, 2003)

AD order 

(68 FR 56619, October 1, 2003)

Qingdao Red Star Chemical

Import & Export Co., Ltd. ..................... 34.44

China-wide rate .................................... 81.30

3/17/03-9/30/04 Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review

(69 FR 58889, October 1, 2004)

No review conducted

10/1/04-9/30/05 Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review

(70 FR 57558, October 3, 2005)

No review conducted

10/1/05-9/30/06 Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review

(71 FR 57920, October 2, 2006)

No review conducted

10/1/06-9/30/07 Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review

(72 FR 55741, October 1, 2007)

No review conducted

10/1/07-9/30/08 Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review

(73 FR 57056, October 1, 2008)

No review conducted

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
 12 Letter from Susan Kuhback, Senior Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, October 22, 2008.

 13 Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. §1675(c)).

 14 19 CFR 159.64(g).

I-5

Absent any requests for review, antidumping duties are assessed on entries of barium carbonate

from China at rates equal to those of the original order.

Commerce’s Final Results of Expedited Five-Year Review

On October 22, 2008, Commerce notified the Commission that it did not receive an adequate

response to its notice of initiation from the respondent interested parties with respect to barium carbonate

from China and that it would conduct an expedited review of the order.12 Commerce will issue the final

results of its review no later than December 31, 2008.

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act Funds 

to Affected Domestic Producers

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

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

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

producers incur after the issuance of such orders.13 During the period of review, CPC was the only

qualified U.S. producer of barium carbonate elibible to receive disbursements from the U.S. Customs and

Border Protection (“Customs”) under CDSOA relating to the antidumping duty order on the subject

product.14 Table I-2 presents CDSOA disbursements and claims for Federal fiscal years (October 1-

September 30) 2004-08. Inasmuch as the Chinese imports essentially left the U.S. market subsequent to

the issuance of the initial antidumping order, little in the way of CDSOA disbursements has occurred. 

Table I-2

Barium carbonate: Industry CDSOA disbursements, Federal fiscal years 2004-08

Fiscal year Amount disbursed (dollars) Amount claimed (dollars)

2004 (1

) (1)

2005 10,383 21,911,000

2006 37,687 23,631,617

2007 45,319 26,376,931

2008 34,9112 0

 Total 128,300 (

1

)

1

 Not applicable, no filings listed on Customs’ website. 2

 Data are for preliminary CDSOA amounts available as of April 30, 2008.

Source: Custom’s CDSOA Annual Reports for disbursement and claims data for 2004-07 at

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/, retrieved December 19, 2008.
 15 The Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic products 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 where appropriate, (6) price.

I-6

THE PRODUCT

Scope

In its order, Commerce has defined the scope of this investigation as follows:

“Barium carbonate, regardless of form or grade. The product is currently classifiable

under subheading 2836.60.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs

purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.” 

U.S. Tariff Treatment

Imports of this product are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United

States (“HTS”) subheading 2836.60.00 as set forth in the following tabulation:

HTS provision Article description

General1 Special2 Column 23

Rates (ad valorem)

2836

 

 2836.60.00

Carbonates; peroxocarbonates

(percarbonates); commercial

ammonium carbonate containing

ammonium carbamate:

 Barium carbonate

 

 

2.3 Free (A, AU,

BH, CA, CL,

E, IL, J, JO,

MA, MX, P,

SG)

8.4

1

 Normal trade relations, formerly known as the most-favored-nation duty rate. 2

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

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

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

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

Area Implementation Act); MA (United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act); P (Dominican RepublicCentral America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act); SG (United States-Singapore Free Trade

Agreement). 3

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

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2008) - Supplement 1.

Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry

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

the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the subject merchandise. The domestic

industry is the U.S. producers as a whole of the domestic like product, or those producers whose

collective output of the domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic

production of the product.15
 16 Publication 3631, p. 6.

 17 Response, October 22, 2008, p. 15.

 18 This section was taken largely from INV-AA-122, August 30, 2003 (“Confidential Investigation Report”), 

pp. I-5-I-11.

 19 Response, October 22, 2008, p. 13.

 20 This section was taken largely from the Confidential Investigation Report, pp. I-11-I-14.

I-7

In its original determination the Commission found the appropriate domestic like product to be

“all barium carbonate,” coextensive with Commerce’s scope.16 In response to a question soliciting

comments regarding the appropriate domestic like product and domestic industry in the Commission’s

notice of institution of this five-year review, CPC agreed with the Commission’s domestic like product

and domestic industry definitions as stated in the notice of institution.17

Physical Characteristics and Uses18

Barium carbonate is a heavy, odorless, white-to-cream colored chemical with the chemical

formula BaCO3. It is found naturally in the mineral witherite, although most barium carbonate sold

commercially is produced synthetically. Barium carbonate is sold commercially in granular, powder, or

high-purity form.

The granular and powdered forms of barium carbonate, which typically contain at least 98

percent barium carbonate, have essentially the same chemical composition and similar physical

properties, differing principally in their particle size. Granular barium carbonate consists of relatively

large particles of barium carbonate (average particle size in excess of 105 microns), whereas powdered

barium carbonate consists of small, discrete particles (average particle size of 3-5 microns or less).

High-purity barium carbonate, with a barium content in excess of 99.5 percent, contains a smaller

percentage of impurities than the forms described above and is used in the production of ***. ***.

