U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4225 May 2011

Washington, DC 20436

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from 

Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1084-1087 (Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Irving A. Williamson, Vice Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Cynthia Trainor, Investigator 

Eric Land, Industry Analyst 

Clark Workman, Economist 

Mary Klir, Financial Analyst/Auditor/Statistician 

Mary Jane Alves, Attorney 

Steven Hudgens, Senior Statistician 

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

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4225 May 2011

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from 

Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1084-1087 (Review)

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Additional and Dissenting Views of Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Dissenting Views of Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Part I: Introduction

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

The original investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

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

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Commerce’s reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

 Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

The domestic like product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

 U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

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

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

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

Introduction .................................................................. II-1

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

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-2

Supply ................................................................... II-2

U.S. supply ............................................................... II-2

Subject import supply from Finland ............................................ II-2

Subject import supply from Mexico ............................................ II-3

Subject import supply from the Netherlands ...................................... II-4

Subject import supply from Sweden ............................................ II-5

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-5

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-8

Purchasers ................................................................ II-9

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

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-16

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-16

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-16

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-16

i
CONTENTS–Continued

Page

Part III: U.S. Producer’s Operations

U.S. producer’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization .......................... III-1

U.S. producer’s domestic shipments, company transfers, and export shipments ............. III-1

U.S. producer’s inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2

U.S. producer’s imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-3

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ......................................... III-4

Financial condition of the U.S. producer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4

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

Operations on Purified CMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-5

Variance Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-5

Capital Expenditures and Research and Development Expenses ...................... III-6

Assets and Return on Investment .............................................. III-6

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

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

Cumulation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2

Fungibility and presence in the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2

 Geographical markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

U.S. inventories of purified CMC from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden . . . . . . IV-5

U.S. importers’ imports subsequent to September 30, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

Subject country producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

The industry in Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

The industry in Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

The industry in the Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9

The industry in Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11

Subject countries combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-12

Capacity allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-12

End use markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-12

Dumping in third-country markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13

The global industry and demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13

The global industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-14

Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-14

Argentina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-15

Global demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-15

ii
CONTENTS–Continued

Page

Part V: Pricing and related information

Factors affecting pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

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

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

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

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

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices and statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Calendar of public hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

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

D. Comments on the significance of the antidumping duty orders and the likely

 effects of revocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Dutch price data for products 2 and 3 with *** excluded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

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

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



VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

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

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

imports of purified carboxymethylcellulose (“purified CMC”) from Sweden and Mexico would not be

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

reasonably foreseeable time.1

 We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on imports of

purified CMC from Finland and the Netherlands would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.2

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Original Investigations

On June 30, 2005, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was

materially injured by reason of cumulated less-than-fair-value subject imports of purified CMC from

Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden.3

 On appeal, the U.S. Court of International Trade

(“CIT”) upheld the Commission’s cumulation analysis and final material injury determination with

respect to Finland.4

 On July 11, 2005, Commerce imposed antidumping duty orders on subject imports

from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden.5

 1 Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order on subject imports from

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

within a reasonably foreseeable time. See Additional and Dissenting Views of Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane. 

Commissioner Lane joins all but section V.D of this opinion.

 2

 Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on subject imports from

Finland and the Netherlands would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. See Dissenting Views of Commissioner Daniel

R. Pearson. Commissioner Pearson joins sections I-IV, V.A, V.B.2, V.D, and V.E of this opinion.

 3

 The final determinations in the original investigations reflected the views of Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun,

Commissioner Lane, and then-Commissioners Hillman, Koplan, and Miller. Commissioner Pearson made negative

determinations with respect to imports from each of the subject countries. Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from

Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden, Invs. 731-TA-1084 to 1087 (Final), USITC Pub. 3787 (June 2005).

 4

 Finnish producer and exporter Noviant OY and its affiliate members of the Noviant Group appealed the

Commission’s final determination regarding Finland, but not its determinations concerning the other subject

countries. See, e.g., Confidential Staff Report, Memorandum INV-JJ-023 (Mar. 25, 2011), as modified by

Memorandum INV-JJ-035 (Apr. 8, 2011) (“CR”) at I-3; PR at I-2. On September 12, 2006, the U.S. Court of

International Trade uheld the Commission’s cumulation analysis and material injury determination. Noviant OY v.

United States, 30 CIT 1447, 451 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (2006). The CIT’s decision was not appealed to the Federal

Circuit. Although Mexican producer/exporter Quimica Amtex, S.A. de C.V. (“Amtex”) initially appealed the

Commission’s determination regarding imports from Mexico to a panel under Chapter 19 of the North American

Free Trade Agreement, Amtex filed a February 13, 2007 consent motion that resulted in the termination of the panel

review prior to the filing of any briefs or convening of any panel. See, e.g., CR at I-3; PR at I-3.

 5

 See, e.g., CR at I-2; PR at I-2.
B. The Current Reviews

The Commission instituted these five-year reviews of the antidumping duty orders effective

June 1, 2010.6

 The Commission found that the domestic interested party group response to the notice of

institution and the respondent interested party group responses with respect to the orders on Mexico and

the Netherlands were adequate. The Commission received no responses to the notice of institution with

respect to the orders on Finland and Sweden but voted to conduct full reviews of all orders in the interest

of administrative efficiency.7

The sole known U.S. producer of purified CMC is Ashland Aqualon Functional Ingredients

(“Aqualon”), the name under which petitioner Aqualon Company has operated since its parent company,

Hercules, Inc., was acquired in November 2008 by Ashland, Inc..8

 Aqualon, as well as the sole subject

producer in Mexico, Amtex, and the remaining subject producer in the Netherlands, Akzo Nobel

Functional Chemicals, B.V. (“Akzo”), participated as parties in these reviews and provided questionnaire

responses.9

Since February 7, 2005, the companies that were referred to as members of the Noviant Group

during the original investigations have operated under the CP Kelco name.10 CP Kelco Finland, the only

known subject producer in Finland, submitted a questionnaire response in these reviews. CP Kelco

Netherlands submitted a questionnaire response containing data for the review period (calendar years

2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 as well as the first nine months (“interim”) of 2009 and 2010) and

reporting *** purified CMC production in the Netherlands after the July 11, 2009, explosion and fire at

its plant in Nijmegen.11 The only subject producer in Sweden, CP Kelco Sweden, submitted a

questionnaire response in which it reported ***.12

The Commission received importer questionnaire responses from 22 firms, representing virtually

all imports from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden during the review period.13 In 2009, ***

importers accounted for *** percent of all subject imports: ***.14 *** importers accounted for ***

percent of total non-subject imports in 2009: ***.15

The Commission also received purchaser questionnaire responses from 20 end users, 2 blenders,

11 distributor/resellers, a firm that classifies itself as both a blender and an end user, a firm that is both a

 6 See, e.g., CR at I-1; PR at I-1.

 7

 See, e.g., CR at I-1; PR at I-1; CR/PR at App. A.

 8

 See, e.g., CR at I-9, III-1; PR at I-5, III-1; Transcript of Commission’s February 15, 2011, Hearing (“Hearing

Tr.”) at 22 (Panichella).

 9

 See, e.g., CR at I-9; PR at I-5; Hearing Tr. at 123 (Nessel), 138 (Grootnibbelink); Akzo’s Prehearing Br. at 1.

 10 The members of the Noviant Group included Noviant OY, a producer/exporter of subject merchandise in

Finland; Noviant BV, a subject producer/exporter in the Netherlands; Noviant AB, a subject producer/exporter in

Sweden; and Noviant Inc., a U.S. importer of subject merchandise. See, e.g., CR at IV-14 to IV-15; PR at IV-6 to

IV-8.

 11 See, e.g., CR at IV-14 to IV-15, IV-27 to IV-28; PR at IV-6 to IV-8, IV-9 to IV-11; Akzo’s Prehearing Br. at 1;

Hearing Tr. at 138 (Grootnibbelink).

 12 See, e.g., CR at IV-37; PR at IV-11 to IV-12.

 13 See, e.g., CR at I-25; PR at I-18; CR/PR at Table I-10.

 14 See, e.g., CR at I-26; PR at I-18; CR/PR at Table I-10.

 15 See, e.g., CR at I-26; PR at I-18; CR/PR at Table I-10.

4
distributor/reseller and a blender, and a firm that did not classify its status.16 Their purchases were

equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, by quantity, over the review period.17

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

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

domestic like product” and the “industry.”18 The Tariff Act defines “domestic like product” as “a product

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

an investigation under this subtitle.”19 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to look to the

domestic like product definition from the original determinations and any completed reviews and consider

whether the record indicates any reason to revisit the prior finding(s).20

A. Product Description

Consistent with the scope of the original investigations, Commerce defined the imported

merchandise within the scope of these reviews as “all purified CMC.” As Commerce explained, purified

CMC, which is sometimes called “purified sodium CMC, polyanionic cellulose, or cellulose gum” is

a white to off-white, non-toxic, odorless, biodegradable powder, comprising sodium CMC that

has been refined and purified to a minimum assay of 90 percent. ... Purified CMC is CMC that

has undergone one or more purification operations, which, at a minimum, reduce the remaining

salt and other by-product portion of the product to less than ten percent.21

To produce purified CMC, manufacturers first swell wood and/or cotton fibers using caustic soda (sodium

hydroxide) to enable the reaction mix to penetrate the fibers more easily.22 In the reaction phase,

 16 See, e.g., CR at I-27; PR at I-18; CR/PR at Table I-11.

 17 (Derived from questionnaire responses).

 18 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

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

Dep’t of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT

450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v.

United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also S.

Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91 (1979).

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

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

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

3577 at 4 (Feb. 2003).

 21 CR at I-15; PR at I-11. During the original investigations, purified CMC was imported under Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) statistical reporting number 3912.31.00, a “basket” category that also

included crude/technical-grade and cross-linked CMC. Effective January 1, 2005, purified CMC was imported

under HTS statistical reporting number 3912.31.0010, a number that does not include so-called technical-grade

(unpurified or crude) carboxymethylcellulose but that does include cross-linked carboxymethylcellulose (“crosslinked CMC” or “croscarmellose”). See, e.g., CR at I-16; PR at I-11 to I-12.

 22 See, e.g., CR at I-21; PR at I-15. Aqualon reports that, with the exception of very high viscosity grades of

CMC, for which cotton linters are required, the choice of starting cellulose (wood pulp/cotton) does not affect

performance, although only wood pulp can be used to manufacture products that are certified as non-genetically

(continued...)

5
they then expose the open cellulosic fibers to monochloroacetic acid.23 The product resulting from the

reaction phase is referred to as crude, unpurified, or technical-grade carboxymethylcellulose. To purify

the product, manufacturers remove the byproducts of the reaction, primarily sodium glycolate and sodium

chloride, accounting for 30-40 percent of the resulting reaction mixture, in a series of washes and

separations.24 After the product reaches the desired purity level, manufacturers adjust the particle size of

the resulting product through grinding, sieving, and agglomeration.25 Some of the same production

processes and/or production equipment used to manufacture purified CMC may be used to make other

carboxymethylcellulose products, but in accordance with the scope of the original investigations,

Commerce expressly excluded three such products from the scope of these reviews: (1) crude or

technical-grade CMC;26 (2) Fluidized Polymer Suspensions CMC (“FPS CMC”);27 and (3) cross-linked

CMC.28

Purified CMC is produced in a range of grades for use in various products and industries. Grades

may differ in terms of viscosity, solubility, “level of substitution,” length of the CMC polymer, and

concentration of specific contaminants, depending on the performance characteristics needed for the enduse application.29 In regulated food uses,30 purified CMC is used in products such as syrups, juices,

cocoa, and tortillas as a thickener, a stabilizer, and a rheology enhancer (to affect how products stick

 22 (...continued)

modified (non-GMO). See, e.g., Aqualon’s Posthearing Br. Answers to Questions at 38.

 23 See, e.g., CR at I-21 to I-22; PR at I-15.

 24 See, e.g., CR at I-22; PR at I-15.

 25 See, e.g., CR at I-22; PR at I-15.

 26 Technical-grade CMC, produced when wood cellulose and/or cotton fibers react with alkali and chloroacetic

acid but are not subjected to any purification washes, generally has a purity level of below 80 percent and costs less. 

See, e.g., CR at I-18, I-22; PR at I-13, I-15 to I-16. Technical-grade CMC is used primarily in detergents to inhibit

redeposit of soils and in textiles for fabric sizing and as a production process aid. See, e.g., CR at I-20; PR at I-14. 

Technical-grade CMC and purified CMC share the same production facilities and processes initially. Beginning

with the purification stage for purified CMC, however, a domestic manufacturer will use different equipment to

avoid contaminating the purified CMC. Moreover, drying, grinding, sieving, and agglomeration equipment once

used to make technical-grade CMC cannot economically be restored to a clean enough status for purified CMC

production. See, e.g., CR at I-23; PR at I-15 to I-16.

 27 FPS CMC is a patented Aqualon product that consists of purified CMC in a liquid or fluid form at a high

concentration, primarily for those companies that prefer to use a liquid as opposed to a powder, especially companies

in the paper coating industry. See, e.g., CR at I-18, I-20; PR at I-13 to I-14.

 28 See, e.g., CR at I-15; PR at I-11. Cross-linked CMC, which is used as a disintegrant or excipient in

pharmaceutical tablets, is manufactured using the same steps as purified CMC, but then undergoes a heating stage

whereby the cellulose polymer chains are linked together by covalent linkages to achieve cross-linking. The crosslinking reduces water solubility while still allowing the material to swell and absorb many times its weight in water

so that the resulting product provides superior drug dissolution and disintegration characteristics. See, e.g., CR at

I-18 to I-19; PR at I-13 to I-14; Aqualon’s Posthearing Br. Answers to Questions at 9-10.

 29 See, e.g., CR at I-17 to I-18, I-21; PR at I-13, I-15.

 30 In the United States, the product must exceed the 99.5 percent purity level to qualify for regulated uses (such as

for food, pharmaceutical, and personal products) if the product is intended for human consumption. See, e.g., CR at

I-18; PR at I-13; Hearing Tr. at 31 (Gruber). During the original investigations, petitioner Aqualon reported that a

single purification wash yields a product that is approximately 90 percent pure. See, e.g., CR at I-22 & n.33; PR at

I-15 & n.33.

6
together or feel in the consumer’s mouth) and in pet foods as a gravy thickener and agent that makes the

gravy adhere to the pet food morsels.31 In personal-care products, purified CMC may be used as a

thickener in toothpaste, as an adhesion promoter in denture adhesives, or as a thickener, flow facilitator,

antideposition, or bonding agent in other personal-care applications such as laundry starches and

detergents.32 In pharmaceutical products, purified CMC may be used as a granulation aid and binder in

tablet preparation or as a stabilizer and thickener in ointments and lotions.33 In industrial applications,

purified CMC may be used as a binder and thickener in ceramics and textiles.34 Paper manufacturers use

purified CMC to enhance printing and handling characteristics and the appearance of paper.35 In civil

engineering, purified CMC is used primarily as a thickener to provide wall stability in tunneling,

horizontal drilling, and special foundation projects.36 In oilfield applications, purified CMC is used

primarily to improve hole-cleaning and suspension properties in drilling muds.37 During the review

period, the domestic industry served all major end-use applications, including regulated end-uses for

purified CMC such as food38 and personal-care applications39 as well as non-regulated end-uses such as

paper & board40 and oilfield applications.41

B. The Original Investigations

In the original investigations, Aqualon advocated a single domestic like product consisting of

purified CMC. No party argued in favor of defining the domestic like product differently.42 In its

determinations in the original investigations, the Commission found that all forms of purified CMC

shared the same basic chemical composition and were valued by purchasers as thickening, binding, or

stabilizing agents.43 Although substitutability among the various grades of purified CMC was somewhat

limited and prices varied somewhat by specification and end use, higher-purity grades were substitutable,

 31 See, e.g., CR at I-19 to I-20; PR at I-14; Hearing Tr. at 31 (Gruber).

 32 See, e.g., CR at I-20; PR at I-14; Hearing Tr. at 31 (Gruber).

 33 See, e.g., CR at I-20; PR at I-14.

 34 See, e.g., CR at I-20; PR at I-14.

 35 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 39 (Zissis).

 36 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 39 (Zissis).

 37 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 39 (Zissis).

 38 The portion of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments destined for food applications was *** percent in 2005,

*** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009,

and *** percent in interim 2010. (Derived from CR/PR at Table I-1, Table I-12, and Table IV-2).

 39 The portion of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments destined for personal-care applications was *** percent

in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim

2009, and *** percent in interim 2010. (Derived from CR/PR at Table I-1, Table I-12 and Table IV-2).

 40 The portion of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments destined for paper & board applications was *** percent

in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim

2009, and *** percent in interim 2010. (Derived from CR/PR at Table I-1, Table I-12, and Table IV-2).

 41 The portion of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments destined for oilfield applications was *** percent in

2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim

2009, and *** percent in interim 2010. (Derived from CR/PR at Table I-1, Table I-12, and Table IV-2).

 42 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3787 at 5 n.26.

 43 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3787 at 5-6.

7
to some extent, with lower-purity grades.44 In addition, market participants generally considered all

grades of purified CMC to be part of the same general product category.45 Most sales of purified CMC

were made to end users, and Aqualon used the same production processes, facilities, and employees to

produce all of its purified CMC products.46 Based on these considerations, the Commission defined a

single domestic like product consisting of all purified CMC regardless of grade or end use.47

C. The Current Reviews

For purposes of these reviews, we define the domestic like product in the same manner as in the

original investigations. The record of these reviews contains no information warranting reconsideration

of the domestic like product definition.48 Domestic interested party Aqualon supported adopting the

domestic like product definition from the original investigations, and no respondent interested party

argued otherwise.49 We therefore define a single domestic like product comprised of a continuum of

grades of purified CMC products, coextensive with the scope of the reviews.

III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

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

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

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”50 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.51 Based on its finding that the domestic like product consisted of all purified CMC, in

the original investigations the Commission found that the domestic industry consisted of Aqualon, the

only domestic producer of purified CMC.52 In these reviews, no evidence warrants nor did any party seek

a different definition.53 Based on our definition of the domestic like product, we again

 44 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3787 at 5-6.

 45 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3787 at 5-6.

 46 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3787 at 5-6.

 47 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3787 at 5-6. The Commission decided not to define a domestic like product broader than

the scope that included technical-grade CMC or FPS CMC, based on its finding that these two forms of CMC

differed significantly from purified CMC in terms of physical characteristics and end uses, production processes, and

pricing levels. See, e.g., id. at 6 n.34.

 48 See, e.g., CR at I-17 to I-24; PR at I-13 to I-17.

 49 See, e.g., Aqualon’s Substantive Response at 8; Akzo’s Substantive Response at 18; Amtex’s Substantive

Response at 12; Amtex’s Prehearing Br. at 8; Amtex’s Posthearing Br. at 8.

 50 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 apply to the entire subtitle containing the

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

 51 See, e.g., U.S. 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).

 52 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3787 at 6.

 53 See, e.g., Aqualon’s Response to the Notice of Institution at 8; Amtex’s Response to the Notice of Institution at

12; Akzo’s Response to Notice of Institution at 18.