During the original investigation, a significant amount of barium carbonate sold in the United

States was used in the production of glass for cathode-ray tube televisions. This glass is no longer

manufactured in the United States, with consequent diminished demand for barium carbonate.19 The use

of barium carbonate in TVs and computer screens declined as cathode ray tubes were replaced by certain

flat panel TVs (e.g., LCD or plasma) or projection TVs, which require little or no barium carbonate. 

Currently, the major end uses for barium carbonate are in the production of specialty glass (e.g.,

reflective glass beads for road signs), frit for glazing of porcelain or ceramics, and in the manufacture of

bricks, tiles, and other clay products.

In general, there are no substitutes for barium carbonate. During the original investigation, glass

cullet (recycled glass articles, glass waste, and finished glass that does not meet specifications that is

introduced into the production line) reportedly acted as an effective substitute for barium carbonate by

reducing demand for new purchases of the chemical for use in certain TV glass production.

Manufacturing Process20

Although barium carbonate can be extracted from the barium-carbonate containing mineral

witherite, in practice it has proven more economical to prepare commercial-grade barium carbonate

synthetically using a raw material barite ore which contains natural barium sulfate. Barite ore accounted

for *** percent of CPS’s raw material costs to produce barium carbonate in 2002, and for *** percent of

its total cost of goods sold in that year.

The steps used by CPC to produce commercial grade barium carbonate (***) from barite ore are

as follows:
 21 Calcination is heating of a solid to a temperature which is below its melting point but which is sufficiently high

to achieve the transformation desired, in this case the transformation to a granular form. Confidential Investigation

Report, p. I-11, fn. 55.

 22 ***. Staff field trip notes, June 22, 2003, Confidential Investigation Report, p. I-12, fn. 56.

I-8

• Barite ore (barium sulfate), which is highly insoluble, is reduced to barium sulfide, which is very

soluble, in a reducing kiln using coke as a carbon source.

• Barium sulfide is dissolved in water and leached to remove impurities.

• The barium sulfide solution is reacted with carbon dioxide to produce, as a precipitate, barium

carbonate.

• The barium carbonate precipitate is filtered to remove excess water and then dried.

• The dried barium carbonate is pulverized to produce powdered barium carbonate. To produce the

granular grade, the dried barium carbonate undergoes an additional processing step, calcination.21

An additional barium carbonate product, Micro-FloTM, is produced *** in a process wherein ***,

thereby forming tiny micro-sphere particles which resemble granulated product, only smaller.22

According to CPC, the basic production process is common to both CPC and the Chinese

producers; however, there are a few significant differences. Similarities include the raw material used in

both countries, which is barite ore, and the fact that CPC and the barium carbonate producers in China

produce both the granular and powdered forms of barium carbonate. According to CPC, differences

between the domestic and the Chinese production process include the following:

• CPC uses coke as a carbon source in a gas or fuel oil-fired furnace; producers in China use steam

coal as a carbon source and pulverized steam coal as the fuel input for the kiln.

• Producers in China use a grade of coal having a lower carbon content than the coke used by CPC.

• CPC purchases carbon dioxide gas directly; producers in China don’t have access to reliable

sources of carbon dioxide and must produce their own carbon dioxide by reacting limestone

(calcium carbonate) and coal in a kiln.

• At CPC, calcining to produce the granular grade is accomplished using the same equipment as for

drying because of the availability of natural gas; in China where natural gas is not readily

available, producers need to use separate equipment for drying and calcining that is fueled by

coal and kerosene, respectively.

• At CPC, the production process is designed to ensure that the proper mix of elemental carbon and

barite ore is maintained continuously in the reducing kiln to a high degree of accuracy. However,

the Chinese producers cannot maintain such a degree of control given the “lumpy” nature of their

feedstock. Such a lack of control would result in a substantial loss of efficiency by the Chinese

producers, estimated by CPC to amount to about *** percent as compared with CPC’s production

process.

According to CPC, because the Chinese barium carbonate producers lack the energy or chemical

inputs as described above, the Chinese production process is far less efficient and more complicated than

the production process employed by CPC, resulting in substantial cost disadvantages for the Chinese
 23 Beneficiation is ***. Confidential Investigation Report, p. I-14, fn. 65.

 24 Publication 3631, p. 10.

 25 Ibid., p. 9.

 26 In the original investigation, the Commission found that “there exists only limited competition between

domestic barium carbonate and subject imports in the brick and tile market.” Publication 3631, p. 7.

 27 Response, p. 14.

 28 This section was taken largely from the Confidential Investigation Report, pp. II-1-II-3.

 29 Confidential Investigation Report, p. II-1.

I-9

producers. In contrast, a representative of BassTech, which imports and markets barium carbonate

produced by Red Star, contended that the cost structure of CPC is higher than that of Red Star because

CPC must either procure a much lower quality barite ore locally or import a higher quality barite ore from

China. The barite ore that CPC obtains locally is mixed with clay; before the ore can be used for the

production of barium carbonate, it must be separated from the clay through a process referred to as

beneficiation.23

Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions

During the period examined in the original investigation (2000-02), the Commission found that

“the bulk of the domestic like product and subject imports are substantially interchangeable” and that

{t}he quality of subject imports is generally comparable to that of the domestic like product.”24 The

Commission further noted that there is a moderate to high degree of substitution between the domestic

barium carbonate and subject imports, with substitution higher with respect to the granular form. Red

Star contended that the qualification process necessary to become a supplier of barium carbonate

represents a significant barrier to imports of subject barium carbonate from China. The Commission

stated that the record indicated, however, that any such barriers are not particularly high or difficult to

surmount in the short to medium term.25

CPC believes that Chinese producers of barium carbonate are able to compete for all remaining

end-use applications for barium carbonate in the United States, including the brick and tile sector.26 CPC

believes that the quality and the range of barium carbonate produced by Chinese manufacturers has

expanded since the period of the original investigation and that Chinese exporters are now able to

compete effectively for the full range of end-use applications in the United States.27

Channels of Distribution28

During the period examined in the original investigation, barium carbonate in granular form

accounted for *** of all U.S. shipments by CPC and by importers of Chinese material. About ***

percent of the quantity of CPC’s shipments was granular in 2002, and about *** percent was powdered. 