8
define the domestic industry as all domestic producers of purified CMC, which in these reviews again

consists solely of Aqualon.54

IV. CUMULATION

A. Findings in The Original Investigations

In the original investigations, the Commission found a reasonable overlap of competition among

the domestic like product and subject imports from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden. It

therefore cumulated subject imports from all four sources.55 In support of its decision to cumulate, the

Commission found a high degree of fungibility among purified CMC produced domestically and

imported from the subject countries. It further found that the domestic like product and subject imports

from all four sources were generally sold throughout the United States, were simultaneously present in

the U.S. market, and were sold in overlapping channels of distribution, predominantly to end users.56

B. Legal Standards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.57

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

governed by section 771(7)(G)(I) of the Act.58 The Commission may exercise its discretion to cumulate,

however, only if the reviews are initiated the same day, the Commission determines that subject imports

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

each such subject country are not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in

 54 See, e.g., CR at III-1; PR at III-1.

 55 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3787 at 7-13. Commissioner Pearson cumulated subject imports from Mexico, the

Netherlands, and Sweden, but he separately analyzed subject imports from Finland. He found similarities in

channels of distribution, geographic markets, and simultaneous presence among all sources, but found that subject

imports from Finland were not fungible with products from other sources because they had not been certified for and

thus were barred from competing for sales in food and personal-care applications that accounted for major portions

of the U.S. market. Id. at 25-28.

 56 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3787 at 7-13.

 57 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 58 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i); see also, e.g., Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1370,

1378 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (recognizing the wide latitude the Commission has in selecting the types of factors it

considers relevant in deciding whether to exercise discretion to cumulate subject imports in five-year reviews);

Nucor v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1337-38 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008); U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, 572

F. Supp.2d 1334 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008).

9
 the event of revocation. Our focus in five-year reviews is not only on present conditions of competition,

but also on likely conditions of competition in the reasonably foreseeable future.

The statutory threshold for cumulation is satisfied, because the reviews of the antidumping duty

orders on purified CMC from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden were initiated on the same

day.59 In these reviews, we consider three issues in deciding whether to exercise our discretion to

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

cumulation because they are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry;

(2) whether there is a likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition among the domestic like product

and imports of purified CMC from the subject countries; and (3) whether differences in the conditions of

competition under which subject imports are likely to compete in the U.S. purified CMC market support

declining to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports.60 61 In so doing, we take into account the

various arguments by the parties.

C. Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact

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

likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.62 Neither the statute nor the

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

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

have no discernible adverse impact” on the domestic industry.63 With respect to this provision, the

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

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

analysis for each of the subject countries takes into account the nature of the product and the behavior of

subject imports in the original investigations and during the current reviews. Given the extensive party

arguments in these reviews that were framed in terms of the likelihood of no discernible adverse impact,

however, we observe at the outset that the discernible adverse impact standard involves what the Federal

 59 See, e.g., CR at I-1; PR at I-1.

 60 Chairman Okun and Commissioner Pearson note that, while they consider the same issues discussed in this

section in determining whether to exercise their discretion to cumulate the subject imports, their analytical

framework begins with whether imports from the subject countries are likely to face similar conditions of

competition. For those subject imports which are likely to compete under similar conditions of competition, they

next proceed to consider whether there is a likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition whereby those imports

are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product. Finally, if based on that analysis they

intend to exercise their discretion to cumulate one or more subject countries, they analyze whether they are

precluded from cumulating such imports because the imports from one or more subject countries, assessed

individually, are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry. See Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bar From Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine, Invs. Nos. 731-TA873 to 875, 877 to 880, and 882 (Review), USITC Pub. 3933 (Jul. 2007) (Separate and Dissenting Views of

Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun Regarding Cumulation). Accord Nucor Corp.

v. United States, 605 F. Supp. 2d 1361, 1372 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009); Nucor Corp. v. United States, 594 F. Supp. 2d

1302, 1345-47 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008), aff’d, 601 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

 61 As discussed further below, Commissioners Lane and Pinkert take a different approach to analysis of the likely

conditions of competition than that used by the Commission majority.

 62 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

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

10
Circuit has described as “a relatively low standard,”64 requiring less than what is required to find a

sufficient causal nexus for purposes of causation on an individual country basis.65

Sweden: According to market participants, CP Kelco Sweden, the only known producer of

subject merchandise in Sweden during the review period and the successor to Noviant AB, the only

known subject producer in Sweden during the original investigations, closed its Swedish production

facility and moved some of the equipment to non-subject country China.66 In its questionnaire response,

CP Kelco Sweden confirmed that it ***,67 and reported that it ***.68 Additionally, record data reflect

***.69 Indeed, domestic interested party Aqualon stipulates that there would be no continuation or

recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry if the order on purified CMC from Sweden were

revoked.70 Based on all of these considerations, we find that subject imports from Sweden are likely to

have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the antidumping duty order on these

imports were to be revoked. Accordingly, the statute precludes us from cumulating subject imports from

Sweden with other subject imports for purposes of our analysis in these reviews.71

Finland: During the original investigations, only one firm manufactured purified CMC in

Finland – Noviant OY, now known as CP Kelco Finland.72 Subject imports from Finland remained in the

U.S. market throughout the review period, albeit at lower levels than during the original investigations.73

 64 Nippon Steel Corp v. United States, 494 F.3d 1371, 1379, n.6 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Nucor Corp. v. United

States, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, Slip Op. 10-10 at 41 (Ct. Int’l Trade Jan. 27, 2010) (characterizing the bar as “low”

when considering export orientation for purposes of no likely discernible adverse impact when compared to the

consideration of likely volume of subject imports in determining whether material injury is likely).

 65 “An adverse impact, or harm, can be discernible but not rise to a level sufficient to cause material injury.” 

Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, Slip Op. 03-118 at 6-7 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 8, 2003)

(to require a greater effect for discernible adverse impact “would defeat the purpose of cumulation, i.e., to guard

against the ‘hammering’ effect of imports which, in isolation, do not cause material injury.”) (citing Neenah Foundry

Co. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 766, 772-73 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2001)), aff’d per curiam, 112 Fed. Appx. 59 (Fed.

Cir. Nov. 8, 2004); see also AG v. United States, 525 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1364-65 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007), aff’d per

curiam sub nom. Wieland-Werke 290 Fed. Appx. 348 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

 66 See, e.g., Aqualon’s Prehearing Br. at 17, 20; Amtex’s Prehearing Br. at 6; Hearing Tr. at 33 (Gruber), 46

(Klett); Aqualon’s Posthearing Br. at 7; Akzo’s Posthearing Br. at Exh. A at 4.

 67 See, e.g., CR at IV-37; PR at IV-11; CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 68 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 69 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 70 See, e.g., Aqualon’s Prehearing Br. at 1 n.1; Hearing Tr. at 66 (Lebow); Aqualon’s Response to Notice of

Institution at 9.

 71 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 72 See, e.g., CR at IV-14; PR at IV-6.

 73 U.S. shipments of subject imports from Finland increased from *** pounds in 2002 to *** pounds in 2003,

then declined to *** pounds in 2004. U.S. shipments of subject imports from Finland declined to *** pounds in

2005 then increased to *** pounds in 2006, *** pounds in 2007, and *** pounds in 2008, and then declined to ***

pounds in 2009; U.S. shipments of subject imports from Finland were *** pounds in interim 2009 and *** pounds in

interim 2010. In terms of apparent U.S. consumption, Finland’s market share was: *** percent in 2002, *** percent

in 2003, *** percent in 2004, *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008,

*** percent in 2009, *** in interim 2009 and *** percent in interim 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1, and Table

I-12.

11
CP Kelco Finland *** inventories in the United States since 2005.74 At the time of the original

investigations, Noviant OY had sister facilities in the Netherlands and Sweden, but presently, only CP

Kelco Finland operates in any subject country.75 CP Kelco Finland has increased its overall export

orientation since the original investigations, and it continued to ship a meaningful share of its exports to

the United States, even after imposition of the antidumping duty order.76 Since the original

investigations, CP Kelco Finland has become certified to produce regulated grades of purified CMC,77

and the record shows U.S. shipments of products manufactured in Finland for ***.78

CP Kelco Finland’s reported capacity for the review period is lower than that reported in the

original investigations. We give only limited weight, however, to its more recent reported capacity for

several reasons. The capacity reported in these reviews is *** than the reported capacity *** the original

investigations,79 and *** with the estimates submitted by ***.80 The capacity that CP Kelco Finland

 74 See, e.g., CR at IV-15; PR at IV-6.

 75 See, e.g., CR at IV-14, IV-28, IV-37; PR at IV-6, IV-9 to IV-11. The corporate entity’s U.S. presence and

market share also have declined overall since the original investigations. During the original investigations, U.S.

shipments of subject products collectively manufactured by members of the Noviant Group in Finland, the

Netherlands, and Sweden increased from *** pounds in 2002 to *** pounds in 2003, then declined to *** pounds in

2004. Subject imports from the Noviant Group, which became known by the name CP Kelco, then declined to ***

pounds in 2005, increased to *** pounds in 2006 and *** pounds in 2007, and declined to *** pounds in 2008 and

*** pounds in 2009. In terms of apparent U.S. consumption, the corporate entity’s market share was *** percent in

2002, *** percent in 2003, *** percent in 2004, *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, ***

percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009. (Derived from CR/PR at Table I-1). 

The members of the Noviant Group collectively reported subject production capacity that decreased from

*** pounds in 2002 and 2003 to *** pounds in 2004, *** pounds in 2005, 2006, and 2007, *** pounds in 2008, and

*** pounds in 2009. (Derived from CR/PR at Tables IV-5, IV-6, IV-9, IV-10, IV-11, and IV-12). Their capacity

utilization was *** percent in 2002, *** percent in 2003, *** percent in 2004, *** percent in 2005, *** percent in

2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009. (Derived from CR/PR at Tables IV-5, IV6, IV-9, IV-10, IV-11, and IV-12).

 76 During the original investigations, Noviant OY’s exports as a share of its total shipments increased from ***

percent in 2002 to *** percent in 2003 and *** percent in 2004, with U.S. exports accounting for ***, ***, and ***

percent of its total shipments in those years. During the review period, exports constituted a larger and generally

growing share of CP Kelco Finland’s total shipments, accounting for *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, ***

percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and *** percent in interim

2010. U.S. exports accounted for ***, ***, ***, ***, ***, ***, and *** percent, respectively, of its total shipments

in those years. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-5, IV-6.

 77 See, e.g., Aqualon’s Prehearing Br. at 17, 20, 26; Hearing Tr. at 29 (Panichella), 47-48 (Klett); Aqualon’s

Posthearing Br. at 7, Answers to Questions at 2.

 78 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-2, IV-16.

 79 In the original investigations, Noviant OY reported decreasing purified CMC capacity in Finland from ***

pounds in 2002 and 2003 to *** pounds in 2004 ***. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-5; CR at IV-16; PR at IV-7. In

these reviews, CP Kelco Finland reports that its theoretical maximum capacity to produce purified CMC is ***

pounds, but it asks the Commission to rely on its reported operating or average production capacity of *** pounds

between 2005 and 2009, which is ***. See, e.g., CR at IV-16; PR at IV-7. Although CP Kelco Finland emphasizes

that its capacity for the review period is based on average production capacity, ***. See, e.g., CR at IV-17 at n.20;

PR at IV-7 at n.20 (defining average production capacity for these reviews). ***. See, e.g., e-mail exchange

between Commission’s investigator and CP Kelco Finland of March 24 and March 25, 2011.

 80 See, e.g., Aqualon’s Prehearing Br. at 1, 15-16, 35-36; Aqualon’s Posthearing Br. at 7-8, Answers to Questions

at 2-3; CR/PR at Table IV-17; Akzo’s Posthearing Br. at Exh. A at 2; Amtex’s Posthearing Br. at Exh. A at 12-13.

12
reported in these reviews also appears inconsistent with ***.81 Furthermore, CP Kelco Finland ***.82

Nevertheless, even its own data indicate that CP Kelco Finland has a large production facility with

available capacity.83 Consequently, due to its available capacity, export orientation, continued interest in

the U.S. market, and its broader product offerings, we do not find that subject imports from Finland

would likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the antidumping duty order

on these imports were revoked.

Mexico:

84 During the original investigations and the review period, only one firm, Amtex,

manufactured purified CMC in Mexico.85 Since the original investigations, subject imports from Mexico

remained in the U.S. market.86 Amtex *** inventories of purified CMC in the United States, ***, since

2005.87 During the original investigations and the review period, the home market in Mexico accounted

for the *** share of its total shipments, although Amtex also exported purified CMC to the United

States.88 Amtex had *** production capacity during the review period and has some available capacity.89

Consequently, we do not find that subject imports from Mexico would likely have no discernible adverse

impact on the domestic industry if the antidumping duty order on these imports were revoked.

The Netherlands: During the original investigations, there were two known producers/exporters

of purified CMC in the Netherlands, Noviant BV and Akzo.90 The Noviant BV facility, which operated

under the name CP Kelco during the review period, experienced an explosion and fire in July 2009.91

According to the parties to these reviews, the facility will not be rebuilt, and any remaining inventories of

 81 For example, ***. See, e.g., CR at IV-17; PR at IV-7.

 82 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 83 Based on the data reported by CP Kelco Finland and its predecessor, the firm’s capacity utilization increased

from *** percent in 2002 to *** percent in 2003 and *** percent in 2004. During the review period, its capacity

utilization was *** percent in 2005 and 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, ***

percent in interim 2009, and *** percent in interim 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-5, IV-6. Thus, CP Kelco

Finland had ***).

 84 Chairman Okun and Commissioner Pearson do not join this paragraph, as they do not reach the question of

whether there is a likelihood of no discernible adverse impact by subject imports from Mexico. See footnote 60

supra discussing our methodology and section IV.D.E. infra regarding the Commission’s findings on the likely

conditions of competition under which subject imports from Mexico would likely compete in the U.S. market.

 85 See, e.g., CR at IV-21; PR at IV-8.

 86 In 2004, at the end of the original investigations, U.S. shipments of subject imports from Mexico were ***

pounds and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption. U.S. shipments of subject imports from

Mexico were *** pounds in 2009, *** pounds in interim 2009, and *** pounds in interim 2010. In terms of

apparent U.S. consumption, subject imports from Mexico held market shares of: *** percent in 2009, *** percent in

interim 2009, and *** percent in interim 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1, and Table I-12.

 87 See, e.g., CR at IV-22; PR at IV-8.

 88 During the original investigations, an increasing share of Amtex’s total shipments were directed at its home

market. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-7. During the review period, Amtex’s home market in Mexico accounted for

*** of its total shipments (e.g., *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and *** percent in interim 2010),

whereas shipments to the United States accounted for *** percent of its total shipments in 2009, *** percent in

interim 2009, and *** percent in interim 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-8.

 89 Amtex reported a stable production capacity of *** pounds throughout the 2005 to 2009 period. See, e.g.,

CR/PR at Tables IV-7 and IV-8. Its capacity utilization was *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and

*** percent in interim 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-7 and IV-8.

 90 See, e.g., CR at IV-27; PR at IV-9.

 91 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 167 (Raatjes).

13
products manufactured by CP Kelco Netherlands have been sold.92 In its questionnaire response in these

reviews, CP Kelco Netherlands reported ***.93 It reported ***.94 Based on this evidence and absent

contrary party arguments,95 we relied primarily on the data of the only remaining producer of subject

merchandise in the Netherlands, Akzo, for purposes of assessing whether to cumulate likely subject

imports from the Netherlands with other subject imports in these reviews.96

Since the original investigations, Akzo has had a U.S. market presence.97 Akzo has reduced its

production capacity since the original investigations,98 but has available capacity,99 particularly after

factoring in its ability to shift from the production of cross-linked and/or technical-grade CMC to the

production of purified CMC.100 During the original investigations and reviews, exports constituted *** of

Akzo’s total shipments, and it continued to export subject merchandise to the United States even after

 92 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 167 (Raatjes).

 93 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-10.

 94 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-10.

 95 See, e.g., Aqualon’s Prehearing Br. at 13, 20; Akzo’s Prehearing Br. at 1, 6; Hearing Tr. at 66 (Lebow), 138

(Grootnibbelink), 147-49 (Manning).

 96 In our analysis of whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on cumulated subject imports from

Finland and the Netherlands is likely to result in the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic

industry, however, we also considered data related to Dutch producer CP Kelco Netherlands while in operation,

consistent with the statutory requirement to consider the behavior of subject imports during the original

investigations and review period.

 97 During the original investigations, Akzo’s exports to the United States of subject purified CMC increased from

*** pounds in 2002 to *** million pounds in 2003 and *** pounds in 2004. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-9. During

the review period, U.S. shipments of purified CMC manufactured by Akzo increased from *** pounds in 2005 to

*** pounds in 2006 and *** pounds in 2007 before declining to *** pounds in 2008 and *** pounds in 2009; its

U.S. shipments in interim 2009 were *** pounds in interim 2009 and *** pounds in interim 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR

at Table I-1. Expressed in terms of apparent U.S. consumption, Akzo’s share was: *** percent in 2002, *** percent

in 2003, *** percent in 2004, *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008,

*** in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009 and *** percent in interim 2010. (Derived from CR/PR at Table IV-9,

Table I-1, and/or Table I-12).

 98 Akzo’s capacity to produce purified CMC increased from *** pounds in 2002 to *** pounds in 2003 and ***

pounds in 2004, but during the review period its production capacity declined overall from *** pounds in 2005 to

*** pounds in 2006, *** pounds in 2007, *** pounds in 2008, *** pounds in 2009, and *** pounds in interim 2009

and *** pounds in interim 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-9, IV-10.

 99 Akzo’s capacity utilization was *** percent in 2002, *** percent in 2003, *** percent in 2004, *** percent in

2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim

2009, and *** percent in interim 2010. Thus, the firm generally operated at lower capacity-utilization levels at the

end of the review period than it had earlier in the review period. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-9, IV-10. Akzo

reported total capacity of its *** production lines in these reviews after factoring in *** days of shutdown for

maintenance. See, e.g., CR at IV-30; PR at IV-10.

 100 Akzo reported that ***. See, e.g., CR at IV-28; PR at IV-10; CR/PR at Table IV-15. The company reports

***. See, e.g., CR at IV-30; PR at IV-10. Akzo’s total capacity to produce purified CMC, cross-linked CMC, and

technical-grade CMC was stable over the review period (at *** pounds between 2005 and 2009 and *** pounds in

interim 2009 and interim 2010). Nevertheless, Akzo varied its reported capacity and production for each of the three

products throughout the review period, indicating that it is relatively easy for the firm to shift at least some capacity

and production to purified CMC when it decides to do so. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-15.

14
imposition of the orders.101 Consequently, due to its available capacity and interest in exports, including

exports to the U.S. market, we do not find that subject imports from the Netherlands would likely have no

discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the antidumping duty order on purified CMC from

the Netherlands were revoked.

D. Likelihood of a Reasonable Overlap of Competition102

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

determining whether subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.103 Only

a “reasonable overlap” of competition is required.104 In five-year reviews, the relevant inquiry is whether

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

from the U.S. market.105

In the original investigations, the Commission found a reasonable overlap of competition among

subject imports from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden and between subject imports and the

domestic like product. It therefore cumulated subject imports from all four sources.106 In support of its

 101 Exports accounted for *** of Akzo’s shipments during the original investigations and review period (***

percent of all shipments in 2002, *** percent in 2003, *** percent in 2004, *** percent in 2005, *** percent in

2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and *** percent

in interim 2010). During the original investigations, an increasing share of Akzo’s total shipments were directed to

the United States (*** percent in 2002, *** percent in 2003, and *** percent in 2004). During the review period,

Akzo’s exports to the United States accounted for *** percent of its total shipments in 2005, *** percent in 2006,

*** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and *** percent in

interim 2010). See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-9, IV-10.

 102 Chairman Okun and Commissioner Pearson do not join this section’s findings regarding subject imports from

Mexico.

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

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

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

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

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

or similar channels of distribution for subject imports from different countries and the domestic like product; and

(4) whether subject imports are simultaneously present in the market with one another and the domestic like product. 

See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 106 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3787 at 7-13. Commissioner Pearson cumulated subject imports from Mexico, the

Netherlands, and Sweden, but he separately analyzed subject imports from Finland. He found similarities in

channels of distribution, geographic markets, and simultaneous presence among all sources, but found that subject

imports from Finland were not fungible with products from other sources because they had not been certified for and

thus were barred from competing for sales in food and personal-care applications that accounted for major portions

(continued...)

15
 cumulation determination, the Commission found that there was a high degree of fungibility among

purified CMC produced domestically and imported from the subject countries and that the domestic like

product and subject imports from all four sources were simultaneously present throughout the U.S. market

and were sold in overlapping channels of distribution, primarily to end users.107 In these reviews,

Aqualon argues that there is a likely reasonable overlap of competition among subject imports from

Finland, Mexico, and the Netherlands and between these imports and the domestic like product,108

whereas Mexican producer Amtex109 and Dutch producer Akzo each argue against cumulating their

imports with imports from the other subject countries.110

In these reviews, a majority of questionnaire respondents reported that U.S.-produced products

and imports from each of the subject countries can “always” or “frequently” be used interchangeably.111

The record indicates a relatively high degree of fungibility112 among the domestic like product and subject

imports from Finland and the Netherlands, because all were sold in overlapping applications.113 Subject

imports from Mexico are less fungible, however, to the extent that they are ***.114 The domestic like

product and subject imports from Finland, Mexico, and the Netherlands were sold throughout the review

period, and the domestic producer Aqualon and responding importers reported that they served customers

throughout the United States.115 Domestic producer Aqualon and importers of subject

 106 (...continued)

of the U.S. market. Id. at 25-28.

 107 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3787 at 7-13. The Commission did not agree with arguments that Finnish products

were sold for end uses where other subject imports had a limited presence, based on its finding of overlap in the

paper board and oilfield sectors of the U.S. market, overlap at specific purchaser accounts, a meaningful volume

overlap shown in the pricing data, and evidence that physical differences among grades of purified CMC for various

end uses – particularly the non-regulated end uses – were not very substantial. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3787 at 10-11. 

The Commission also rejected arguments that subject imports from Mexico were not fungible with other sources,

noting that imports from Mexico overlapped with the domestic like product and/or subject imports for sales in the

food and “other” sectors of the U.S. market, competed for sales to specific end users, and consisted of “standard”

grades that the majority of questionnaire respondents reported were always or frequently interchangeable with the

domestic like product. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3787 at 11-12.

 108 See, e.g., Aqualon’s Prehearing Br. at 38-39; Hearing Tr. at 40-42 (Zissis), 44 (Klett).

 109 See, e.g., Amtex’s Prehearing Br. at 9-12; Hearing Tr. at 125-26 (Nessel), 127-30 (Piotti), 130-31 (Nessel),

203-04 (Nessel); Amtex’s Posthearing Br. at 2, 4-5, 12-13, Exh. A at 20-21.

 110 See, e.g., Akzo’s Prehearing Br. at 9-11.

 111 See, e.g., CR at II-17; PR at IV-10; CR/PR at Table II-5.

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

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

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

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

Germany, and Korea, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-451 and 731-TA-1126-1128 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3964 (Nov. 2007).

 113 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-2.

 114 See, e.g., CR at II-24 n.16; PR at IV-16 n.16; CR/PR at Table IV-2. In addition to the “food” segment, the

segment that accounted for the largest share of the U.S. market, where there were sales by ***, there were sales to

the “personal-care” segment by ***, sales to the “paper & board” segment by ***, sales to the “oilfield” segment by

***, and sales to the “all others” segment by ***. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-2.

 115 See, e.g., CR at II-3 to II-4, IV-9; PR at II-1, IV-3; CR/PR at Tables I-1, IV-3.

16
merchandise from Finland, Mexico, and the Netherlands reported selling mostly to end users.116

Moreover, as discussed below, from 2008 to 2010, the majority of subject imports from Mexico were

purchased by ***, which further limits the likely overlap in channels of distribution between imports

from Mexico and imports from the other subject countries as well as the domestic like product. Although

we recognize that the likely overlap with respect to subject imports from Mexico is somewhat lower, we

find a likely reasonable overlap of competition among the domestic like product and subject imports from

Finland, Mexico, and the Netherlands in the event that the antidumping duty orders are revoked.

E. Other Likely Conditions of Competition117 118

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

subject imports from Finland, Mexico, and the Netherlands are likely to compete under similar or

different conditions in the U.S. market in the event the antidumping duty orders are revoked.119 For the

reasons discussed below, we find that subject imports from Finland and the Netherlands would likely

compete under similar conditions of competition in the U.S. market in the event of revocation, but we

 116 See, e.g., CR at II-1; PR at II-1; CR/PR at Table II-1.

 117 Commissioner Lane does not join this section and explains her analysis of other considerations as follows. 

Where, in a five-year review, she does not find that the subject imports would be likely to have no discernible

adverse impact on the domestic industry if the orders were revoked, and finds that such imports would be likely to

compete with each other and with the domestic like product in the U.S. market, she cumulates such imports unless

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

that significantly limits competition such that cumulation is not warranted. Based on the record in these reviews, and

parallel to the discussion in her Additional and Dissenting views, she finds that there is no such condition or

propensity with respect to the subject imports from Mexico.

While she agrees with Commissioner Pinkert that Amtex is focused in the food and all other sectors of the

purified CMC market and that a few longstanding customers account for most of its U.S. sales, these conditions have

persisted since the original investigations and she does not find that they have limited competition to the degree that

she should not cumulate subject imports from Mexico with those from Finland and the Netherlands.

 118 Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert joins this section but notes as follows. Where, in a five-year review, he does

not find that the subject imports would be likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if

the orders were revoked, and finds that they would be likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like

product in the U.S. market, he cumulates them unless there is a condition or propensity – not merely a trend – that is

likely to persist for a reasonably foreseeable time and that significantly limits competition such that cumulation is not

warranted.

In this case, Commissioner Pinkert finds there is no such condition or propensity with respect to subject

imports from Finland or the Netherlands but that there is such a condition or propensity with respect to subject

imports from Mexico. As discussed in the text, Amtex enjoys a strong home market in Mexico. Moreover, it has

long been focused in the U.S. market on the food and “other” sectors (predominantly the former) and relies on a few

longstanding customers for most of its U.S. sales. Consequently, Mexico’s U.S. market share has been relatively

stable going all the way back to the period originally investigated by the Commission, which is an indication that

Mexico’s limited participation in the U.S. market is structural.

 119 See, e.g., Nucor Corp. v. United States, 601 F.3d 1291, 1296-97 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Commission may

reasonably consider likely differing conditions of competition in deciding whether to cumulate subject imports in

five-year reviews); Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 475 F. Supp. 2d at 1378 (recognizing the wide latitude the

Commission has in selecting the type of factors it considers relevant in deciding whether to exercise discretion to

cumulate subject imports in five-year reviews); Nucor Corp., 569 F. Supp. 2d at 1337-38; U.S. Steel, Slip Op. 08-82.

17
find that subject imports from Mexico would likely compete under different conditions of competition in

the U.S. market in the event of revocation.120

First, during the original investigations and review period, subject producers in Finland and the

Netherlands reported a similar dependence on exports and lack of a significant home market. For

example, as discussed earlier, CP Kelco Finland and Dutch producer Akzo reported exporting *** percent

and *** percent of their total shipments in 2009, respectively.121 In contrast, in the original investigations

and review period, the subject producer in Mexico depended heavily on sales to its home market. For

example, Amtex reported selling *** percent of its total shipments in 2009 to its home market.122

Second, subject producers in Finland and the Netherlands had substantial capacity and in

particular, excess capacity, with which they could increase their exports to the United States in the event

the orders were revoked. For example, based on its reported data, CP Kelco Finland had a capacity of

*** pounds in 2009 and operated at *** percent capacity utilization that year, a level that was

significantly lower than its level of *** percent in 2007.123 As explained earlier, however, even this

excess capacity may be substantially understated given concerns about the way CP Kelco Finland

reported its capacity. Likewise, the remaining Dutch producer in operation, Akzo, had a production

capacity of *** pounds in 2009 and a capacity utilization of *** percent.124 Moreover, as discussed

above, Akzo had further available capacity because it could shift its manufacturing equipment to produce

purified CMC instead of technical-grade and cross-linked CMC, given that it had shifted capacity and

production among these products throughout the review period.125 Thus, subject producers in Finland and

the Netherlands both have substantial excess capacity to increase their exports to the United States if the

orders were revoked. In contrast, the subject producer in Mexico reported production capacity of ***

pounds in 2009 and a capacity utilization of *** percent in 2009, compared to a period high of ***

percent in interim 2010.126 Moreover, unlike Akzo, Amtex ***.127 Amtex had much less unused

production capacity and is therefore less likely than subject producers in Finland and the Netherlands to

significantly increase its exports to the United States in the reasonably foreseeable future if the orders

were revoked.

Additionally, the subject producer in Mexico is likely to operate differently in the U.S. market

than its counterparts in Finland and the Netherlands based on its past behavior in the U.S. market and

other markets. For example, in the U.S. market, Amtex sold purified CMC primarily for food and “all

other” applications during the review period, whereas subject producers in Finland and the Netherlands

 120 Commissioner Lane finds that subject imports from Finland, Mexico, and the Netherlands would likely

compete under similar conditions of competition in the U.S. market in the event of revocation of the orders. See

Commissioner Lane’s Additional and Dissenting Views.

 121 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-5 and IV-6 (Finland) and Tables IV-9 and IV-10 (Netherlands).

 122 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-7 and IV-8 (Mexico).

 123 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 124 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-10.

 125 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-15.

 126 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-8.

 127 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-15. Amtex *** produce products other than purified CMC on the same

equipment used in the production of purified CMC, ***. See, e.g., CR at IV-22, IV-26, IV-27; PR at IV-8 to IV-9;

CR/PR at Table IV-15; Amtex’s Prehearing Br. at 20-21; Amtex’s Posthearing Br. at Exh. A at 8-9.

18
sold purified CMC for a broader range of end-use applications.128 Overall, the Finnish producer focuses

on *** – a sector for which Amtex ***.129 CP Kelco Finland and Akzo also export substantially for

***.130 Similarly, CP Kelco Finland and Akzo export ***.131 We find that Amtex’s behavior during the

review period in the U.S. market was not a function of the antidumping duty order but instead is

consistent with the firm’s behavior during the original investigations132 and with the firm’s global

behavior.133

Furthermore, in the U.S. market, Amtex had a relatively discrete number of generally

longstanding customers that it supplied both during the original investigations and review period, so its

post-order behavior has been more stable.134 From 2008 to 2010, the majority of subject imports from

Mexico were purchased by ***.135 In contrast, the subject producers in Finland and the Netherlands

served a broader range of applications in the U.S. and global markets,136 and their participation in the U.S.

market fluctuated more noticeably as a result of the imposition of the antidumping duty orders.137 Indeed,

with respect to Akzo’s contention that it now serves only smaller-volume so-called niche “P+”138 sales in

the U.S. market unlike other subject producers, we note that Akzo concedes in making this argument that

it changed its behavior after the antidumping duty orders were imposed.139 Moreover, the

 128 See, e.g,. CR/PR at Table IV-2.

 129 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-16; Amtex’s Prehearing Br. at 9-10; Hearing Tr. at 126 (Nessel), 128 (Piotti);

Amtex’s Posthearing Br. at 2, 4.

 130 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-16.

 131 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-16.

 132 See, e.g., Staff Report from Original Investigations, Memorandum INV-CC-079 (June 2, 2005) at Table IV-3

(showing imports of subject merchandise from Mexico ***).

 133 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-16 (showing that during the review period, Amtex sold primarily to the food and

“other” sectors both in its home market and non-U.S. export markets, sold some purified CMC for oilfields

applications but only in relatively modest quantities and only in its home market, and had only nominal sales

globally in the personal-care and paper & board segments).

 134 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1 (showing relatively stable U.S. market share for subject imports from Mexico

during the original investigations and review period). See also, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 17-18 (Neeley); Amtex’s

Posthearing Br. at 6, Exh. A at 7-8, 21-22, Exh. 2; Amtex’s Prehearing Br. at 3.

 135 Azteca, ***, accounted for *** to *** percent of Amtex’s U.S. sales from 2008 to 2010, by volume. ***

accounted for *** to *** percent of its U.S. sales in that timeframe. See, e.g., Amtex’s Posthearing Br. at Exh. 2. In

2009, Azteca purchased *** percent of its purified CMC from Amtex, *** percent from CP Kelco Netherlands, and

*** percent from non-subject sources. See, e.g., Azteca’s Purchaser Questionnaire response to Question II-1. ***

purchased *** percent of its purified CMC from Amtex in 2009 and interim 2010, and during the review period did

not purchase any purified CMC manufactured in the United States, Finland, the Netherlands, or Sweden. See, e.g.,

***’s Purchaser Questionnaire response to Question II-1. *** have been customers of Amtex since the 1990s. See,

e.g., Amtex’s Posthearing Br. at 6.

 136 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-2, Table IV-16; foreign producer questionnaire responses to Question II-9.

 137 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1, Table IV-10 (showing for subject producers in Finland and the Netherlands ***

declines in their exports to the United States and U.S. market shares immediately after imposition of the antidumping

duty orders).

 138 We note there is no evidence on the record that this product classification is recognized by the broader market. 

Indeed, the lengthy *** in Exhibit E of Akzo’s Posthearing Brief makes no mention of such a product classification.

 139 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 20-21 (West), 140-41 (Grootnibbelink), 141-47 (Raatjes), 150-54 (Manning), 170-72

(West), 201-03 (West), 218-19 (Manning); Akzo’s Final Comments at 7.

19
fact that Akzo currently sells *** in the U.S. market does not mean that it would not sell purified CMC

for a wider variety of applications in the U.S. market, including ***, in the event of revocation. We note

that in interim 2010, ***.140 Moreover, in 2009, Akzo had significant unused capacity.141

In sum, we find similarities in the likely conditions of competition facing subject imports from

Finland and the Netherlands in the U.S. market and have exercised our discretion to cumulate these

imports for our analysis in these reviews. Based on our finding of significant differences in the likely

conditions of competition facing subject imports from Mexico in the U.S. market, however, we have

decided not to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Mexico with imports from any of

the other subject countries.142

V. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS UNDER REVIEW ARE REVOKED

A. Legal Standards

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

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

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

and/or countervailing duty order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury

within a reasonably foreseeable time.”143 The SAA states that “under the likelihood standard, the

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

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

proceeding and the elimination of its restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”144 Thus, the

likelihood standard is prospective in nature.145 The CIT has found that “likely,” as used in the five-year

review provisions of the Tariff Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in fiveyear reviews.146 147 148

 140 See, e.g., Akzo’s foreign producer questionnaire response to Question II-9.

 141 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-10. The fact that Akzo made no arguments regarding the so-called P+ strategy in

its Prehearing Brief, and raised the issue for the first time at the Commission’s hearing, further calls into question the

long-term significance of any such shift.

 142 Commissioner Lane finds sufficient similarities in the likely conditions of competition facing imports from

Finland, Mexico, and the Netherlands that she exercises her discretion to cumulate these imports for her analysis in

these reviews. See Commissioner Lane’s Additional and Dissenting Views.

 143 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 144 SAA at 883-84. The SAA states that “{t}he likelihood of injury standard applies regardless of the nature of

the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of material injury, or material retardation of an

industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that were never completed.” Id. at 883.

 145 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.

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

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

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

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

(continued...)

20
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.”149 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.”150

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 effects, and impact of imports of the subject

merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”151 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 under review, whether the industry is vulnerable to material

injury if the order were revoked, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19

U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).152 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.153

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under review were

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

significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.154 In

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

factors, as follows: (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

 146 (...continued)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

addresses this issue.

 149 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 150 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.

 151 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 152 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). 

 153 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily

dispositive. SAA at 886.

 154 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

21
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.155

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the orders under review were revoked,

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

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

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

price of the domestic like product.156

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under review were

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

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

(1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and

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

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

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

the domestic like product.157 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the

business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry. As instructed by the

statute, we have considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is

related to the orders at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders were

revoked.158

 155 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

 156 See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “{c}onsistent with its practice in investigations, in

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

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

SAA at 886.

 157 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

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

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

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

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

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

magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy” in making its

determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute defines the “magnitude of the margin of

dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as “the dumping margin or margins determined by the

administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887. 

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. The Commission

is specifically directed to take into account the findings of Commerce regarding duty absorption. 19 U.S.C. §

1675a(b)(1)(D).

22
B. Conditions of Competition and Business Cycle

In evaluating the likely impact of 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.”159

1. Findings in Original Investigations160

In the original investigations, the Commission found that apparent U.S. consumption had

increased steadily and markedly from *** million pounds in 2002 to *** million pounds in 2004.161 The

Commission found that demand for purified CMC was driven by downstream demand for the “regulated”

and “non-regulated” products in which it was used.162 It found that demand for purified CMC grew in all

major end-use sectors but that demand growth was heavily affected by a substantial increase in the

oilfield sector, where apparent U.S. consumption increased from *** million pounds in 2002 to ***

million pounds in 2004.163

In its original determinations, the Commission observed that the only domestic producer,

Aqualon, increased its capacity and capacity utilization but was unable to supply the entire U.S. market at

any point; its capacity in 2004 was equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in that year.164

Aqualon increased its share of the U.S. market during the original investigations from *** percent in

2002 to *** percent in 2003 and *** percent in 2004.165 Although their share of the U.S. market declined

during the original investigations, cumulated subject imports held a larger share of the market than the

domestic industry; their market share was *** percent in 2002, *** percent in 2003, and *** percent in

2004.166 Noviant, which owned purified CMC production facilities in three of the four subject countries

at the time of the original investigations, was then the world’s largest producer, accounting for ***

percent of total global production capacity in 2003.167 Imports from non-subject sources, primarily China

and France, held a small but growing share of the U.S. market, at *** percent in 2002, *** percent in

2003, and *** percent in 2004.168 The Commission noted, however, that average-unit values of imports

from China and France were higher than those of imports from the four subject countries in 2003 and

2004.169

 159 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 160 Commissioner Pearson does not join this section. He wrote separately on conditions of competition in the

original investigations. USITC Pub. 3787 at 30-32.