*** percent of its powdered barium carbonate went to brick and tile manufacturers and the remainder

went to other uses. For imports from China, about *** percent of U.S. shipments of granular barium

carbonate went to glass manufacturers and about *** percent of powdered barium carbonate went to brick

and tile manufacturers.29

During the period examined in the original investigation, sales of barium carbonate were made to

end user manufacturers (84.6 percent) and distributors (15.4 percent). Of the manufacturing firms that

used barium carbonate, nine produced glass products, four bricks, and nine produced other products

including specialty chemicals, lamps, coating, ceramic products, and continuous cast molding for the U.S.

steel industry. Eleven purchasers reported purchases of granular and 17 reported buying powdered
 30 Confidential Investigation Report, p. II-6.

 31 Publication 3631, p. 12.

 32 Response, October 22, 2008, p. 9.

 33 Ibid.

 34 Ibid., p. 10.

 35 Confidential Investigation Report, pp. III-1-III-2.

 36 Response, October 22, 2008, p. 11.

 37 During the period examined in the original investigation, CPC purchased subject merchandise from an importer

but ceased such purchases when it concluded that a longer-term relationship with that importer would be inconsistent

with its own continued production. The Commission found, in light of the ratio of CPC’s purchases to its

production, that appropriate circumstance would not exist to exclude CPC from the domestic industry even if those

purchases had been of a magnitude great enough for CPC to be deemed “related.” Publication 3631, p. 6, n.26. 

CPC reports no domestic producer imports of subject barium carbonate during the period examined in this five-year

review and identifies no other potential related party issue. Response, October 22, 2008, pp. 11-12.

I-10

barium carbonate during the period of original investigation. Four firms reported purchases of Chineseproduced granular barium carbonate, and eight reported purchases of Chinese-produced powdered barium

carbonate.30 

Pricing

During the period examined in the original investigation (2000-02), the Commission found

underselling by the subject imports to be significant, and that domestic producer prices were significantly

depressed and suppressed by the subject imports over the period considered.31 For these reasons, the

Commission determined that “the lower prices brought about by subject import competition have resulted

in present material injury to the domestic industry...”32

According to CPC in this current five-year review, if the antidumping order were revoked, there

is a strong likelihood that the same pattern would recur, resulting in renewed material injury to CPC.33

CPC further opined that there is no reason to believe that any aspect of the pricing behavior of Chinese

exporters in the U.S. market would change if the order were revoked; it is highly likely that revocation of

the antidumping duty order would lead to a resumption of Chinese exports of barium carbonate to the

United States at ruinously low prices.34

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Producers

During the period examined in the original investigation, the U.S. barium carbonate industry was

comprised of two producers, CPC and Osram Sylvania. CPC is a privately held corporation managed by

the Dellinger family, which has produced barium carbonate at Cartersville, GA, since 1933. Osram

Sylvania is a *** subsidiary of Siemens AG, Munich, Germany, and is a U.S. producer of specialty

lighting products headquartered in Towanda, PA. Although this firm accounted for less than *** percent

of total U.S. barium carbonate production volume during the period examined in the original

investigation, ***.35

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this five-year review, CPC indicated

that it believes that it is now the only domestic producer of barium carbonate. CPC *** and CPC is not

aware that Osram Sylvania currently produces any barium carbonate for resale.36 37
 38 Confidential Investigation Report, p. III-4.

 39 Ibid.

 40 Response, October 22, 2008, p. 13.

 41 Ibid.

I-11

U.S. Producers’ Trade, Employment, and Financial Data

Data reported by U.S. producers of barium carbonate in the Commission’s original investigation

and in response to the five-year review’s institution notice are presented in table I-3.

Table I-3

Barium carbonate: U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data, 2000-02 and 2003-07

* * * * * * *

During the period examined in the original investigation (2000-02), the domestic industry

producing barium carbonate experienced constant production capacity with fluctuating capacity

utilization rates. CPC’s U.S. shipment volume followed roughly the same trend as that of capacity

utilization, although unit values peaked at $*** per short ton in 2001, the year in which the capacity

utilization rate was lowest. Overall, CPC’s U.S. shipments displayed a *** downward trend in unit value. 

The industry’s export shipments, while averaging only about *** percent of total shipment volume,

commanded *** average unit values during the period examined due to *** export shipments which

averaged $***.38 End-of period inventory volumes and ratios to production and shipments in general

displayed *** downward trends during 2000-02. Average hours worked were constant during the period

examined, and hourly wages increased steadily. The rise in unit labor costs during the period examined,

expressed in dollars per ton, generally tracked wage trends.39 Financial indicators generally declined

during the period, as net sales declined and expenses per pound increased.

During the period examined in this five-year review (2003-07), production volume and U.S.

shipment volume, value, and unit value for calendar year 2007 are the only industry indicators available.40

CPC estimates that current demand for barium carbonate in the United States is less than 15,000 short

tons annually and the company has reacted to the reduced demand conditions for barium carbonate in the

United States by reducing its production capacity and taking steps to align its supply with the available

demand.41
I-12

U.S. IMPORTS AND APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

U.S. Importers

Twelve importers responded to the Commission’s questionnaires in the final phase of the original

investigation and provided essentially complete importer coverage.

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this five-year review, CPC listed one

company, Wintersun Chemical, Ontario, CA, that may be importing (or may have recently imported)

barium carbonate from China into the United States during the period of review.

U.S. Imports

Table I-4 presents import data on barium carbonate from 2000 to 2007. The data for 2000-02 are

based on questionnaire data; data for 2003-07 are based on official import statistics.

Table I-4

Barium carbonate: U.S. imports, based on a combination of questionnaire data and official

Commerce statistics, by source, 2000-07

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Quantity (short tons)

China *** *** *** 192 88 339 328 154

Other *** *** *** 10,619 11,190 7,285 4,868 3,400

 Total *** *** *** 10,811 11,278 7,625 5,196 3,554

Landed duty-paid value ($1,000)

China *** *** *** 65 24 151 147 60

Other *** *** *** 4,836 5,222 4,060 4,877 2,724

 Total *** *** *** 4,901 5,246 4,211 5,024 2,784

Landed duty-paid unit value (per short ton)

China $*** $*** $*** $335.40 $268.30 $443.51 $446.67 $391.31

Other *** *** *** 455.44 466.66 557.28 1,001.81 801.03

 Average *** *** *** 453.30 465.11 552.21 966.75 783.28

Share of total quantity (percent)

China *** *** *** 1.8 0.8 4.5 6.3 4.3

Other *** *** *** 98.2 99.2 95.5 93.7 95.7

 Total *** *** *** 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of total value (percent)

China *** *** *** 1.3 0.5 3.6 2.9 2.2

Other *** *** *** 98.7 99.5 96.4 97.1 97.8

 Total *** *** *** 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Confidential Investigation Report, table IV-2 (based on questionnaire data) and official Commerce statistics (HTS

subheading 2836.60.00).
 42 Confidential Investigation Report, pp. IV-16 and IV-18.

 43 Response, October 22, 2008, p. 13.

 44 Confidential Investigation Report, p. VII-8.

 45 Response, October 22, 2008, p. 7 and exh. 4.

I-13

During the original investigation period (2000-02), the quantity of subject imports increased from

*** percent of total U.S. imports in 2000 to *** percent in 2002 while the average unit value of such

imports declined by *** percent. However, total imports decreased due to a decline in nonsubject imports

from Mexico. 

During the period examined in this five-year review, subject import volume decreased irregularly,

reaching the highest level of the 2003-07 period in 2005 before declining in both 2006 and 

2007. The average unit value of subject imports rose irregularly from $335.40 in 2003 to $446.67 in

2006, before decreasing to $391.31 in 2007.

Apparent U.S. Consumption and Market Shares

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares are presented in table I-5. Apparent consumption

was calculated from a summation of CPC’s U.S. shipments and U.S. shipments of imports during the 

initial investigation period (2000-02). The volume of apparent U.S. consumption of barium carbonate

declined by *** percent between 2000 and 2002; however, the market share of CPC’s volume of

shipments increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2002. The market share of the volume of

shipments of imports of barium carbonate from China also increased from *** percent in 2000 to ***

percent in 2002. U.S. shipments of imports from China in table I-5 are ***.42 During the period

examined in this five-year review, apparent consumption for calendar 2007 was calculated using official

import statistics as U.S. shipments of imports were not available. Apparent consumption quantity in 2007

was *** of apparent consumption quantity in 2002 and *** of apparent consumption quantity in 2000. 

The reduced demand for barium carbonate in glass production for cathode-ray tube televisions is a

significant factor in diminished overall barium carbonate apparent consumption.43

Table I-5

Barium carbonate: Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares, 2000-02 and 2003-07

* * * * * * *

 

ANTIDUMPING ACTIONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

During the period examined in the original investigation (2000-02), India imposed an

antidumping duty order on barium carbonate from China in May 2000.44

During the period examined in this five-year review, the European Community imposed

antidumping duties on imports of Chinese barium carbonate in July 2005 as follows:45 

 

Chinese producer/exporter Definitive duties (percent ad valorem)

Hubei Jingshan Chutian Barium Salt Corp. Ltd. 3.4

Zaozhuang Yongli Chemical Co. 4.6

All others 31.7
 46 Confidential Investigation Report, pp. VII-1-VII-2.

 47 Response, October 22, 2008, p. 6 and exh. 2.

 48 Confidential Investigation Report, p. VII-4.

 49 Response, October 22, 2008, p. 12 and exhs. 2 and 3.

I-14

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

During the original investigation, the Commission sent questionnaires to 21 firms in China

believed to be producers and/or exporters of barium carbonate. The two major producers in China (Red

Star and Hebei Xinji Chemical Group) provided data in response to the Commission’s questionnaire.46

Export shipments to the United States provided by these two firms accounted for *** percent of reported

U.S. imports of the subject merchandise during 2002. 