 161 See, e.g., Confidential Original Views, EDIS Doc. No. 430770 (“Original Views”) at 21.

 162 Between 2002 and 2004, the share of the U.S. market accounted for by the major end-uses was as follows: 

food (*** percent); personal-care and pharmaceuticals (*** percent)); oilfield (*** percent); paper & board (***

percent); and “other uses” (*** percent). See, e.g., Original Views at 21.

 163 See, e.g., Original Views at 21-22.

 164 See, e.g., Original Views at 22.

 165 See, e.g., Original Views at 22.

 166 See, e.g., Original Views at 22-23.

 167 See, e.g., Original Views at 23.

 168 See, e.g., Original Views at 23.

 169 See, e.g., Original Views at 23.

23
In the original investigations, the Commission found that there was a moderate to high degree of

substitutability among subject imports and the domestic like product, and that price was a significant

factor in purchasing decisions.170 Although purchasers required suppliers to be qualified, nearly threequarters of purchasers reported that their domestic or foreign suppliers had never failed to qualify their

products; the record also indicated that domestic and subject suppliers offered many of the same standard

grades of purified CMC for sale in the U.S. market at that time.171 The Commission also found only

limited possible substitutes for purified CMC and only in a limited number of the end uses for which

purified CMC was used during the original investigations.172

2. Findings in These Reviews

In these reviews, we find the following conditions of competition relevant to our analysis.

Demand conditions: Demand for purified CMC depends upon demand for the applications in

which it is used, including food, personal-care products, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, paper & board, and

oilfield applications.173 Throughout the review period, food applications accounted for a large share of

the U.S. market for purified CMC,174 whereas paper & board applications accounted for a lower share,175

and personal-care applications accounted for an even smaller share.176 The volume of U.S. shipments

destined for oilfield applications fluctuated widely during the review period; it was relatively large at the

beginning of the review period, dropped sharply in 2008 and 2009, but was somewhat higher in interim

2010, consistent with trends in oil-rig counts and macroeconomic conditions.177

Overall, apparent U.S. consumption for purified CMC increased from *** pounds in 2005 to ***

pounds in 2006, *** pounds in 2007, and *** pounds in 2008 and then declined to *** pounds in 2009;

apparent U.S. consumption was *** pounds in interim 2009 and *** pounds in interim 2010.178 When

asked how demand for purified CMC in the U.S. market has changed since 2005, Aqualon reported that

demand ***, two importers reported an increase, seven reported fluctuating demand, and four reported

 170 See, e.g., Original Views at 23-24.

 171 See, e.g., Original Views at 24-25.

 172 See, e.g., Original Views at 25-26.

 173 See, e.g., CR at II-9; PR at II-5.

 174 U.S. shipments for food applications as a share of total apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent in 2005,

*** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009,

and *** percent in interim 2010. (Derived from CR/PR at Tables I-1, I-12, and IV-2).

 175 U.S. shipments for paper & board applications as a share of total apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent

in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim

2009, and *** percent in interim 2010. (Derived from CR/PR at Tables I-1, I-12, and IV-2).

 176 U.S. shipments for personal-care applications as a share of total apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent in

2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim

2009, and *** percent in interim 2010. (Derived from CR/PR at Tables I-1, I-12, and IV-2).

 177 See, e.g., CR at II-10; PR at II-5; CR/PR at Figure II-2. U.S. shipments for oilfield applications as a share of

total apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in

2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and *** percent in interim 2010. (Derived from CR/PR at

Tables I-1, I-12, and IV-2).

 178 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

24
unchanged demand.179 When asked about projected demand for purified CMC, Aqualon anticipated an

increase in demand and reported that it is working on CMC applications for new markets that it hopes will

add some additional demand in the reasonably foreseeable future.180 Of the 13 responding importers, 7

reported expecting changes and 6 reported no expected changes.181

Supply conditions: During the review period, the U.S. market was supplied by domestic producer

Aqualon as well as imports from subject and non-subject countries.182 Aqualon commercially

manufactured *** at its U.S. CMC production facility during the review period.183 As was the case

during the original investigations, Aqualon’s production capacity was smaller than apparent U.S.

consumption throughout the review period, with an overall market share of between *** and ***

percent.184 Aqualon is affiliated with two *** subsidiaries that produce purified CMC, ***.185 In terms of

global production capacity in 2009, Aqualon’s U.S. facility accounted for approximately *** percent.186

Supply conditions with respect to imports from subject and non-subject countries have changed

substantially since the original investigations. For example, as discussed earlier, CP Kelco Finland has

become certified to produce regulated forms of purified CMC, including for food and pharmaceutical

applications, CP Kelco Netherlands no longer exists in the wake of an explosion and fire at that facility in

July 2009, and CP Kelco Sweden ceased production of subject merchandise and moved production

equipment to its affiliate in China in 2007. As a share of global production capacity in 2009, CP Kelco

Finland reportedly accounted for approximately *** percent, whereas its affiliate in China accounted for

*** percent.187 Although CP Kelco Finland and Amtex produced both technical-grade CMC and purified

CMC, they did not shift their production between the products during the review period, whereas Dutch

 179 See, e.g., CR at II-10; PR at II-5. Firms reporting fluctuations frequently referred to volatility in oilfield

applications or the worldwide economic downturn. Of 24 responding purchasers, 5 reported an increase in demand,

4 reported a decrease, 10 reported no change, and 5 reported demand had fluctuated. Two purchasers reporting an

increase in demand stated that the purified CMC typically grows at a 3 to 5 percent annual rate. One purchaser

reporting demand fluctuations reported an impact on its sales by oil rig activity. Another reporting fluctuating

demand reported that demand is influenced by general economic conditions. See, e.g., CR at II-11 to II-12; PR at

II-6 to II-7.

 180 See, e.g., CR at II-12; PR at II-7. For the period 2009 to 2014, the *** projects demand to ***. See, e.g.,

Akzo’s Posthearing Br. at Exh. E.

 181 Those expecting changed demand reported that growth would depend on factors such as growth of the U.S.

economy and the level of oilfield activity. Of the 24 responding purchasers, 5 reported demand was likely to

increase, 5 reported a likely decrease, 5 reported likely demand fluctuations, and 9 anticipated unchanged demand. 

Two purchasers expecting increased demand projected a growth rate of 3 to 5 percent annually. One purchaser

anticipating decreased demand reported customers are likely to switch to substitutes because of higher CMC prices. 

Some purchasers expecting demand fluctuations pointed to variability in oilfield activities and general economic

conditions. See, e.g., CR at II-12 to II-13; PR at II-7.

 182 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 183 See, e.g., CR at III-1; PR at III-1.

 184 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables I-1, III-1.

 185 See, e.g., CR at III-1; PR at III-1.

 186 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-17.

 187 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-17.

25
producer Akzo shifted its production among purified CMC, technical-grade CMC, and cross-linked

CMC.188

Non-subject imports of purified CMC from China, France, *** accounted for between *** and

*** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, compared to a range of between *** and *** percent during

the original investigations.189 Non-subject imports from China and France accounted for most of this

growth.190 The parties in these reviews disagreed about the number of producers in China and the extent

to which they were capable of producing purified CMC of a purity acceptable in the U.S. market.191 The

record does, however, clearly indicate that there are numerous producers in China, they collectively

possess substantial capacity, and they exported substantial quantities during the review period.192 In nonsubject country France, Aqualon’s affiliate reportedly accounts for *** pounds.193

Substitutability and Other Conditions of Competition: A majority of questionnaire respondents

reported that U.S.-produced products and imports from each of the subject countries of the same grade

can always or frequently be used interchangeably for similar applications.194 As we found in section IV

above, the record indicates fairly high substitutability among the domestic like product and subject

imports from Finland and the Netherlands, and a somewhat lesser degree of substitutability with subject

imports from Mexico to the extent that these imports are ***.195

Amtex and Akzo argued that consumers of purified CMC have begun substituting other products

for purified CMC since imposition of the orders, such as guar in food applications, non-subject technical

 188 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-15.

 189 See, e.g., CR at IV-3; PR at IV-2; CR/PR at Table I-1.

 190 Non-subject imports from China progressively increased their market share from *** percent in 2002 to ***

percent in 2008 and had a share of *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and *** percent in interim

2010. Non-subject imports from France increased irregularly from *** percent in 2002 to *** percent in 2008 and

were *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and *** percent in interim 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table

C-1, and Table I-1.

 191 Apparently, in China CMC need only have a purity of 95 percent or higher to qualify for regulated

applications. See, e.g., CR at IV-50; PR at IV-13 to IV-14.

 192 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-17; CR at IV-49 to IV-51; PR at IV-13 to IV-14.

 193 See, e.g., CR at IV-52; PR at IV-14.

 194 See, e.g., CR at II-17; PR at II-10; CR/PR at Table II-5. On the other hand, domestic producer Aqualon

reported that non-price factors are *** a consideration when comparing sales of subject merchandise with one

another or with the domestic industry whereas a majority of importers and purchasers reported that factors other than

price are “always” or “frequently” a factor in such comparisons. See, e.g., CR at II-19; PR at II-12; CR/PR at Table

II-6. For non-price factors, purchasers were asked whether the domestic like product is superior, comparable, or

inferior to subject imports and were asked to compare imports from the subject countries against one another, but

their comments focused on comparisons between the domestic product and imports from individual subject

countries. Five purchasers compared the U.S.-produced product with imports from Finland for some or all of the

listed characteristics. A majority of purchasers ranked the U.S.-produced product superior in delivery time and

price. In all other characteristics, neither country was ranked either superior or inferior by a majority of purchasers. 

In the comparisons between the United States and Mexico, the products were ranked comparable in most

characteristics, with neither country ranked superior or inferior by a majority of purchasers in any characteristic. In

the comparison between the United States and the Netherlands, a majority of purchasers ranked the United States

superior in delivery time. Neither the United States nor the Netherlands showed any clear-cut advantage in other

characteristics. None of the purchasers compared product from the United States and Sweden. See, e.g., CR at

II-21; PR at II-14; CR/PR at Table II-7.

 195 See, e.g., CR at II-24 n.16; PR at II-16 n.16; CR/PR at Table IV-2.

26
CMC and compounds for purified CMC in oil and paper applications, and xanthan gum in new toothpaste

formulations, as well as guar gum, carboxymethyl-starch, modified starches, and compounds.196 As

Aqualon explained, however, its own imports of guar do not substitute for purified CMC but are instead

used in a fracturing product that is separate and distinct from the oilfield drilling mud applications in

which purified CMC is used; moreover, it argued, other alleged “substitutes” are used in combination

with purified CMC to yield synergies needed for certain end-use applications.197 The overall record

indicates that little has changed since the original investigations with respect to substitute products, and

there are only limited possible substitutes for purified CMC and only for a limited number of the

applications for which purified CMC is used.198

C. Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Subject Imports from Finland and

the Netherlands Is Likely to Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury

to the Domestic Industry within a Reasonably Foreseeable Time199 200

1. Likely Volume of Cumulated Subject Imports

from Finland and the Netherlands

a. The Original Investigations

In its original determinations, the Commission found that the volume of cumulated subject

imports from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden increased significantly on an absolute basis

by more than *** percent between 2002 and 2004.201 Although cumulated subject imports in marketshare terms and relative to domestic production fell during the original investigations, the Commission

found that the volume of cumulated subject imports from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden

and the absolute increase in that volume were significant.202 With nearly half of the U.S. market even at

their lowest point in 2004, the Commission found that cumulated subject imports from Finland, Mexico,

the Netherlands, and Sweden retained a substantial share of the market that permitted them to have a

 196 On the other hand, while Akzo asserts that food producers may consider substituting other thickeners for

purified CMC for new processed products, it doubts that they would substitute other thickeners for existing food

products for which they would need to change the ingredient label. See, e.g., Amtex’s Prehearing Br. at 7-8; Akzo’s

Posthearing Br. at Exh. A at 1, 6-7, Exh. B, Exh. C.

 197 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 55, 56 (Pappas), 71 (Lane); Aqualon’s Posthearing Br. at 11-12, Answers to Questions

at 33-34, 35-36.

 198 See, e.g., CR at II-13 to II-14; PR at II-7 to II-8.

 199 While Commissioner Lane finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on Finland and the

Netherlands is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry, she makes the

same finding with respect to Mexico and bases her decision on cumulation of subject imports from all three

countries. See her Additional and Dissenting Views.

 200 Commissioner Pearson does not join this section of the opinion.

 201 The volume of cumulated subject imports increased from *** million pounds in 2002 to *** million pounds in

2003 and *** million pounds in 2004. See, e.g., Original Views at 26.

 202 Cumulated subject imports’ market share fell from *** percent in 2002 to *** percent in 2003 and *** percent

in 2004. See, e.g., Original Views at 26-27.

27
significant adverse impact on domestic prices.203 After losing significant market share to cumulated

subject imports in 2002, the Commission found that the domestic industry sought to regain that lost

market share in 2003 and 2004 by competing more aggressively on price at the expense of profitability.204

b. The Current Reviews

Several factors support our conclusion that the volume of cumulated subject imports from Finland

and the Netherlands is likely to be significant in the event the antidumping duty orders on these imports

are revoked.

First, the cumulated volume of subject imports from Finland and the Netherlands was significant

in the original investigations, both absolutely and relative to apparent U.S. consumption and

production.205 After imposition of the antidumping duty orders, the cumulated volume of subject imports

from Finland and the Netherlands into the U.S. market plummeted, but these imports collectively still

maintained a meaningful presence in the U.S. market during the review period, even after the fire and

explosion at one of the two subject producers’ facilities in the Netherlands in July 2009.206 Furthermore,

CP Kelco Finland and Akzo also aggressively pursued and recently took at least some portion of accounts

previously served by CP Kelco Netherlands.207

Second, there is significant collective production capacity in Finland and the Netherlands to

manufacture purified CMC, even after the closure of CP Kelco’s facility in the Netherlands.208 As

discussed above, however, even these data appear to substantially understate production capacity in

Finland, to the extent that they are inconsistent with other record data concerning CP Kelco Finland’s

production capacity. In addition, Dutch producer Akzo has the ability to shift from the manufacture of

non-subject cross-linked CMC and technical-grade CMC to the manufacture of the subject purified CMC,

a practice that it engaged in during the review period.209

 203 See, e.g., Original Views at 27.

 204 See, e.g., Original Views at 27.

 205 Specifically, cumulated subject imports from Finland and the Netherlands were *** pounds in 2002, ***

pounds in 2003, and *** pounds in 2004. In terms of apparent U.S. consumption, cumulated subject imports were

*** percent in 2002, *** percent in 2003, and *** percent in 2004. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables I-1, I-12.

 206 Cumulated subject imports from Finland and the Netherlands were *** pounds in 2005, *** pounds in 2006,

*** pounds in 2007, *** pounds in 2008, *** pounds in 2009, *** pounds in interim 2009, and *** pounds in

interim 2010. In terms of apparent U.S. consumption, cumulated subject imports were *** percent in 2005, ***

percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and

*** percent in interim 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-12, I-13, C-1. In addition, there were U.S. inventories of

purified CMC imported from Finland and the Netherlands throughout the review period, and importers reported ***. 

See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-4; CR at IV-14; PR at IV-5.

 207 See, e.g., Aqualon’s Prehearing Br. at 9-10; Hearing Tr. at 32-33 (Gruber), 143-44 (Raatjes); Akzo’s Final

Comments at 7.

 208 Subject producers in Finland and the Netherlands reported combined purified CMC capacity of *** million

pounds in 2005, *** pounds in 2006, *** pounds in 2007, *** pounds in 2008, *** pounds in 2009, *** pounds in

interim 2009, and *** pounds in interim 2010. (Derived from CR/PR at Tables IV-5, IV-6, IV-9, IV-10). 

Collectively, CP Kelco Finland and Dutch producer Akzo reported purified CMC capacity of *** million pounds in

2005, *** pounds in 2006, *** pounds in 2007, *** pounds in 2008, *** pounds in 2009, *** pounds in interim

2009, and *** pounds in interim 2010. (Derived from CR/PR at Tables IV-5, IV-6, IV-9, IV-10).

 209 See, e.g., CR at IV-28, IV-30; PR at IV-10; CR/PR at Table IV-15.

28
Third, at the end of the review period, subject producers in Finland and the Netherlands reported

operating at significantly lower capacity-utilization levels than earlier in the review period, even after

factoring in the closure of the CP Kelco Netherlands facility.210 Thus, relative to demand in the U.S.

market and the domestic industry’s purified CMC production level during the review period, there is

substantial collective unused capacity to produce purified CMC in Finland and the Netherlands, given the

large size of their collective production operations. Again, these data appear to significantly understate

the available capacity to the extent that they do not take into consideration the concerns raised about CP

Kelco Finland’s reported capacity and do not account for Dutch producer Akzo’s ability to shift from the

production of non-subject to subject merchandise.

Fourth, subject producers in Finland and the Netherlands are highly export-oriented, with a

relatively low proportion of their sales directed at home market customers. CP Kelco Finland has

increased its overall export orientation since the original investigations, and it continued to ship a

meaningful share of its exports to the United States, even after imposition of the antidumping duty

order.211 212 Subject producers in the Netherlands were also highly export-oriented during the original

investigations and review period.213 Even examining Dutch producer Akzo in isolation reveals that

during the original investigations and reviews, exports constituted a large share of Akzo’s total shipments,

and exports to the United States continued to account for a meaningful share of its shipments even after

imposition of the orders.214 215

 210 Subject producers in Finland and the Netherlands reported a collective capacity utilization of *** percent in

2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim

2009, and *** percent in interim 2010. Collectively, CP Kelco Finland and Dutch producer Akzo reported a

capacity utilization of *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, ***

percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and *** percent in interim. (Derived from CR/PR at Tables IV-5, IV-6,

IV-9, IV-10).

 211 During the original investigations, Noviant OY’s exports as a share of its total shipments increased from ***

percent in 2002 to *** percent in 2003 and *** percent in 2004. During the review period, exports constituted a

larger and generally growing share of CP Kelco Finland’s total shipments, accounting for *** percent in 2005, ***

percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and

*** percent in interim 2010. U.S. exports accounted for *** percent of the firm’s total shipments in 2002, ***

percent in 2003, *** percent in 2004, *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in

2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and *** percent in interim 2010 in those years. See, e.g.,

CR/PR at Tables IV-5, IV-6. The company reported ***. See, e.g., CR at IV-15; PR at IV-6.

 212 In concluding that CP Kelco Finland is export-oriented, Commissioner Shara L. Aranoff has considered the

total percentage of CP Kelco’s shipments that were exported in each year of the period examined, but placed

particular weight on the fact that CP Kelco shipped a substantial share of its exports to markets outside the European

Union (“EU”). CP Kelco Finland’s extra-EU exports (total exports not including shipments to the EU as a share of

total shipments) were: *** percent in 2005; *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, ***

percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and *** percent in interim 2010. (Derived from CR/PR at Table IV-6).