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this five-year review, CPC provided a

list of nine producers (and their locations (primarily Guizhou and Hebei) and attendant capacities (as of

August 2008)) of the subject merchandise in China that currently can and have produced barium

carbonate for export to the United States or other countries since 2002.47

Operations in China

Table I-6 presents data on the industry in China producing and/or exporting barium carbonate. 

During the original investigation period (2000-02), aggregate data provided in response to Red Star and

Hebei Xinji’s questionnaires show that the combined firms’ barium carbonate operations experienced

increases in capacity, production, and shipments in each year for which data were collected. Exports to

the United States accounted for a *** declining share of total shipments over the period, while home

market shipments accounted for about *** of total shipments.48 Full data regarding the operations of the

Chinese industry producing and exporting barium carbonate were not available for this five-year review

(2003-07); however, partial estimates of export and capacity data were provided.49

Table I-6

Barium carbonate: China’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2000-02 and 2003-07

* * * * * * *
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 2, 2008 / Notices 51315 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 08–5–188, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1020 (Review)] 

Barium Carbonate From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on barium carbonate from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted a review 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on barium 

carbonate from China would be likely to 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury. Pursuant to section 

751(c)(2) of the Act, interested parties 

are requested to respond to this notice 

by submitting the information specified 

below to the Commission;1 to be assured 

of consideration, the deadline for 

responses is October 22, 2008. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

November 18, 2008. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

this review and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: September 2, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On October 1, 2003, the 

Department of Commerce issued an 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

barium carbonate from China (68 FR 

56619). The Commission is conducting 

a review to determine whether 

revocation of the order would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury to the domestic industry 

within a reasonably foreseeable time. It 

will assess the adequacy of interested 

party responses to this notice of 

institution to determine whether to 

conduct a full review or an expedited 

review. The Commission’s 

determination in any expedited review 

will be based on the facts available, 

which may include information 

provided in response to this notice. 

Definitions. The following definitions 

apply to this review: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year review, as defined 

by the Department of Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Country in this review 

is China. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determination, the Commission defined 

the Domestic Like Product as all barium 

carbonate. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determination, 

the Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry as producers of barium 

carbonate. 

(5) The Order Date is the date that the 

antidumping duty order under review 

became effective. In this review, the 

Order Date is October 1, 2003. 

(6) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the review and public 

service list. Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the review as parties must 

file an entry of appearance with the 

Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the review. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

official recently has advised that a fiveyear review is no longer considered the 

‘‘same particular matter’’ as the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 

207, the post employment statute for 

Federal employees, and Commission 

rule 201.15(b)(19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are no 

longer required to seek Commission 

approval to appear in a review under 

Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if 

the corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy 

Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205– 

3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list. Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in this review available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the review, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the review. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification. Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with this 

review must certify that the information 

is accurate and complete to the best of 

the submitter’s knowledge. In making 

the certification, the submitter will be 

deemed to consent, unless otherwise 

specified, for the Commission, its 

employees, and contract personnel to 

use the information provided in any 

other reviews or investigations of the 

same or comparable products which the 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
51316 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 2, 2008 / Notices 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions. Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is October 22, 2008. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct an 

expedited or full review. The deadline 

for filing such comments is November 

18, 2008. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of sections 

201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission’s 

rules and any submissions that contain 

BPI must also conform with the 

requirements of sections 201.6 and 

207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The 

Commission’s rules do not authorize 

filing of submissions with the Secretary 

by facsimile or electronic means, except 

to the extent permitted by section 201.8 

of the Commission’s rules, as amended, 

67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, 

in accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (as identified by 

either the public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the review you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information. Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determination in the review. 

Information to be provided in 

response to this Notice of Institution: As 

used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ includes 

any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address if available) and name, 

telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in this review by providing information 

requested by the Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on the Domestic Industry in 

general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of 

subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in the Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries since 

the Order Date. 

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2007 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/ 

worker group or trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms in 

which your workers are employed/ 

which are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) the quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2007 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from the Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country; and 

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from the Subject Country. 

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2007 

(report quantity data in short tons and 

value data in U.S. dollars, landed and 

duty-paid at the U.S. port but not 

including antidumping duties). If you 

are a trade/business association, provide 

the information, on an aggregate basis, 

for the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) the quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(10) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 2, 2008 / Notices 51317 

1The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

2Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane determines that 

an industry in the United States is materially 

injured by reason of such imports. 3Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane determines that 

an industry in the United States is materially 

injured by reason of such imports. 

4 Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and 

Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun determine that 

an industry in the United States is neither 

materially injured nor threatened with material 

injury by reason of such imports from Taiwan. 

the Subject Country since the Order 

Date, and significant changes, if any, 

that are likely to occur within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. Supply 

conditions to consider include 

technology; production methods; 

development efforts; ability to increase 

production (including the shift of 

production facilities used for other 

products and the use, cost, or 

availability of major inputs into 

production); and factors related to the 

ability to shift supply among different 

national markets (including barriers to 

importation in foreign markets or 

changes in market demand abroad). 

Demand conditions to consider include 

end uses and applications; the existence 

and availability of substitute products; 

and the level of competition among the 

Domestic Like Product produced in the 

United States, Subject Merchandise 

produced in the Subject Country, and 

such merchandise from other countries. 

(11) (Optional) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. 

Issued: August 25, 2008. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–20226 Filed 8–29–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–452 and 731– 

TA–1129–1130 (Final)] 

Raw Flexible Magnets From China and 

Taiwan 

Determinations 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject investigations, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(Commission) determines, pursuant to 

section 705(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 

(19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) (the Act), that an 

industry in the United States is 

threatened with material injury by 

reason of imports from China of raw 

flexible magnets, provided for in 

subheadings 8505.19.10 and 8505.19.20 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States, that have been found 

by the Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) to be subsidized by the 

Government of China.2 The Commission 

further determines, pursuant to section 

735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)), 

that an industry in the United States is 

threatened with material injury by 

reason of imports from China and 

Taiwan of raw flexible magnets that 

have been found by Commerce to be 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value (LTFV).3 4 In addition, the 

Commission determines that it would 

not have found material injury but for 

the suspension of liquidation. 

Background 

The Commission instituted these 

investigations effective September 21, 

2007, following receipt of a petition 

filed with the Commission and 

Commerce by Magnum Magnetics Corp., 

Marietta, OH. The final phase of the 

investigations was scheduled by the 

Commission following notification of 

preliminary determinations by 

Commerce that imports of raw flexible 

magnets from China were being 

subsidized within the meaning of 

section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1671b(b)), and that imports of raw 

flexible magnets from China and Taiwan 

were being sold at LTFV within the 

meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 

U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the 

scheduling of the final phase of the 

Commission’s investigations and of a 

public hearing to be held in connection 

therewith was given by posting copies 

of the notice in the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, Washington, DC, and by 

publishing the notice in the Federal 

Register of May 8, 2008 (73 FR 26145). 

The hearing was held in Washington, 

DC, on July 10, 2008, and all persons 

who requested the opportunity were 

permitted to appear in person or by 

counsel. 

The Commission transmitted its 

determinations in these investigations to 

the Secretary of Commerce on August 

25, 2008. The views of the Commission 

are contained in USITC Publication 

4030 (August 2008), entitled Raw 

Flexible Magnets from China and 

Taiwan: Investigations No. 701–TA–452 

and 731–TA–1129–1130 (Final). 

Issued: August 25, 2008. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–20227 Filed 8–29–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Proposed Collection, Comment 

Request 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as 

part of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork and respondent burden, 

conducts a pre-clearance consultation 

program to provide the general public 

and Federal agencies with an 

opportunity to comment on proposed 

and/or continuing collections of 

information in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This 

program helps to ensure that requested 

data can be provided in the desired 

format, reporting burden (time and 

financial resources) is minimized, 

collection instruments are clearly 

understood, and the impact of collection 

requirements on respondents can be 

properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments 

concerning the proposed extension of 

the ‘‘Mass Layoff Statistics Program.’’ A 

copy of the proposed information 

collection request (ICR) can be obtained 

by contacting the individuals listed 

below in the Addresses section of this 

notice. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted to the office listed in the 

Addresses section of this notice on or 

before November 3, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Carol 

Rowan, BLS Clearance Officer, Division 

of Management Systems, Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, Room 4080, 2 

Massachusetts Avenue, NE., 

Washington, DC 20212, 202–691–7628. 

(This is not a toll free number.) 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carol Rowan, BLS Clearance Officer, 

202–691–7628. (See ADDRESSES section.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 309(2)(15)(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the 

Workforce Investment Act (WIA) states 

that the Secretary of Labor shall oversee 

development, maintenance, and 

continuous improvements of the 

program to measure the incidence of, 

industrial and geographical location of, 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 2, 2008 / Notices 51275

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As 

provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the 

Department will consider individual requests to 

extend that five-day deadline based upon a showing 

of good cause. 

Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 73 FR 

44968, August 1, 2008. 

Comments: None received. Decision: 

Approved. No instrument of equivalent 

scientific value to the foreign 

instrument, for such purposes as these 

instruments are intended to be used, 

was being manufactured in the United 

States at the time the instruments were 

ordered. Reasons: Each foreign 

instrument is an electron microscope 

and is intended for research or scientific 

educational uses requiring an electron 

microscope. We know of no electron 

microscope, or any other instrument 

suited to these purposes, which was 

being manufactured in the United States 

at the time of order of each instrument. 

Dated: August 27, 2008. 

Faye Robinson, 

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff, 

Import Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–20307 Filed 8–29–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’)

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

automatically initiating a five-year 

review (‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the 

antidumping duty order listed below. 

The International Trade Commission 

(‘‘the Commission’’) is publishing 

concurrently with this notice its notice 

of Institution of Five-year Review which 

covers the same order. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 2, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230. For 

information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) 

and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). 

Guidance on methodological or 

analytical issues relevant to the 

Department’s conduct of Sunset 

Reviews is set forth in the Department’s

Policy Bulletin 98.3 -Policies Regarding 

the Conduct of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’)

Reviews of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

duty order: 

DOC Case No. ITC Case No. Country Product Department Contact 

A–570–880 ............................... 731–TA–1020 PRC Barium Carbonate Juanita Chen (202) 482–1904

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statute and Department’s

regulations, the Department schedule 

for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past 

revocations and continuations, and 

current service lists, available to the 

public on the Department’s sunset 

Internet Web site at the following 

address: ‘‘http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.’’

All submissions in these Sunset 

Reviews must be filed in accordance 

with the Department’s regulations 

regarding format, translation, service, 

and certification of documents. These 

rules can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103 (c), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews 

can be very short, we urge interested 

parties to apply for access to proprietary 

information under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately 

following publication in the Federal

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The Department’s regulations on 

submission of proprietary information 

and eligibility to receive access to 

business proprietary information under 

APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304–

306.