 213 As a share of their total shipments, subject producers in the Netherlands exported *** percent in 2002, ***

percent in 2003, *** percent in 2004, *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in

2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and *** percent in interim 2010. U.S. exports accounted for

*** percent of the firms’ collective total shipments in 2002, *** percent in 2003, *** percent in 2004, *** percent in

2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim

2009, and *** percent in interim 2010 in those years. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-9, and Table IV-10.

 214 Exports accounted for *** of Akzo’s shipments during the original investigations and review period (***

percent of all shipments in 2002, *** percent in 2003, and *** percent in 2004, *** percent in 2005, *** percent in

2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and *** percent

(continued...)

29
Fifth, record data indicate that subject producers in Finland and the Netherlands are likely

collectively to supply the full range of applications in the U.S. market in the event the antidumping duty

orders were to be revoked. Since the original investigations, CP Kelco Finland has become certified to

produce regulated grades of purified CMC,216 and during the review period, products manufactured in

Finland were sold in the U.S. market for ***.217 During the review period, products manufactured in the

Netherlands (including products manufactured by Akzo) were sold in the U.S. market and globally for

***.218 The fact that subject producers from Finland and the Netherlands had a smaller presence in the

U.S. market than during the original investigations and may not have sold purified CMC for all end-use

applications during the review period does not mean that they would not be likely to sell purified CMC

for a wider variety of applications if the antidumping duty orders were revoked. Subject producers in

Finland and the Netherlands *** in other markets during the review period.219 As we found earlier, we do

not accept Akzo’s claims that it is likely to focus only on higher-priced so-called niche P+ applications if

the antidumping duty order were revoked.220 Moreover, even Akzo argues that CP Kelco Finland will

have an incentive to switch its sales of purified CMC from Western Europe to other markets given

declines in demand for purified CMC for paper-coating applications there.221

Sixth, the U.S. market is attractive to subject producers in Finland and the Netherlands, as

reflected by the fact that they maintained a presence in the U.S. market even after imposition of the

antidumping duty orders. Furthermore, the U.S. market is relatively large compared to the global market,

accounting for a sizeable portion of global demand for each of the major end-use applications for purified

 214 (...continued)

in interim 2010). During the original investigations, an increasing share of Akzo’s total shipments were directed to

the United States (*** percent in 2002, *** percent in 2003, and *** percent in 2004). During the review period,

Akzo’s exports to the United States accounted for *** percent of its total shipments in 2005, *** percent in 2006,

*** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and *** percent in

interim 2010). See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-9, IV-10. In addition to the United States, Akzo reported exporting

purified CMC to ***. Since 2005, the company reported developing or increasing sales ***. See, e.g., CR at IV-28

to IV-29; PR at IV-9 to IV-10.

 215 In concluding that Akzo is export-oriented, Commissioner Aranoff has considered the total percentage of

Akzo’s shipments that were exported in each year of the period examined, but placed particular weight on the fact

that Akzo shipped a substantial share of its exports to markets outside the EU. Akzo’s extra-EU exports were: ***

percent in 2005; *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in

interim 2009, and *** percent in interim 2010. (Derived from CR/PR at Table IV-10).

 216 See, e.g., Aqualon’s Prehearing Br. at 17, 20, 26; Hearing Tr. at 29 (Panichella), 47-48 (Klett); Aqualon’s

Posthearing Br. at 7, Answers to Questions at 2.

 217 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-2.

 218 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-2, Table IV-16. During the review period, Akzo sold ***. See, e.g., Akzo’s

foreign producer questionnaire response to Question II-9; Akzo’s importer questionnaire response to Question III-9;

CR/PR at Table IV-16.

 219 See, e.g., Akzo’s foreign producer questionnaire response to Question II-9; CP Kelco Netherlands’ foreign

producer questionnaire response to Question II-9; CR/PR at Table IV-16.

 220 For example, in interim 2010, ***. See, e.g., Akzo’s foreign producer questionnaire response to Question II-9;

CR/PR at Table IV-16.

 221 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 216 (Raatjes); Akzo’s Posthearing Br. at Exh. A at 7.

30
CMC.222 Although we exercise caution when using average-unit-value data in recognition of the possible

effect of product-mix differences, we note that the average-unit value for ***.223 Thus, the United States

is an attractive market to CP Kelco Finland. Additionally, the U.S. market also was relatively attractive

to Akzo, given that ***.224

Collectively, these data indicate that subject producers in Finland and the Netherlands remain

interested in serving the U.S. market and are capable of doing so.225 Accordingly, based on the

demonstrated ability of subject producers in Finland and the Netherlands to increase exports to the U.S.

market, their continued significant presence in the U.S. market even after imposition of the antidumping

duty orders, the substantial combined production capacity and significant available cumulative capacity of

subject producers in Finland and the Netherlands, their high degree of export orientation and lack of

significant home market sales, their ability to serve the full range of purified CMC product applications in

the U.S. market, and the likely attractiveness of the U.S. market, we find that the volume of cumulated

subject imports from Finland and the Netherlands, in absolute terms and relative to both U.S. production

and consumption, likely would be significant in the event that the antidumping duty orders on these

imports were revoked.

2. Likely Price Effects of Cumulated Subject Imports

of Purified CMC from Finland and the Netherlands

a. The Original Investigations

In its original determinations, the Commission found a moderate to high degree of substitutability

among the domestic like product and subject imports from all four subject countries and that price was a

significant factor in purchasing decisions.226 Based on pricing data collected for six products that

represented a substantial percentage of domestic and subject sales of purified CMC during the original

investigations,227 cumulative subject imports from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden

undersold the domestic like product in nearly 60 percent of possible pricing comparisons, with ***

percent of the total sales volumes reported by subject importers involving underselling.228 Purchaser

pricing data showed similar underselling trends.229 On this basis, the Commission found significant

underselling by cumulated subject imports.230

 222 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-18 (showing that the U.S. market’s share of global purified CMC demand was

*** percent for food applications, *** percent for personal-care applications, *** percent for oilfield applications,

*** percent for paper applications, and *** percent for other applications).

 223 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-6, IV-10.

 224 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-6, IV-10.

 225 The record also contains evidence that importers and purchasers would be receptive to purchasing increased

volumes of subject imports after revocation. See, e.g., CR/PR at Appendix D.

 226 See, e.g., Original Views at 23-24, 28.

 227 The Commission rejected Noviant’s assertion that the pricing products were defined too broadly, because

Noviant failed to raise this argument earlier despite extensive discussions among the parties and Commission staff

about the draft questionnaires used for the final investigations. See, e.g., Original Views at 31-32.

 228 See, e.g., Original Views at 28-29.

 229 See, e.g., Original Views at 29.

 230 See, e.g., Original Views at 28-29.

31
The Commission also found that cumulated subject imports from Finland, Mexico, the

Netherlands, and Sweden depressed prices of the domestic like product to a significant degree, with

domestic sales prices for the six comparison products each declining significantly between 2002 and 2004

despite strong demand growth.231 It found a correlation between the continuing and significant

underselling by cumulated subject imports and the decline in domestic prices and concluded the pricing

data and evidence concerning lost sales and lost revenues were consistent with Aqualon’s assertion that it

made a strategic decision to lower its prices substantially after 2002 in order to regain market share lost to

cumulated subject imports from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden.232 The Commission

rejected Noviant’s argument that low-priced imports from non-subject sources, particularly China,

explained the domestic industry’s price declines. Given that non-subject imports from China and France

had higher average-unit values than subject imports and occupied a much smaller though increasing share

of the market, the Commission did not find that non-subject imports caused substantial domestic price

declines in 2003 and 2004. It also rejected Noviant’s assertion that declining prices for substitute

products caused declines in the domestic industry’s purified CMC prices. It found only limited possible

substitutes and that these substitutes could only be used in a limited number of purified CMC’s end uses. 

It also found no strong correlation between purified CMC prices and substitute product prices.233

b. The Current Reviews

Similar to the original investigations, the record indicates a high degree of interchangeability

among the domestic like product and subject imports from Finland and the Netherlands234 and that price is

an important factor in this industry.235 In these reviews, the Commission collected quarterly pricing data

on six purified CMC products for the period January 2005 through September 2010.236 The pricing data

reported by Aqualon accounted for *** percent of its U.S. shipments during the review period, by

quantity.237 Pricing data reported by importers accounted for *** percent of U.S. shipments of subject

imports from Finland and *** percent of U.S. shipments of imports from the Netherlands.238 Cumulated

subject imports from Finland and the Netherlands undersold the domestic like product by significant

margins throughout the review period.239 Akzo argues that its products were priced higher and rarely

undersold the domestic industry during the review period because Akzo changed its business strategy in

favor of selling lower volumes to so-called niche P+ markets rather than larger volumes at lower prices as

 231 See, e.g., Original Views at 29-30.

 232 See, e.g., Original Views at 30-31, 33-34.

 233 See, e.g., Original Views at 25-26, 33.

 234 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables II-5, II-6, II-8; II-17 to II-21.

 235 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables II-3, II-4.

 236 Three of these are for food or personal-care applications, two are for paper applications, and one is for oilfield

applications. See, e.g., CR at V-5; PR at V-3. These are the same pricing products as those used in the original

investigations; no party to these reviews asked for any revisions. See, e.g., CR at V-4 n.5; PR at V-3 n.5.

 237 See, e.g., CR at V-5; PR at V-3.

 238 See, e.g., CR at V-5 to V-6; PR at V-3.

 239 Subject imports from Finland undersold the domestic like product in 49 of 60 instances at margins that ranged

from 0.6 to 33.5 percent and subject imports from the Netherlands undersold the domestic like product in 14 of 85

instances at margins that ranged from 0.3 to 26.3 percent. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-8. If only the data

for the remaining Dutch producer Akzo are considered, these imports undersold the domestic like product in 18 of

84 instances at margins that ranged from 0.3 to 26.3 percent. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-8.

32
it had during the original investigations.240 The record does not support Akzo’s claim regarding the likely

future focus of its U.S. sales, and even if it did, these assertions show that the antidumping duty order had

some price-disciplining effects and was a reason for Akzo to change its business strategy. As discussed

above, we do not accept Akzo’s claims that it is likely to focus only on higher-priced niche products if the

antidumping duty order is revoked, as it has both the ability and incentive to ship purified CMC for a

wide variety of applications, including the lower value ones.

During the review period, prices for the domestic like product for all six pricing products

increased overall, despite frequent quarterly fluctuations.241 Subject import prices also generally

increased during the review period.242

During the original investigations, the Commission found that Aqualon had to cut prices in order

to regain market share it lost to low-priced subject imports, as discussed above. At that time, Aqualon did

not face a cost-price squeeze, because as indicated by the ratio of its cost of goods sold (“COGS”) to net

sales, Aqualon was able to sell at prices that covered these costs.243 During the review period, Aqualon

faced *** higher raw material costs for ***.244 Although raw material costs account for a large share of

the cost to produce purified CMC, Aqualon was able to raise its prices as its costs increased during the

review period, as indicated by its favorable COGS-to-net-sales ratio.245 Should the antidumping duty

orders be revoked, we find that the likely increased volumes of subject imports from Finland and the

Netherlands again will be offered at reduced prices. In view of our finding that the volume of cumulated

subject imports from Finland and the Netherlands would likely increase significantly after revocation and

in light of the high degree of interchangeability among the domestic like product and subject imports

from Finland and the Netherlands, the importance of price in this industry, and the underselling by subject

imports from Finland and the Netherlands even after antidumping duty orders were imposed, we find that

absent the discipline of the orders, Aqualon once again will need to cut prices to match subject import

price competition to make sales as it did in the original investigations. Consequently, we find that upon

revocation of the orders, subject imports from Finland and the Netherlands are likely to enter the United

States at prices that would likely undersell the domestic like product and that would likely have

significant suppressing or depressing effects on prices of the domestic like product.

 240 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 20-21 (West), 140-41 (Grootnibbelink), 141-47 (Raatjes), 150-54 (Manning), 170-72

(West), 201-03 (West), 218-19 (Manning); Akzo’s Final Comments at 7.

 241 See, e.g., CR at V-6; PR at V-4.

 242 Prices of subject imports from Finland for products 4 and 5 increased overall during the review period,

although meaningful trends were not noticeable for *** imported from Finland because these products were only

imported in ***. See, e.g., CR at V-6; PR at V-4; CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-6. Prices of products 1, 2, 3, and 6

from the Netherlands all increased during quarters where sales were reported, whereas the price of product 5 from

the Netherlands decreased. See, e.g., CR at V-6; PR at V-4; CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-6. Most of the reported

pricing data for the Netherlands corresponded to imports manufactured by Dutch producer Akzo. See, e.g., CR at V6 n.7; PR at V-6 n.7; CR/PR at Appendix E.

 243 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 244 See, e.g., CR at V-1; PR at V-1.

 245 See, e.g., CR at V-1; PR at V-1; CR/PR at Table C-1. 

33
3. Likely Impact of Cumulated Subject Imports

of Purified CMC from Finland and the Netherlands246

a. The Original Investigations

In the original investigations, the Commission found considerable improvement in the domestic

industry’s volume-related performance factors (i.e., production, capacity utilization, U.S. shipments, net

sales, and market share) due to the significant increase in demand between 2002 and 2004 as well as the

industry’s strategic decision to lower its prices in 2003 and 2004 to regain the substantial market share

that it lost to subject imports in 2002.247 Nevertheless, it found that substantial price competition from

subject imports led to declines in the domestic industry’s gross and net operating income and margins,

employment, and hours worked.248 It concluded that the pricing and profitability declines far outweighed

the volume-related improvements in the domestic industry’s condition.249

The Commission rejected Noviant’s assertion that the decline in the domestic industry’s

performance during the original investigations was due to Aqualon’s inability to supply its customers

with timely, adequate, or quality materials.250 It acknowledged some evidence that Aqualon occasionally

was unable to supply adequate quantities of purified CMC to certain customers during a period of rapidly

increasing demand.251 It found that declining sales volumes did not explain Aqualon’s declining

condition during the original investigations but that declining prices due to unfairly traded subject imports

did explain why Aqualon’s prices and profitability levels declined so precipitously in 2003 and remained

low in 2004.252

 246 Commerce conducted expedited five-year reviews of the antidumping duty orders on purified CMC from

Finland and the Netherlands and found likely antidumping duty margins of 6.65 percent with respect to subject

imports from Finland, 13.39 percent with respect to Dutch producer Akzo, 14.88 percent with respect to Noviant/CP

Kelco Netherlands, and 14.57 percent with respect to all other Dutch producers. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-6. 

Commerce has not issued any duty absorption findings with respect to purified CMC from Finland or the

Netherlands.

 247 See, e.g., Original Views at 34-35.

 248 See, e.g., Original Views at 35-37. For example, operating income levels fell by *** percent between 2002

and 2004 from $*** million in 2002 to a loss of $*** million in 2004. See, e.g., Original Views at 36.

 249 See, e.g., Original Views at 34-37.

 250 See, e.g., Original Views at 37-38.

 251 See, e.g., Original Views at 37-38.

 252 See, e.g., Original Views at 38.

34
b. The Current Reviews253

Many of the domestic industry’s performance factors improved after the antidumping duty orders

were imposed, including capacity,254 productivity,255 and hourly wages,256 although some of these factors

declined towards the end of the review period, such as production,257 capacity utilization,258 U.S.

shipments,259 net sales,260 and net sales values.261 Domestic industry employment and hours worked were

 253 The Commission did not rely on Aqualon’s pro-forma analysis in these reviews, see, e.g., Aqualon’s

Prehearing Br. at 30-32, Attachment 8; Hearing Tr. at 15-16 (Lebow), 28 (Panichella), 43-44 (Klett); Aqualon’s

Posthearing Br. at 1-2, Response to Questions at 7-8, 12-13, 23-27, Attachment 2, for a number of reasons, including

the following. First, use of conditions in 2002-05 to predict the effects of order revocation ignores changes in the

conditions of competition since the original investigations. Moreover, Aqualon’s analysis focuses on only certain of

the many statutory factors the Commission must consider.

Pro-forma scenario 1 makes the overly simplistic assumption that, to maintain its U.S. shipment volume,

Aqualon would have to lower its prices by the same amount as in 2002-04. From 2002-04, Aqualon’s U.S. shipment

volume increased, suggesting that a smaller decrease in average-unit values might be necessary to maintain

Aqualon’s interim shipment volume. Indeed, the assumption that Aqualon lowered its prices between 2002-04 to

maintain its U.S. shipment volume is contradicted by the Commission’s original opinion, which found that Aqualon

lowered its prices to regain market share.

In pro-forma scenario 2, we find several calculation errors. The COGS other than raw materials and direct

labor (i.e., “other factory costs”) do not match the financial data in Aqualon’s U.S. producer questionnaire response. 

Further, variable costs appear to be calculated from U.S. sales volume instead of total sales volume. In addition, the

methodologies to determine price and volume effects appear inconsistent. The price effect is calculated as an actual

numeric change in per-unit sales values and is based only on the first year after the imposition of the orders, while

the volume effect is based on the percentage change of subject imports’ market share and is based on the entire time

frame that the orders have been in place.

 254 Domestic production capacity was *** pounds between 2005 and 2009 and *** pounds in interim 2009 and

interim 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-1.

 255 The domestic industry’s productivity increased from *** hours per pound in 2005 to *** hours per pound in

2008 but fell to *** hours per pound in 2009 and was *** hours per pound in interim 2009, and *** hours per pound

in interim 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-5.

 256 Hourly wages rose from $*** in 2005 to $*** in 2006, $*** in 2007, $*** in 2008, $*** in 2009, $*** in

interim 2009, and $*** in interim 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-5.

 257 The domestic industry’s production rose from *** pounds in 2005 to *** pounds in 2006 and *** pounds in

2007 and fell to *** pounds in 2008 and *** pounds in 2009; production was *** pounds in interim 2009, and ***

pounds in interim 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-1.

 258 The domestic industry’s capacity utilization rose irregularly from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2006,

*** percent in 2007, and *** percent in 2008 and then fell to *** percent in 2009; its capacity utilization was ***

percent in interim 2009 and *** percent in interim 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-1.

 259 The domestic industry’s U.S. shipments increased from *** pounds in 2005 to *** pounds in 2006, ***

pounds in 2007, *** pounds in 2008, *** pounds in 2009, *** pounds in interim 2009, and *** pounds in interim

2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables C-1 and I-1.

 260 The domestic industry’s net sales, by quantity, increased from *** pounds in 2005 to *** pounds in 2006, ***

pounds in 2007, and *** pounds in 2008, but were *** pounds in 2009, *** pounds in interim 2009, and *** pounds

in interim 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables I-1 and C-1.

 261 The domestic industry’s net sales value was $*** in 2005, $*** in 2006, $*** in 2007, $*** in 2008, $*** in

2009, $*** in interim 2009, and $*** in interim 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables I-1 and C-1.

35
generally stable during the review period.262 In contrast, the domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S.

consumption, by quantity, declined irregularly over the review period.263

The domestic industry’s financial performance improved after imposition of the antidumping

duty orders. During the review period, its operating income and operating income ratio improved

irregularly.264 Aqualon reported being able to make ongoing *** during the review period.265

Based on these data, we do not find the domestic industry to be vulnerable, although we

acknowledge that some of the domestic industry’s performance indicia declined at the end of the review

period. On the other hand, we find that some of the recent apparent improvements in the domestic

industry’s performance indicia are not indicative of likely long-term trends. Specifically, the domestic

industry’s product mix changed towards the end of the review period. In 2009 and interim 2009, a much

larger portion of the domestic industry’s sales were for higher-value applications such as food and

personal-care products and a much smaller portion were for lower-value applications such as oilfield

applications that normally accounted for a larger share of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments.266

These changes in the domestic industry’s product mix are consistent with changes in demand conditions

 262 The domestic industry employed *** workers in 2005, *** workers in 2006 through 2008, and *** workers in

2009, interim 2009, and interim 2010. The domestic industry reported *** hours worked in 2005, *** hours worked

in 2006 through 2008, *** hours worked in 2009, and *** hours worked in interim 2009 and interim 2010. See,

e.g., CR/PR at Tables I-1 and C-1.

 263 The domestic industry’s market share declined irregularly from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2006,

*** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and *** percent in

interim 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables I-1 and C-1.

 264 The domestic industry’s operating income improved from $*** in 2005 to $*** in 2006, $*** in 2007, $*** in

2008, $*** in 2009, $*** in interim 2009, and $*** in interim 2010. The domestic industry’s operating income

ratio improved irregularly from *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008,

*** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and *** percent in interim 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables I-1

and C-1.

 265 The domestic industry’s capital expenditures *** from $*** in 2005 to $*** in 2006, $*** in 2007, $*** in

2008, $*** in 2009, $*** in interim 2009, and $*** in interim 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-8; CR at III-13;

PR at III-6. Its R&D expenses were $*** in 2005, $*** in 2006, $*** in 2007, $*** in 2008, $*** in 2009, $*** in

interim 2009, and $*** in interim 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-8; CR at III-13; PR at III-6.

Aqualon reported that the antidumping duty orders led to higher prices in the U.S. market that enabled the

company to make profits that were used in the last five years to develop entirely new products, to conduct research

and development on ways to make purified CMC dissolve more quickly and evenly, to hire an engineer to optimize

the plant’s milling systems and process technology, to provide formulation, product development, and application

support to its customers, improve its customer service, and to make ongoing capital investments in a dryer

automation upgrade project and a diverter system to increase the company’s ability to supply a variety of purified

CMC particle sizes to its customers. See, e.g., Aqualon’s Prehearing Br. at 34-35; Hearing Tr. at 23-24 (Panichella),

35-37 (Gruber), 72-74 (Wolff, Gruber, Panichella); Aqualon’s Posthearing Br. at Answers to Questions at 20-21.

 266 The portion of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments destined for food applications was *** percent in 2005,

*** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009,

and *** percent in interim 2010. The portion of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments destined for personal-care

applications was *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in

2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and *** percent in interim 2010. The portion of the domestic industry’s U.S.

shipments destined for paper & board applications was *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in

2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and *** percent in interim 2010. The

portion of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments destined for oilfield applications was *** percent in 2005, ***

percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and

*** percent in interim 2010. (Derived from CR/PR at Table I-1, Table I-12, and Table IV-2).

36
at that time; demand for purified CMC in oilfield applications was relatively large at the beginning of the

review period but dropped precipitously towards the end of the review period, consistent with trends in

oil rig counts and the severe downturn in macroeconomic conditions.267 Despite the downturn in demand

for purified CMC used in oilfields applications and consequently lower domestic industry shipments for

these applications in 2009 and interim 2009, the domestic industry was able to remain profitable because

the sales it did make were for higher-value regulated applications.268 Although the domestic industry

faces price competition for oilfield applications from both subject and non-subject imports, primarily

from China, its primary competition for sales for regulated applications is from subject imports from

Finland and the Netherlands.269

As discussed above, we found that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on purified CMC

from Finland and the Netherlands would likely result in a significant increase in cumulated subject import

volume that would likely undersell the domestic like product at significant margins, thereby depressing

and suppressing domestic like product prices to a significant degree. We find that the likely volume and

price effects of cumulated subject imports from Finland and the Netherlands would likely have a

significant adverse impact on the production, shipments, sales, market share, and revenues of the

domestic industry, particularly to the extent that the domestic industry is likely to face low-priced subject

imports from Finland and the Netherlands in all major end-use applications, including the lower-value

oilfield applications. These reductions would have a direct adverse impact on the industry’s profitability

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

investments.

We have considered the likely role of non-subject imports in the U.S. market.270 As previously

discussed, non-subject imports, primarily from China and France, supplied a growing percentage of the

U.S. market during the review period. Although the record is mixed on this issue, at least some of the

CMC production facilities in China do not produce purified CMC and others may manufacture products

that meet China’s standards for regulated grades (95 percent purity) but not U.S. standards for regulated

grades (99.5 percent purity).271 Record data indicate that non-subject imports from China were sold

 267 U.S. shipments for food applications as a share of total apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent in 2005,

*** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009,

and *** percent in interim 2010. U.S. shipments for paper & board applications as a share of total apparent U.S.

consumption was *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in

2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and *** percent in interim 2010. U.S. shipments for personal-care applications

as a share of total apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007,

*** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and *** percent in interim 2010. (Derived

from CR/PR at Tables I-1, I-12, and IV-2). U.S. shipments for oilfield applications as a share of total apparent U.S.

consumption was *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in

2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and *** percent in interim 2010. (Derived from CR/PR at Tables I-1, I-12, and

IV-2); see also, e.g., CR at II-10; PR at II-5; CR/PR at Figure II-2.

 268 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 269 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-2. As noted earlier, subject imports from Finland are now qualified to serve food

applications in the U.S. market.

 270 We have also considered the likely role of purified CMC imports from Mexico and Sweden, but, as explained

below, we do not find that these imports are likely to have significant adverse impacts on the domestic industry in

the reasonably foreseeable future.

 271 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 83-86 (Panichella, Gruber).

37
during the review period ***.272 Aqualon reported that its own imports from China are used in oil-field

applications.273 As for non-subject imports from France, Aqualon explained that the pendency of the

orders permitted it to import certain coarse particle-size purified CMC products used in paper applications

from its affiliate in France during the review period until it was able to install a diverter system that

makes it economical to make those products in the United States, a practice in which it is now gradually

engaging, as reflected in its higher U.S. capacity utilization and recent decreasing imports from France. 

Aqualon reported that its other imports from France are used in non-GMO food-grade applications, and

(in very small amounts) for multinational pharmaceutical customers.274 Aqualon explained that it

imported non-GMO products from France because to make such products it would have to use only

wood-pulp cellulose, since certified non-GMO cotton linter does not exist, and would need to follow a

specialized manufacturing protocol. It asserted that demand for non-GMO purified CMC is too low to

justify implementing the protocol, but if U.S. regulations changed or demand were larger, it could do

so.275

We find that the presence of non-subject imports from China and France did not preclude imports

of subject merchandise from Finland and the Netherlands from maintaining a significant share of the U.S.

market during the original investigations or review period. Thus, in the event of revocation, we find the

domestic industry would likely face price-based competition from subject imports from Finland and the

Netherlands for sales to oilfield applications along with non-subject imports from China, as well as

competition from cumulated subject imports from Finland and the Netherlands for other end-use

applications. We find no indication in the record that competition from non-subject imports will prevent

the subject imports from increasing their presence in the U.S. market or causing significant adverse

effects on the domestic industry.

We therefore conclude that, if the antidumping duty orders were revoked, cumulated subject

imports from Finland and the Netherlands would likely have a significant adverse impact on the domestic

industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

D. Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on Imports from Mexico

Is Not Likely to Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury276

1. Likely Volume of Subject Imports from Mexico

In analyzing the likely volume of subject imports from Mexico, we have taken into account the

Commission’s analysis of the volume of cumulated subject imports from Mexico, Finland, the

 272 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-2. According to Aqualon, U.S. purchasers hesitate to buy purified CMC from

China for regulated applications after the melamine crisis a few years ago, and it has not seen much competition

from Chinese products in the U.S. market for non-oilfields applications. See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 85 (Panichella),

110-111 (Klett, Lebow, Pappas).

 273 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 77-80 (Gruber, Panichella, Lebow, Pappas), 115 Panichella); Aqualon’s Posthearing

Br. at Answers to Questions at 35, Attachment 8.

 274 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 77-80 (Gruber, Panichella, Lebow, Pappas), 115 Panichella); Aqualon’s Posthearing

Br. at Answers to Questions at 35, Attachment 8.

 275 See, e.g., Aqualon’s Posthearing Br. at 9, Answers to Questions at 14-15, 38.

 276 Commissioner Lane does not join this section of the opinion. See her Additional and Dissenting Views.

38
Netherlands, and Sweden in the original determinations, discussed above.277 Several factors support our

conclusion that the volume of subject imports from Mexico is not likely to be significant in the event the

antidumping duty order on these imports is revoked.

First, the volume of subject imports from Mexico during the original investigations was relatively

stable, and its share of the U.S. market was declining.278 After imposition of the antidumping duty order,

subject imports from Mexico stayed in the U.S. market but at relatively stable levels.279 The record

indicates that Amtex had a relatively discrete number of generally longstanding customers in the U.S.

market that it supplied during the original investigations and review period, which helps to explain why

its post-order behavior was more stable than other subject producers, as discussed below.280

Second, the sole subject producer in Mexico, Amtex, had *** purified CMC production capacity

during the review period,281 and its capacity in Mexico was not that large compared to the size of the U.S.

market or the domestic industry’s production operations.282 Amtex reported that it is not in a position to

invest in capacity expansions, and infrastructure restrictions would prevent any further expansions.283

Third, although Amtex had some unused capacity at the end of the review period, this was small

relative to demand in the U.S. market and the domestic industry’s production levels.284 Aqualon

 277 Commissioner Pearson has taken into consideration his analysis of the volume of imports from Mexico, the

Netherlands, and Sweden in his original determinations.

 278 Specifically, the volume of subject imports from Mexico increased from *** pounds in 2002 to *** pounds in

2003 and decreased to *** pounds in 2004. As a share of apparent U.S. consumption, subject imports declined from

*** percent in 2002 to *** percent in 2003 and *** percent in 2004. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1. Amtex ***

inventories of purified CMC in the United States, ***, since 2005. See, e.g., CR at IV-22; PR at IV-8.

 279U.S. shipments of subject imports from Mexico were *** pounds in 2005, *** pounds in 2006, *** pounds in

2007, *** pounds in 2008, and *** pounds in 2009; U.S. shipments of subject imports from Mexico were ***

pounds in interim 2009 and *** pounds in interim 2010. In terms of apparent U.S. consumption, subject imports

from Mexico held market shares of: *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in

2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009 and *** percent in interim 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table

I-1, and Table I-12.

 280 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1 (showing relatively stable U.S. market share for subject imports from Mexico

during the original investigations and review period). See also, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 17-18 (Neeley); Amtex’s

Posthearing Br. at 6, Exh. A at 7-8, 21-22, Exh. 2; Amtex’s Prehearing Br. at 3.

 281 Amtex reported that its purified CMC capacity increased during the original investigations from *** pounds in

2002 to *** pounds in 2003 and *** million pounds in 2004. During the review period, Amtex reported a stable

production capacity of *** pounds between 2005 and 2009 and *** pounds in interim 2009 and 2010. See, e.g.,

CR/PR at Tables IV-7 and IV-8. Amtex *** produce products other than purified CMC on some of the same

equipment used in the production of purified CMC, ***. See, e.g., CR at IV-22, IV-26, IV-27; PR at IV-8 to IV-9;

CR/PR at Table IV-15; Amtex’s Prehearing Br. at 20-21; Amtex’s Posthearing Br. at Exh. A at 8-9.

 282 Compare, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-8 (indicating production capacity in Mexico of *** pounds between 2005

and 2009 and *** pounds in interim 2009 and interim 2010) with, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-1 (indicating production

capacity in the United States of *** pounds between 2005 and 2009 and *** pounds in interim 2009 and interim

2010) and apparent U.S. consumption for purified CMC of *** pounds in 2005, *** pounds in 2006, *** pounds in

2007, *** pounds in 2008, *** pounds in 2009, *** pounds in interim 2009, and *** pounds in interim 2010).

 283 See, e.g., Amtex’s Prehearing Br. at 19-20; Hearing Tr. at 18 (Neeley), 125 (Nessel), 142 (Nessel), 176-78

(Nessel); Amtex’s Posthearing Br. at 7.

 284 Amtex reported a capacity utilization of *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, ***

percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and *** percent in interim 2010. See, e.g.,

CR/PR at Table IV-8. In 2009, its excess capacity was *** pounds, equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption and *** percent of Aqualon’s production.

39
contended that Amtex could use its non-subject production facilities in Argentina and Colombia to serve

demand in Mexico and free up higher-margin production in Mexico to serve the U.S. market.285 We do

not, however, find, record support for this speculation.

Fourth, Amtex was highly focused on its home market. During the original investigations and the

review period, the home market in Mexico accounted for the *** share of its total shipments, although

Amtex also exported purified CMC to the United States.286

Fifth, as we noted earlier, Amtex had a relatively discrete number of generally longstanding

customers in the U.S. market that it supplied during the original investigations and review period.287 For

example, *** U.S. customers (***) accounted for at least *** percent of Amtex’s sales in the U.S. market

during the review period.288 Azteca, ***, accounting for about *** percent of Amtex’s U.S. sales during

the review period. Azteca has sourced from Amtex for years in order to guarantee consistency in its

tortilla manufacturing operations on both sides of the border.289 Azteca reported that it would not

purchase from Aqualon at any price due to issues with how Aqualon’s product works in the production of

its corn tortillas.290 *** purchased *** of its purified CMC from Amtex in 2009 and interim 2010, and

during the review period did not purchase any purified CMC manufactured in the United States.291 ***

have been customers of Amtex since the 1990s.292 With respect to TIC Gums, Amtex reported that, for 15

to 20 years, it sold very high viscosity purified CMC that was not available from Aqualon to this U.S.

customer, and recently, this company asked Amtex to supply some lower viscosity product when it was

unable to obtain this product due to a shortage of capacity in the market.293 Aqualon alleged that it faced

competition from subject imports from Mexico at other U.S. purchasers. The record, however, shows

little to no competition at these accounts. For one, ***. For the second, ***. For the third, ***, a

longstanding customer of Amtex, there was minimal competition, as Amtex’s sales were only ***, and

 285 See, e.g., Aqualon’s Prehearing Br. at 21, 37; Hearing Tr. at 160-61 (Neeley), 163-54 (Nessel, Neeley).

 286 During the original investigations, an increasing share of Amtex’s total shipments were directed at its home

market (*** percent in 2002, *** percent in 2003, and *** percent in 2004), whereas U.S. exports were *** percent

of its shipments in 2002, *** percent in 2003, and *** percent in 2004. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-7. During the

review period, Amtex’s home market in Mexico accounted for *** of its total shipments (*** percent in 2005, ***

percent in 2006 and 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and *** percent in

interim 2010), whereas shipments to the United States accounted for *** percent of its total shipments in 2005, ***

percent in 2006 and 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and *** percent in

interim 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-8. In addition to the United States, Amtex reported exporting purified

CMC to ***. See, e.g., CR at IV-22, IV-25 to IV-26; PR at IV-9.

 287 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1 (showing relatively stable U.S. market share for subject imports from Mexico

during the original investigations and review period). See also, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 17-18 (Neeley); Amtex’s

Posthearing Br. at 6, Exh. A at 7-8, 21-22, Exh. 2; Amtex’s Prehearing Br. at 3.

 288 See, e.g., Amtex’s Prehearing Br. at 3; Hearing Tr. at 124-25 (Nessel), 127-28 (Piotti); Amtex’s Posthearing

Br. at 6, Exh. A at 7-8, Exh. 2.

 289 See, e.g., Amtex’s Prehearing Br. at 3; Hearing Tr. at 124-25 (Nessel), 127-28 (Piotti); Amtex’s Posthearing

Br. at 6, Exh. A at 7-8, Exh. 2.

 290 See, e.g., Amtex’s Prehearing Br. at 21-22.

 291 See, e.g., ***’s Purchaser Questionnaire response to Question II-1.

 292 See, e.g., Amtex’s Posthearing Br. at 6.

 293 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 130-31 (Nessel).

40
the company purchased larger volumes from Aqualon.294 Therefore, we find that competition between

subject imports from Mexico and the domestic like product in the U.S. market is likely to be limited in the

event that the order is revoked.

Sixth, in the U.S. market, Amtex sold purified CMC primarily for food and “other” applications

during the review period.295 Globally, the food segment accounted for *** percent of its total shipments

in interim 2010; “all other” applications accounted for *** percent.296 During the original investigations

and review period, Amtex did not make sales to ***.297 Amtex’s U.S. imports were largely confined to

the food sector, as we noted earlier.298 Amtex reported that it did not participate in the paper sector for

technical and cost reasons, and globally it shipped minimal volumes for this sector (*** percent of total

shipments). It did not sell to the volatile and price-competitive U.S. oilfields segment; its only sales in

this segment were in its home market where it reported very few imports from China, and these shipments

accounted for only *** percent of its total global shipments. With respect to the personal-care segment, it

sold minimal volumes (*** percent of total global shipments), but not in the United States. Its largest

personal-care customer in Mexico, ***, Colgate’s U.S. toothpaste production only uses type 12 CMC that

Amtex is technically incapable of supplying but that Aqualon (and CP Kelco Finland) can make. 

Moreover, ***.299 As we found above, Amtex’s behavior during the review period in the U.S. market was

not a function of the pending antidumping duty order but instead is consistent with the firm’s behavior

during the original investigations300 and with the firm’s global behavior.301

Despite the fact that the U.S. market is relatively large compared to the global market,302 and the

fact that prices in the U.S. market may be relatively attractive to Amtex,303 for the reasons discussed

above, we do not find that the volume of subject imports from Mexico is likely to be significant in the

event that the antidumping duty orders on these imports were to be revoked.

2. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports from Mexico

In analyzing the likely price effects of subject imports from Mexico, we have taken into account

the Commission’s analysis of the price effects of cumulated subject imports from Mexico, Finland, the

 294 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 129-30; Amtex’s Posthearing Br. at 12-13, Exh. A at 20-21.

 295 See, e.g,. CR/PR at Table IV-2.

 296 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-16.

 297 See, e.g., Amtex’s Prehearing Br. at 3, 19; Hearing Tr. at 18 (Neeley), 128 (Piotti), 131-33 (de la Fuente), 239-

40 (Neeley); Amtex’s Posthearing Br. at 6; CR/PR at Table IV-2.

 298 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-2.

 299 See, e.g., Amtex’s Prehearing Br. at 9-12; Hearing Tr. at 125-26 (Nessel), 127-30 (Piotti), 203-04 (Nessel);

Amtex’s Posthearing Br. at 2, 4-5; CR/PR at Tables IV-2, IV-16.