Information Required From Interested 

Parties

Domestic interested parties defined in 

section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)) wishing 

to participate in a Sunset Review must 

respond not later than 15 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The required contents of the notice of 

intent to participate are set forth at 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance 

with the Department’s regulations, if we 

do not receive a notice of intent to 

participate from at least one domestic 

interested party by the 15-day deadline, 

the Department will automatically 

revoke the order without further review. 

See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

If we receive an order–specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the Sunset 

Review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal

Register of this notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order–specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 

requirements. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s

conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
51276 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 2, 2008 / Notices 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department.

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218 

(c).

Dated: August 20, 2008. 

Edward C. Yang, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. E8–20306 Filed 8–29–08; 8:45 am] 

Billing Code: 3510–DS–S

SUMMARY: This notice announces that 

the Secretary of Commerce has 

approved the withdrawal of ten Federal 

Information Processing Standards 

(FIPS).

These FIPS are being withdrawn 

because they are obsolete, or have not 

been updated to adopt current voluntary 

industry standards, federal 

specifications, federal data standards, or 

current good practices for information 

security. Some of these FIPS adopt 

voluntary industry standards. Federal 

agencies and departments are directed 

by the National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–113) to use technical standards that 

are developed in voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. Consequently, FIPS 

that duplicate voluntary industry 

standards are no longer needed. 

Some of these FIPS adopt data 

standards that are developed and used 

by other Federal government agencies. 

These FIPS have not been updated to 

reflect changes and modifications that 

have been made to the data standards. 

The remaining FIPS adopt obsolete 

Federal specifications for information 

access and for information security. 

More recent advisory guidance has been 

issued concerning access to publicly 

available government information and 

computer data authentication. Federal 

agencies are responsible for using 

current voluntary industry standards 

and current federal specifications and 

data standards in their acquisition and 

management activities. 

DATES: This withdrawal is effective 

September 2, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shirley M. Radack, (301) 975–2833,

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, STOP 

8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–8930, email: shirley.radack@nist.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice 

was published in the Federal Register 

(70 FR 40984–85) on July 15, 2005, 

announcing the proposed withdrawal of 

the ten Federal Information Processing 

Standards (FIPS). The Federal Register 

notice solicited comments on the 

proposed withdrawal of the FIPS from 

the public, research communities, 

manufacturers, voluntary standards 

organizations, and Federal, State, and 

local government organizations. In 

addition to being published in the 

Federal Register, the notice was posted 

on the NIST Web pages. Information 

was provided about the submission of 

electronic comments. 

Comments were received from one 

federal government organization. No 

comments were received from industry 

organizations or individuals. 

Following is a summary of the 

comments received. 

Comments were received from the 

Department of Energy (DOE) Office of 

Scientific and Technical Information. 

The DOE comments supported the 

withdrawal of FIPS 192, Application 

Profile for the Government Information 

Locator Service (GILS), and FIPS 192–1

(a)&(b), Application Profile for the 

Government Information Locator 

Service (GILS). DOE agreed that the 

withdrawal of these standards was 

appropriate since technology advances 

have made the standards obsolete. 

DOE stated that the GILS standard 

was created in 1994 to provide a 

mechanism for users to identify, locate, 

and access or acquire publicly available 

federal information resources. However, 

in the years since GILS was issued, 

advances in technology have made the 

standard obsolete. Today there are many 

tools available for finding information 

on the Internet, including Google, 

FirstGov, Meta Search Engines, and the 

Open Archives Initiative. These newer 

techniques enable agencies to avoid the 

ongoing, resource intensive cataloging 

efforts mandated by the GILS. 

No comments were received 

concerning the other standards that had 

been proposed for withdrawal. 

The FIPS number, title, and technical 

specifications for each of the ten FIPS 

being withdrawn are: 

FIPS 4–2, Representation of Calendar 

Date to Facilitate Interchange of Data 

Among Information Systems; adopts 

American National Standard ANSI 

X3.30–1997: Representation of Date for 

Information Interchange (revision of 

ANSI X3.30–1985 (R1991)). 

FIPS 5–2, Codes for the Identification 

of the States, the District of Columbia 

and the Outlying Areas of the United 

States, and Associated Areas. 

FIPS 6–4, Counties and Equivalent 

Entities of the U.S., Its Possessions, and 

Associated Areas. 

FIPS 10–4, Countries, Dependencies, 

Areas of Special Sovereignty, and Their 

Principal Administrative Divisions. 

FIPS 113, Computer Data 

Authentication.

FIPS 161–2, Electronic Data 

Interchange (EDI) (adopts families of 

EDI standards known as X12, UN/ 

EDIFACT and HL7). 

FIPS 183, Integration Definition for 

Function Modeling (IDEF0). 

FIPS 184, Integration Definition for 

Information Modeling (IDEFIX). 

FIPS 192, Application Profile for the 

Government Information Locator 

Service (GILS). 

FIPS 192–1 (a)&(b), Application 

Profile for the Government Information 

Locator Service (GILS). 

Once the FIPS are withdrawn, 

information on them may be found at: 

http://www.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/

withdraw.htm. Withdrawal means that 

these FIPS will no longer be part of a 

subscription service that is provided by 

the National Technical Information 

Service. NIST will continue to provide 

relevant information on standards and 

guidelines by means of electronic 

dissemination methods. 

Current versions of the data standards 

and specifications are available through 

the Web pages of the Federal agencies 

that develop and maintain the data 

codes. NIST will keep references to 

these withdrawn FIPS on its FIPS Web 

pages, and will link to current versions 

of these standards and specifications 

where appropriate. 