 300 See, e.g., Memorandum INV-CC-079 (June 2, 2005) at Table IV-3 (showing imports of subject merchandise

from Mexico ***).

 301 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-16.

 302 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-18 (showing that the U.S. market’s share of global purified CMC demand for

food applications was *** percent, *** percent for personal-care applications, *** percent for oilfield applications,

*** percent for paper applications, and *** percent for other applications).

 303 Although we exercise caution when using average-unit-value data in recognition of the possible effect of

product-mix differences, we note that the average-unit value of ***. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-8.

41
Netherlands, and Sweden in the original determinations, discussed above.304

In these reviews, the Commission collected quarterly pricing data on six purified CMC products

for the period January 2005 through September 2010, as noted earlier.305 The pricing data reported by

Aqualon accounted for *** percent of its U.S. shipments during the review period, by quantity.306 Pricing

data reported by importers accounted for *** percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from

Mexico.307 During the review period, prices for the domestic like product for all six pricing products

increased overall, despite frequent quarterly fluctuations.308 Prices of subject imports from Mexico also

generally increased during the review period.309 Cumulated subject imports from Mexico undersold the

domestic like product during the review period.310

Based on our finding that the likely volume of subject imports from Mexico is not likely to be

significant in the reasonably foreseeable future and the absence of any indication that Amtex gained

market share as a result of any underselling, however, we do not find that subject imports from Mexico

are likely to undersell the domestic like product to a significant degree in the event the order is revoked or

that these imports would likely have significant suppressing or depressing effects on prices of the

domestic like product if the antidumping duty order were revoked.

3. Likely Impact of Subject Imports from Mexico311

In analyzing the likely price impact subject imports from Mexico, we have taken into account the

Commission’s analysis of the impact of cumulated subject imports from Mexico, Finland, the

Netherlands, and Sweden in the original determinations, discussed above.312 We also took into account

our findings discussed above regarding the domestic industry’s performance during the review period. 

Based on these considerations as well as our finding that the likely volume of subject imports from

Mexico is not likely to be significant after revocation and our finding that subject imports from Mexico

are not likely to enter the United States at prices that would likely undersell the domestic like product at

 304 Commissioner Pearson has taken into consideration his analysis of the price effects of imports from Mexico,

the Netherlands, and Sweden in his original determinations.

 305 See, e.g., CR at V-5; PR at V-3.

 306 See, e.g., CR at V-5; PR at V-3.

 307 See, e.g., CR at V-5 to V-6; PR at V-3.

 308 See, e.g., CR at V-6; PR at V-3.

 309 Prices of subject imports from Mexico for products 1 and 2 increased overall during the review period. Prices

of products 3 and 6 from Mexico increased overall during the quarters where sales were reported while prices for

products 4 and 5 decreased. See, e.g., CR at V-6; PR at V-4; CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-6.

 310 In the original investigations, subject imports from Mexico undersold the domestic like product in 23

comparisons at margins that ranged from 1.3 percent to 28.7 percent and oversold the domestic like product in 18

comparisons at margins that ranged from 4.3 percent to 86.0 percent. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table V-9. During the

review period, subject imports from Mexico undersold the domestic like product in 56 comparisons at margins that

ranged from 0.6 percent to 47.4 percent and oversold the domestic like product in 24 instances at margins that

ranged from 1.2 percent to 25.6 percent. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table V-8.

 311After conducting a full five-year review, Commerce found likely antidumping duty margins of 12.61 percent

for subject imports from Mexico. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-6. Commerce has not issued any duty absorption

findings with respect to purified CMC from Mexico. See, e.g., CR at I-9 at n.9; PR at I-5 at n.9.

 312 Commissioner Pearson has taken into consideration his analysis of the impact of imports from Mexico, the

Netherlands, and Sweden in his original determinations.

42
significant margins or that would likely have significant suppressing or depressing effects on prices of the

domestic like product if the antidumping duty order were revoked, we do not find that subject imports

from Mexico would likely have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably

foreseeable time.

E. Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on Imports from Sweden

Is Not Likely to Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury313

In analyzing the likely volume, likely price effects, and likely impact of subject imports from

Sweden on the domestic industry in the event of revocation, we have taken into account the

Commission’s analysis of the volume, price effects, and impact of cumulated subject imports from

Mexico, Finland, the Netherlands, and Sweden in the original determinations, discussed above.314

Several factors support our conclusion that the volume of subject imports from Sweden is not

likely to be significant in the event the antidumping duty order on these imports is revoked. The volume

of subject imports from Sweden during the original investigations was relatively stable, and its share of

the U.S. market was declining.315 After imposition of the antidumping duty order, subject imports from

Sweden initially remained in the U.S. market at relatively low levels.316 Part-way through the review

period, however, the sole producer in Sweden, CP Kelco Sweden, closed its Swedish production facility

and moved equipment to non-subject country China.317 In its questionnaire response, CP Kelco Sweden

confirmed that it ***,318 and reported that it ***.319 Additionally, record data reflect ***.320 Indeed,

domestic interested party Aqualon stipulates that there would be no continuation or recurrence of material

injury to the domestic industry, if the order on purified CMC from Sweden were revoked.321 As

 313After conducting an expedited five-year review, Commerce found likely antidumping duty margins of 25.29

percent for subject imports from Mexico. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-6. Commerce has not issued any duty

absorption findings with respect to purified CMC from Sweden. See, e.g., CR at I-9 at n.9; PR at I-5 at n.9.

 314 Commissioner Pearson has taken into consideration his analysis of the volume, price effects, and impact of

cumulated subject imports from Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden in his original determinations.

 315 Specifically, the volume of subject imports from Sweden decreased from *** pounds in 2002 to *** pounds in

2003 and increased to *** pounds in 2004. As a share of apparent U.S. consumption, subject imports declined from

*** percent in 2002 to *** percent in 2003 and *** percent in 2004. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 316 Specifically, subject imports from Sweden were *** pounds in 2005, *** pounds in 2006, *** pounds in 2007,

and *** pounds in 2008. In terms of apparent U.S. consumption, subject imports from Sweden were *** percent in

2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, in interim 2009, and

interim 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1. We note that CP Kelco Sweden exported *** while the company was

in operation. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-11, IV-12.

 317 See, e.g., Aqualon’s Prehearing Br. at 17, 20; Amtex’s Prehearing Br. at 6; Hearing Tr. at 33 (Gruber), 46

(Klett); Aqualon’s Posthearing Br. at 7; Akzo’s Posthearing Br. at Exh. A at 4.

 318 See, e.g., CR at IV-37; PR at IV-10; CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 319 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 320 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 321 See, e.g., Aqualon’s Prehearing Br. at 1 n.1; Hearing Tr. at 66 (Lebow); Aqualon’s Response to Notice of

Institution at 9.

43
Aqualon explains, in light of “the reportedly permanent closure of the CP Kelco plant in Sweden,” the

order with respect to imports from Sweden “should not be continued.”322

Accordingly, we do not find that the likely volume of subject imports from Sweden is likely to be

significant, that there is likely to be significant underselling by subject imports from Sweden, that subject

imports from Sweden are likely to depress or suppress prices to a significant degree, or that subject

imports are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event that the

antidumping duty orders on these imports were to be revoked.

CONCLUSION

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

imports of purified CMC from Finland and the Netherlands would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.323

In contrast, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on subject imports of purified

CMC from Sweden and Mexico would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.324

 322 See, e.g., Aqualon’s Prehearing Br. at 1 n.1; Hearing Tr. at 66 (Lebow); Aqualon’s Response to Notice of

Institution at 9.

 323 Commissioner Pearson dissenting.

 324 Commissioner Lane dissenting with respect to subject imports from Mexico.

44










PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

On June 1, 2010, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) gave notice, pursuant

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

 that it had instituted reviews to

determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on purified carboxymethylcellulose

(“purified CMC”) from Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden would likely lead to the continuation

or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry.2 3

 On September 7, 2010, the Commission

determined that it would conduct full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act.4

 The tabulation on

the following page presents information relating to the schedule of these proceedings:5

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

 2 Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden, 75 FR 30431, June 1, 2010. All

interested parties were requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information requested by the

Commission.

 3 The U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published a notice of initiation of five-year reviews of the

subject antidumping duty orders. Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 75 FR 30777, June 2, 2010. 

 4 Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden, 75 FR 57815, September 22,

2010. The Commission received responses to its notice of initiation from one domestic interested party, Aqualon

Co. (“Aqualon”), and two foreign producer/exporters, Quimica Amtex, S.A. de C.V. (“Amtex”) of Mexico and Akzo

Nobel Function Chemicals B.V. (“Akzo”) of the Netherlands. The Commission determined that the domestic

interested party group response was adequate. The Commission found that the respondent interested party group

responses were adequate with respect to the orders on purified CMC from Mexico and the Netherlands because

respondents from each of these countries accounted for a significant share of the production of subject merchandise

in their respective countries. Because the group and individual responses from both domestic interested parties and

respondent interested parties were adequate in the reviews of the orders concerning purified CMC from Mexico and

the Netherlands, the Commission determined to conduct full reviews in these proceedings. The Commission did not

receive a response from any respondent interested parties in the reviews concerning subject imports from Finland

and Sweden, and therefore determined that the respondent interested party group responses for these countries were

not adequate. The Commission nevertheless voted to conduct full reviews concerning subject imports from Finland

and Sweden to promote administrative efficiency in light of the Commission’s determination to conduct full reviews

of the other orders in these grouped reviews.

 5

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

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

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

web site. Appendix B presents the list of the witnesses appearing at the Commission’s hearing.

I-1
Effective date Action

July 11, 2005 Commerce’s antidumping duty orders on purified CMC from Finland, Mexico,

Netherlands, and Sweden (70 FR 39734)

June 1, 2010 Commission’s institution of five-year reviews (75 FR 30431)

June 2, 2010 Commerce’s initiation of five-year reviews (75 FR 30777)

September 7, 2010 Commission’s determinations to conduct full five-year reviews and scheduling of the

reviews (75 FR 57815)

October 6, 2010 Commerce’s final results of expedited five-year reviews of the antidumping duty orders on

purified CMC from Finland, Netherlands, and Sweden (75 FR 61700)

January 19, 2011 Commission’s notice of revised schedule (76 FR 3159)

January 27, 2011 Commerce’s final results of a full five-year review of the antidumping duty order on

purified CMC from Mexico (76 FR 4865)

February 15, 2011 Commission’s hearing

April 12, 2011 Commission’s vote

May 3, 2011 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce

The Original Investigations

The original investigations resulted from petitions filed by Aqualon, a division of Hercules, Inc.,

Wilmington, DE, on June 9, 2004, alleging that an industry in the United States was materially injured

and threatened with material injury by reason of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of purified CMC

from Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden. Following notification of final determinations by

Commerce that imports of purified CMC from Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden were being 

sold at LTFV, the Commission determined on June 30, 2005 that a domestic industry was materially

injured by reason of LTFV imports of purified CMC from Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden.6

Commerce published the antidumping duty orders on purified CMC from Finland, Mexico, Netherlands,

and Sweden on July 11, 2005.7

Finnish producer and exporter Noviant OY and its affiliate members of the Noviant Group (Dutch

producer/exporter Noviant BV, Swedish producer/exporter Noviant AB, and U.S. importer Noviant Inc.)

appealed the Commission’s final determination regarding subject imports from Finland, but not its final

determinations concerning imports from the other subject countries. Specifically, they questioned

whether the Commission’s decision to cumulate subject imports from Finland was supported by

substantial record evidence, although they only made arguments concerning its fungibility finding. In a

 6 Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1084-

1087(Final), USITC Publication 3787 (June 2005), p. 3, and 70 FR 39334, July 7, 2005. The Commission’s final

determinations reflected the views of Chairman Okun and Commissioners Lane, Hillman, Koplan, and Miller. 

Commissioner Pearson cumulated subject imports from Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden but addressed Finland

separately. He reached negative determinations with respect to imports from all subject countries.

 7 Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands,

and Sweden, 70 FR 39734, July 11, 2005.

I-2
September 12, 2006, opinion for the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”), Judge Carmen upheld the

Commission’s cumulation analysis and sustained the Commission’s final material injury determination.8

In separate proceedings, Amtex appealed the Commission’s final determination regarding subject

imports from Mexico. Its primary argument concerned whether the Commission properly cumulated

subject imports from Mexico with those from the other subject countries. On February 13, 2007, Amtex

filed a consent motion with the North American Free Trade Agreement Secretariat to terminate panel

review of the determination. A panel was in the process of being convened but no briefs had been filed.

No other litigation arose from the Commission’s final determinations.

SUMMARY DATA

Table I-1 presents a summary of data from the original investigations and the current full fiveyear reviews.

Table I-1

Purified CMC: Summary data from the original investigations and the current reviews, 2002-04 and

2005-09

* * * * * * *

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

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

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

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

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

case may be) and of material injury.”

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

or recurrence of material injury--

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

an order, or termination of a suspended investigation, would be likely to lead to

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

Commission shall consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the

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

is terminated. The Commission shall take into account--

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

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

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

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

related to the order or the suspension agreement, 

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

order is revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated, and 

 8 See, e.g., Noviant OY v. United States, 30 CIT 1447, 451 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006). The CIT’s

decision was not appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

I-3
(D) in an antidumping proceeding . . ., (Commerce’s findings)

regarding duty absorption . . ..

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

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

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

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

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

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

including--

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

production capacity in the exporting country, 

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

increases in inventories, 

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

merchandise into countries other than the United States, and 

(D) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in

the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject

merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products.

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

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

Commission shall consider whether--

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

of the subject merchandise as compared to domestic like products, and 

(B) imports of the subject merchandise are likely to enter the

United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on the price of domestic like product.

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

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

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

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

including, but not limited to–

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

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, 

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

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

(C) likely negative effects on the existing development and

production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a

derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product.

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

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

industry.

I-4
Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states further that in making its determination, “the Commission may

consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy. If

a countervailable subsidy is involved, the Commission shall consider information regarding the nature of

the countervailable subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the

Subsidies Agreement.”

Organization of the Report

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

presented throughout this report. A summary of trade and financial data for purified CMC as collected in

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

one U.S. producer of purified CMC that is believed to have accounted for *** percent of domestic

production of purified CMC in 2009. U.S. import data and related information are based on

questionnaire responses of *** U.S. importers of purified CMC that are believed to have accounted for

the vast majority of both the total subject U.S. imports and the total U.S. imports of purified CMC from

other sources during 2009. Foreign industry data and related information are based on the questionnaire

responses of *** producers of purified CMC: *** producer in Finland accounting for *** percent of total

production during the period of review, *** producer in Mexico accounting for *** percent of total

production during the period of review, *** producers in the Netherlands accounting for *** percent of

total production during the period of review, and *** producer in Sweden accounting for *** percent of

production during the period of review. Responses by U.S. producers, importers, purchasers, and foreign

producers of purified CMC to a series of questions concerning the significance of the existing

antidumping and countervailing duty orders and the likely effects of revocation of such orders are

presented in appendix D.

COMMERCE’S REVIEWS

Administrative Reviews9

Commerce has completed administrative reviews of the outstanding antidumping duty orders on

purified CMC from Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden. The results of the administrative reviews

are shown in tables I-2 through I-5. 

 9 Commerce has issued no duty absorption findings with respect to purified CMC from the subject countries. 

I-5
Table I-2

Carboxymethylcellulose: Commerce’s final AD determination, AD order, and AD administrative

reviews for Finland

Period 

Type of proceeding and date results

published

Weighted-average margin 

(percent ad valorem)

12/27/04-

06/25/05

Final determination 

(70 FR 28279, May 17, 2005)

AD order 

(70 FR 39734, July 11, 2005)

Noviant OY............................................. 6.65

All others ............................................... 6.65

12/27/04-

06/30/06

Administrative Review Initiation

(71 FR 51573, August 30, 2006)

Administrative Review Partial

Rescission

(72 FR 11325, March 13, 2007)

Administrative Review Extension

(72 FR 16767, April 5, 2007)

Administrative Review Preliminary

Determination 

(72 FR 44106, August 7, 2007)

Administrative Review Final Results

(72 FR 70568, December 12, 2007)

CP Kelco Oy........................................... 6.65

Noviant OY............................................. 6.65

07/01/06-

06/30/07

Administrative Review Initiation

(72 FR 48613, August 24, 2007)

Administrative Review Extension

(73 FR 12950, March 11, 2008)

Administrative Review Preliminary

Determination 

(73 FR 45937, August 7, 2008)

Administrative Review Final Result

(73 FR 75397, December 11, 2008)

CP Kelco Oy..........................................13.89

07/01/07-

06/30/08

Administrative Review Initiation

(73 FR 50308, August 26, 2008)

Administrative Review Preliminary

Determination 

(74 FR 16180, April 9, 2009)

Administrative Review Final Result

(74 FR 28886, June 18, 2009)

CP Kelco Oy..............................................12.00

07/01/08-

06/30/09

Administrative Review Initiation

(74 FR 42873, August 25, 2009)

Administrative Review Extension

(75 FR 3444, January 21, 2010)

Administrative Review Final Result

(75 FR 73035, November 29, 2010)

CP Kelco Oy...............................................6.10

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

I-6
Table I-3

Carboxymethylcellulose: Commerce’s final AD determination, AD order, and AD administrative

reviews for Mexico

Period 

Type of proceeding and date results

published

Weighted-average margin 

(percent ad valorem)

12/27/04-

06/25/05

Final determination 

(70 FR 28279, May 17, 2005)

AD order 

(70 FR 39734, July 11, 2005)

Quimica Amtex......................................12.61

All others ...............................................12.61

12/27/04-

06/30/06

Administrative Review Initiation

(71 FR 51573, August 30, 2006)

Administrative Review Partial

Rescission

(72 FR 11325, March 13, 2007)

Administrative Review Extension

(72 FR 16767, April 5, 2007)

Administrative Review Preliminary

Determination 

(72 FR 44106, August 7, 2007)

Administrative Review Final Results

(72 FR 70300, December 11, 2007)

Quimica Amtex........................................2.51

07/01/06-

06/30/07

Administrative Review Initiation

(72 FR 48613, August 24, 2007)

Administrative Review Extension

(73 FR 14222, March 17, 2008)

Administrative Review Preliminary

Determination 

(73 FR 45937, August 7, 2008)

Administrative Review Final Result

(73 FR 72026, November 26, 2008)

Quimica Amtex........................................1.44

07/01/07-

06/30/08

Administrative Review Initiation

(73 FR 50308, August 26, 2008)

Administrative Review Preliminary

Determination 

(74 FR 16359, April 10, 2009)

Administrative Review Extension

(74 FR 39054, August 5, 2009)

Administrative Review Final Result:

Calculations Changed1

(74 FR 52178, October 9, 2009)

Quimica Amtex........................................2.94

07/01/08-

06/30/09

Administrative Review Initiation

(74 FR 42873, August 25, 2009)

Administrative Review Preliminary

Determination 

(75 FR 33775, June 15, 2009)