Authority: Federal Information Processing 

Standards (FIPS) are issued by the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology after 

approval by the Secretary of Commerce 

pursuant to Section 5131 of the Information 

Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 

(Pub. L. 104–106), the Federal Information 

Security Management Act (FISMA) of 2002 

(Pub. L. 107–347), and Appendix III to Office 

of Management and Budget Circular A–130.

E.O. 12866: This notice has been 

determined to be not significant for the 

purposes of E.O. 12866. 

Dated: August 22, 2008. 

James M. Turner, 

Deputy Director. 

[FR Doc. E8–20138 Filed 8–29–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P


erowe on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
77058 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 244 / Thursday, December 18, 2008 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Minerals Management Service 

States’ Decisions on Participating in 

Accounting and Auditing Relief for 

Federal Oil and Gas Marginal 

Properties 

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of states’ decisions to 

participate or not participate in 

accounting and auditing relief for 

Federal oil and gas marginal properties 

located in their state for calendar year 

2009. 

Federal oil and gas properties located 

in all other states, where a portion of the 

royalties is not shared with the state, are 

eligible for relief if they qualify as 

marginal under this rule. For 

information on how to obtain relief, 

please refer to the rule, which can be 

viewed on the MMS Web site at 

http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/ 

FRNotices/AC30.htm. 

Unless the information received is 

proprietary data, all correspondence, 

records, or information received in 

response to this notice are subject to 

disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA). If applicable, 

please highlight the proprietary 

portions, including any supporting 

documentation, or mark the page(s) that 

contain proprietary data. Proprietary 

information is protected by the Trade 

Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905), FOIA, 

Exemption 4, and Department 

regulations (43 CFR, Part 2). 

Dated: December 1, 2008. 

Gregory J. Gould, 

Associate Director for Minerals Revenue 

Management. 

[FR Doc. E8–30129 Filed 12–17–08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1020 (Review)] 

Barium Carbonate From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of an expedited fiveyear review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on barium carbonate from 

China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of an expedited 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the antidumping 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 244 / Thursday, December 18, 2008 / Notices 77059 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

2The Commission has found the response 

submitted by Chemical Products Corp. to be 

individually adequate. Comments from other 

interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 

207.62(d)(2)). 

duty order on barium carbonate from 

China would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. For further information 

concerning the conduct of this review 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: December 8, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cynthia Trainor (202–205–3354), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On December 8, 2008, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (73 

FR 51315, September 2, 2008) of the 

subject five-year review was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct an expedited review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report. A staff report containing 

information concerning the subject 

matter of the review will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on December 30, 

2008, and made available to persons on 

the Administrative Protective Order 

service list for this review. A public 

version will be issued thereafter, 

pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions. As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the review and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

review may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the review. 

Comments are due on or before January 

7, 2009 and may not contain new factual 

information. Any person that is neither 

a party to the five-year review nor an 

interested party may submit a brief 

written statement (which shall not 

contain any new factual information) 

pertinent to the review by January 7, 

2009. However, should the Department 

of Commerce extend the time limit for 

its completion of the final results of its 

review, the deadline for comments 

(which may not contain new factual 

information) on Commerce’s final 

results is three business days after the 

issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the review must be 

served on all other parties to the review 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

Issued: December 12, 2008. 

By order of the Commission. 

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. 

[FR Doc. E8–29996 Filed 12–17–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–664] 

In the Matter of Certain Flash Memory 

Chips and Products Containing the 

Same Notice of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of investigation 

pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a 

complaint was filed with the U.S. 

International Trade Commission on 

November 17, 2008, under section 337 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 

19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Spansion, 

Inc. of Sunnyvale, California and 

Spansion LLC of Sunnyvale, California. 

The complaint alleges violations of 

section 337 based upon the importation 

into the United States, the sale for 

importation, and the sale within the 

United States after importation, of 

certain flash memory chips and 

products containing the same that 

infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent 

Nos. 6,380,029, 6,080,639, 6,376,877, 

and 5,715,194. The complaint further 

alleges that an industry in the United 

States exists as required by subsection

(a)(2) of section 337. 

The complainants request that the 

Commission institute an investigation 

and, after the investigation, issue an 

exclusion order and cease and desist 

orders. 

ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for 

any confidential information contained 

therein, is available for inspection 

during official business hours (8:45 a.m. 

to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 

112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 

202–205–2000. Hearing impaired 

individuals are advised that information 

on this matter can be obtained 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 at http:// 

www.usitc.gov. The public record for 

this investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heidi E. Strain, Esq., Office of Unfair 

Import Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, telephone (202) 

205–3352. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES


B-1

APPENDIX B

STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Barium Carbonate from China, 

Inv. No. 731-TA-1020 (Review)

On December 8, 2008, the Commission determined that it should proceed to an expedited review

in the subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19

U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B).

The Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its

notice of institution was adequate. In this regard, the Commission received an adequate response from 

Chemical Products Corp. (“CPC”), a domestic producer of barium carbonate. CPC accounts for virtually

all U.S. production of barium carbonate. 

Because no respondent interested parties responded to the notice of institution, the Commission

determined that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate.

The Commission did not find any circumstances that would warrant conducting a full

review. The Commission, therefore, determined to conduct an expedited review.

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and the

Commission’s web site (http://www.usitc.gov).