Administrative Review Extension

(75 FR 14422, March 25, 2010)

Administrative Review Final Result

(75 FR 62100, October 7, 2010)

Quimica Amtex........................................0.83

 1 Following allegations from Quimica Amtex that the Department of Commerce failed to convert pounds to

kilograms for certain sales, changes were made to the margin calculations from the preliminary review

investigation to correct for the clerical errors. 74 FR 52178 

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

I-7
Table I-4

Carboxymethylcellulose: Commerce’s final AD determination, AD order, and AD administrative

reviews for the Netherlands

Period 

Type of proceeding and date results

published

Weighted-average margin 

(percent ad valorem)

12/27/04-

06/25/05

Final determination 

(70 FR 28279, May 17, 2005)

AD order 

(70 FR 39734, July 11, 2005)

Noviant B.V..........................................14.88

Akzo Nobel...........................................13.39

All others ............................................. 14.57

12/27/04-

06/30/06

Administrative Review Initiation

(71 FR 51573, August 30, 2006)

Administrative Review Partial Rescission

(72 FR 11325, March 13, 2007)

Administrative Review Extension

(72 FR 16767, April 5, 2007)

Administrative Review Preliminary

Determination 

(72 FR 44106, August 7, 2007)

Administrative Review Final Results

(72 FR 70821, December 13, 2007)

CP Kelco B.V........................................4.59

07/01/06-

06/30/07

Administrative Review Initiation

(72 FR 48613, August 24, 2007)

Administrative Review Partial Rescission

(72 FR 64582, November 16, 2007)

Administrative Review Extension

(73 FR 14436, March 18, 2008)

Administrative Review Preliminary

Determination 

(73 FR 45937, August 7, 2008)

Administrative Review Final Result

(73 FR 75393, December 11, 2008)

CP Kelco B.V........................................7.02

07/01/07-

06/30/08

Administrative Review Initiation

(73 FR 50308, August 26, 2008)

Administrative Review Partial Rescission

(73 FR 66841, November 12, 2008)

Administrative Review Extension

(74 FR 14959, April 2, 2009)

Administrative Review Preliminary

Determination 

(74 FR 24823, May 26, 2009)

Administrative Review Extension

(74 FR 48715, September 24, 2009)

Administrative Review Final Result

(74 FR 52742, October 14, 2009)

CP Kelco B.V........................................24.23

07/01/08-

06/30/09

Administrative Review Initiation

(74 FR 42873, August 25, 2009)

Administrative Review Extension

(75 FR 15678, March 30, 2010)

Administrative Review Final Result

(75 FR 77829, December 14, 2010)

Akzo Nobel................................................9.06

CP Kelco B.V.............................................2.64

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

I-8
Table I-5

Carboxymethylcellulose: Commerce’s final AD determination, AD order, and AD administrative

reviews for Sweden

Period 

Type of proceeding and date results

published

Weighted-average margin 

(percent ad valorem)

12/27/04-

06/25/05

Final determination 

(70 FR 28279, May 17, 2005)

AD order 

(70 FR 39734, July 11, 2005)

Noviant AB............................................25.29

All others ....................................... ......25.29

12/27/04-

06/30/06

Administrative Review Initiation

(71 FR 51573, August 30, 2006)

Administrative Review Partial

Rescission

(72 FR 11325, March 13, 2007)

Administrative Review Extension

(72 FR 16767, April 5, 2007)

Administrative Review Preliminary

Determination 

(72 FR 44106, August 7, 2007)

Administrative Review Final Results

(72 FR 69667, December 10, 2007)

CP Kelco AB...........................................3.84

07/01/06-

06/30/07

Administrative Review Initiation

(72 FR 48613, August 24, 2007)

Administrative Review Extension

(73 FR 14436, March 18, 2008)

Administrative Review Preliminary

Determination 

(73 FR 45703, August 6, 2008)

Administrative Review Final Result:

Calculations Changed1

(73 FR 75395, December 11, 2008)

CP Kelco AB...........................................5.88

07/01/07-

06/30/08

Administrative Review Initiation

(73 FR 50308, August 26, 2008)

Administrative Review Rescinded 

(73 FR 56553, September 29, 2009)

No review completed

 1 Following the discovery of a clerical error in the preliminary administrative review for this period, the margins

were changed to correct the error in the final results. 73 FR 75395

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Five-Year Reviews

Commerce issued the final results of its expedited reviews for Finland, the Netherlands, and

Sweden, and the final results of its full review with respect to Mexico. Table I-6 presents the dumping

margins calculated by Commerce in its original investigations and first reviews.

I-9
Table I-6

Purified CMC: Commerce’s original and five-year review dumping margins by source and firm

Manufacturer/exporter

Original margins

(percent ad valorem)

First five-year review margins

(percent ad valorem)

Finland

 Noviant OY/CP Kelco OY 6.651 6.65

 All others 6.65 6.65

Mexico

 Quimica Amtex, S.A. de C.V. 12.61 12.61

 All others 12.61 12.61

Netherlands

 Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry 13.39 13.39

 Noviant BV/CP Kelco BV 14.88 14.88

 All others 14.57 14.57

Sweden

 Noviant AB/ CP Kelco AB 25.291 25.29

 All others 25.29 25.29

 1 Based on Commerce’s use of adverse facts available, as the respondent firm failed to provide information

requested.

Source: Commerce’s final determinations of sales at LTFV (70 FR 28275, 28278, 28279, and 28280, 

May 17, 2005). Commerce’s five-year review determinations for Finland, Netherlands, and Sweden, 75 FR 61700

(October 6, 2010); Commerce’s five year review determination for Mexico, 76 FR 4865 (January 27, 2011).

DISTRIBUTION OF CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT FUNDS

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

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

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

producers incur after the issuance of such orders.10 During the review period, qualified U.S. producers of

purified CMC were eligible to receive disbursements from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(“Customs”) under CDSOA relating to the orders covering the subject merchandise beginning in Federal

fiscal year 2005.11 Table I-7 presents CDSOA disbursements for Federal fiscal years 2005-10, by source,

for the sole domestic producer, Aqualon.12 

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

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

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

 11 19 CFR 159.64 (g).

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

I-10
Table I-7

Purified CMC: Industry CDSOA disbursements, by source, Federal fiscal years 2005-10

Fiscal year Finland Mexico Netherlands Sweden Annual Total

 Amount dispersed (dollars)

2005 00 00 0

2006 00 00 0

2007 6,198 0 744,989 405,581 1,156,768

2008 00 00 0

2009 426,277 0 702,455 340,977 1,469,708

2010 626,327 0 388,220 15,171 1,029,718

Country Total 1,058,802 0 1,835,664 761,729 3,656,194

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. 

Source: Custom’s CDSOA Annual Reports for disbursement and claims data for 2005-10 at

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/, retrieved January 7, 2011.

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

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

Commerce in its original orders and its five-year review determinations, is as follows:13

All purified carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), sometimes also referred to as purified

sodium CMC, polyanionic cellulose, or cellulose gum, which is a white to off-white, nontoxic, odorless, biodegradable powder, comprising sodium carboxymethylcellulose that

has been refined and purified to a minimum assay of 90 percent. Purified CMC does not

include unpurified or crude CMC, CMC Fluidized Polymer Suspensions, and CMC that

is cross-linked through heat treatment. Purified CMC is CMC that has undergone one or

more purification operations which, at a minimum, reduce the remaining salt and other

by-product portion of the product to less than ten percent.

Tariff Treatment 

During the period of investigation, purified CMC was imported under Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) statistical reporting number 3912.31.00, a residual or “basket”

category which included crude and cross-linked CMC products in addition to purified CMC. Effective

January 1, 2005, imports of CMC of a purity level of at least 90 percent were separately reported under

statistical reporting number 3912.31.0010 with all other CMC products reported under statistical

reporting number 3912.31.0090. Statistical reporting number 3912.31.0010 includes not only purified

 13 Commerce’s final five-year review determinations (75 FR 61700, October 6, 2010, and 76 FR 4865, 

January 27, 2011).

I-11
CMC corresponding to the scope of these reviews but also cross-linked CMC.14 A column 1-general duty

rate of 6.4 percent ad valorem is applicable to imports of purified CMC from Finland, the Netherlands,

and Sweden, and a special duty rate of “free” is applicable to eligible goods of Mexico under NAFTA. 

Table I-8 presents current tariff rates for purified and other CMC. 

Table I-8

Purified CMC: Tariff rates, 2011

General1 Special2 Column 23

HTS provision Article description Rates (ad valorem)

3912

3912.31.00

3912.31.0010

3912.31.0090

Cellulose and its chemical derivatives,

not elsewhere specified or included, in

primary forms:

 Cellulose ethers:

 Carboxymethylcellulose and its salts

Containing not less than 90

percent by weight of

carboxymethylcellulose

Other

6.4 % Free (A,

AU, BH,

CA, CL, E,

IL, J, JO,

K, MA, MX,

OM, P, PE,

SG)

66.0 %

1

 Normal trade relations, formerly known as the most-favored-nation duty rate, applicable to imports from

Finland, Netherlands, and Sweden. Products of Mexico for which NAFTA benefits are not claimed or available

under program rules also receive the general duty rate. 2

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

GSP expired on December 31, 2010; AU (United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement; BH (United StatesBahrain 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 StatesIsrael Free Trade Area); J (Andean Trade Preference Act); JO (United States-Jordan Free Trade Area

Implementation Act); K (Agreement on Trade in Pharmaceutical Products; MA (United States-Morocco Free Trade

Agreement Implementation Act); OM (United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act; P

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

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

Agreement). 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 (2011).

 14 Changes to the statistical reporting for higher-level purity CMC resulted from a request by Aqualon for a

segregated HTS number for the subject purified CMC product. Aqualon statistical reporting request, July 26, 2004. 

Aqualon’s request for a further subdivision of higher-level purity CMC to segregate cross-linked CMC from purified

CMC was denied. 

I-12
Physical Characteristics and Uses

Carboxymethylcellulose is the principal member of a family of anionic water-soluble cellulose

ethers. CMC is also commonly referred to as sodium carboxymethylcellulose, cellulose sodium

glycolate, or cellulose gum. CMC is a water-soluble polymer, soluble in either hot or cold water. 

Solubility is achieved as the degree of substitution (“DS”) reaches a value of 0.6, meaning 60 percent of

the glucose units (that make up the cellulose backbone) are attached to carboxymethyl groups.15 CMC is

a white to off-white, odorless, granular solid to fine powder.16

Several different CMC materials are produced commercially, including a crude CMC product

also known as “technical grade CMC” (generally associated with purity levels below 80 percent and

produced by not subjecting the initial reaction product to a purification process), a semi-purified grade

CMC (produced by withdrawing the CMC from the purification process before it has reached a “purified”

state (generally from 80 to 95 percent purity)), and a “purified CMC” that meets all requirements for

incorporation into products for human consumption.17 In addition, FPS CMC is a patented Aqualon

product that is essentially a purified CMC in a liquid or fluid form at a high concentration, primarily for

those companies that prefer to use a liquid as opposed to a powder.18

Also, another commercially available CMC material known as croscarmellose, or cross-linked

carboxymethyl cellulose, appears in many of the same products which use purified CMC. However, this

is a product with different physical and performance characteristics, that is not used for the same

functions as the subject product. The cross-linking reduces water solubility while still allowing the

material to swell and absorb many times its weight in water.19 As a result, it is used in pharmaceutical

applications as an inert non-pharmacologically active ingredient owing to its ability to provide improved

drug dissolution and disintegration characteristics, thus improving the pharmacological effects of the

 15 Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden, Investigations Nos.

731-TA-1084-1087 (Final), USITC Publication 3787, June 2005, p. I-6; Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical

Technology (5th Edition Volume 5), Cellulose Ethers, p. 449.

 16 Ashland Safety Data Sheet dated 04/02/2010, product name Aqualon® CMC 7H3SX8F PH Sodium

Carboxymethylcellulose, Hercules Material Safety Data Sheet dated 10/30/2002, product name Aqualon® Cellulose

Gum (CMC Purified), and S & G Resources Material Safety Data Sheet dated January 2002, product name sodium

carboxymethyl cellulose, sodium CMC: cellulose, or carboxymethyl ether, sodium salt.

 17 There are different levels of purity used to define the crude, semi-purified and purified grades of CMC among

the different producers. However, the producers agree that any product that is acceptable for human consumption

(above the 99.5 percent purity level) is a “purified CMC,” and that any product not subject to any purification

process (less than 80 percent purity) is crude CMC. However, the CMC product withdrawn from the purification

process before it has reached the 99.5 percent purity level appears to be considered purified CMC if it can be used in

applications that require a purified CMC based on performance standards, but are not bound by regulation to the

99.5 percent level of purity. The CMC product that does not meet this performance standard for use in these

applications by itself would be classified as semi-purified, with its purity levels defined as 80-90 percent by some

producers and 85-95 percent by others. Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and

Sweden, Investigations Nos. 731-TA-1084-1087 (Final), USITC Publication 3787, June 2005, p. I-6.

 18 Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden, Investigations Nos.

731-TA-1084-1087 (Final), USITC Publication 3787, June 2005, p. I-7.

 19 “Super Disintegrants: Characterization and Function,” Encyclopedia of Pharmaceutical Technology, October 2,

2006 and Responses of Akzo Nobel to the Commission Staff’s Posthearing Questions for Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1084-

1087 (Review), 1.

I-13
active ingredient.20 Croscarmellose has also been reported to have resolved other pharmaceutical

formulators’ concerns relating to the stability of the final product.21

In addition to its pharmacologic uses, croscarmellose is used in table-top sweetener tablets and

dietary food supplements because it easily disintegrates in aqueous solutions.22 Hydrogel solutions of the

cross-linked carboxymethyl cellulose have also been used as an alternative fill material for breast

implants and as a potential soft-tissue augmentation in plastic surgery applications.23

A variation of cross-linked CMC produced by Amtex ***24

Applications for CMC span a wide range of products and industries. CMC is a thickening agent

and purified CMC is a stabilizer in foods, particularly in dairy products such as ice cream, yogurt, and

milk drinks. Other food applications include beverages, syrups, baked goods, and pet foods. Foods

accounted for approximately 29.9 percent of domestic shipments of all CMC in 2004, down from 37.9

percent in 200225 and 38.7 percent of domestic shipments of purified CMC in 2009.26 27 The second

major use for CMC is in oilfield drilling fluids, accounting for about 34.0 percent of domestic shipments 

of all CMC in 2004 compared to 16.6 percent in 2002.28 During the period of review, oilfield applications

accounted for 29.7 percent of reported domestic shipments of purified CMC in 2005; however, oilfield

use decreased irregularly over the period of review to 14.3 percent in 2009.

Personal care product uses for purified CMC include use in toothpaste as a thickener and in

denture adhesives as an adhesion promoter. Pharmaceutical uses involve use as a granulation aid and

binder in tablet preparation, and as a stabilizer and thickener in ointments and lotions. Together these

industries accounted for about 10 percent of U.S. shipments of purified CMC in 2004 compared to 11.9

percent in 2002.29 During the period of review these two industries accounted for about 12.9 percent of

U.S. shipments of purified CMC in 2005 before decreasing irregularly to 12.7 percent in 2009.

Other major industrial consumers that use purified CMC for its properties as a binder and

thickener include producers of paper, the ceramics industry, and the textiles industry. Although lessening

in importance in recent years, crude/unrefined CMC is still used in laundry detergents as a soil

antiredeposition aid. The primary use for the CMC FPS is in the paper coating industry, since the liquid

product provides “higher coatings solids.”30

 20 “Super Disintegrants: Characterization and Function,” op. cit. 

 21 Ibid.

 22 Ibid.

 23 “Carboxy-methyl-cellulose Hydrogel-Filled Breast Implants - An Ideal Alternative? A Report of Five Years’

Experience with this Device,” Canadian Journal of Plastic Surgery, Autumn 2006, 14(3): 151-154 and Leonardis,

Palange, Dornelles, et al., “Use of Cross-linked Carboxymethyl Cellulose for Soft-Tissue Augmentation: Preliminary

Clinical Studies,” Clinical Interventions in Aging, November 2010, 317-322.

 24 Amtex’s “Response to the Additional Questions of the Commission,” 2.

 25 USITC Publication 3787, p. I-7.

 26 The Innovation Group, “Chemical Profiles: CMC,” updated October 20, 2008, found at http://www.theinnovation-group.com/ChemicalProfiles/CMC.htmPage. Chemical Profiles are published in ICIS Chemical Business.

 27 “Carboxymethyl cellulose.” updated October 20, 2008. Chemical profiles compiled by The Innovation Group

and published in ICIS Chemical Business, Vol. 274, Issue 15, October 20, 2008. 40-1. Found at

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?hid=105&sid=5576eb08-e5a3-4ca6-94ba-d9d06d37a0bb%40sessionmgr112&

vid=7&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&AN=35007293.

 28 USITC Publication 3787, p. 1-7.

 29 Ibid. 

 30 Ibid.

I-14
Data gathered during the original investigations and five-year reviews regarding end uses of

purified CMC are presented in the following tabulation:

Item

Calendar years Jan.-Sept.

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Share of total U.S. shipments quantity (percent)

Food 37.9 32.1 29.9 24.9 23.5 24.7 26.6 38.7 39.4 29.6

Personal care 11.9 10.6 10.0 12.9 10.9 8.7 8.2 12.7 11.5 10.6

Paper & board 18.3 17.5 15.9 16.9 16.7 15.9 14.7 20.1 19.3 17.1

Oilfield 16.6 27.7 34.0 29.7 33.8 35.2 36.5 14.3 14.6 27.9

Other 15.3 12.1 10.2 15.6 15.1 15.5 14.0 14.2 15.2 14.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

During the original investigations, the data indicate that food applications were the principal use

of purified CMC during 2002 but this sector’s share of shipments declined during 2002-04, as shipments

for oilfield applications rose during the period of original investigations, becoming the principal use

during 2004.31 During the period of review, oilfield applications rose during 2005 to 2008 and fell in

2009, as use for food applications increased irregularly to become the principal use in 2009.

Certain products in which purified CMC is used may each have precise requirements relating to

both general characteristics, such as the average level of purity, and more specific characteristics (that

may be interrelated) such as degree of solubility, degree of substitution, length of the CMC polymer, and

concentrations of specific contaminants. Such requirements may be subject to regulation, in the case of

end-use products for human consumption, or related to maximizing the effectiveness of an end-use

product while also maximizing production-cost efficiencies.

Manufacturing Process

CMC is derived from wood cellulose and from cotton in a reaction with alkali and chloroacetic

acid.32 The production process involves a swelling of the wood or cotton fibers using caustic soda

(sodium hydroxide) to allow better penetration of the reaction mix. The open cellulosic fibers are 

etherified by exposing them to monochloracetic acid. The byproducts of the reaction, primarily sodium

glycolate and sodium chloride, accounting for 30-40 percent of the resulting reaction mixture, are

removed in a series of alcohol washes and separations. In the original investigations, Aqualon argued that

the purification process washes out the majority of those impurities, such that one round of purification

will result in a product that is approximately 90 percent pure CMC.33 After purification is complete, the

particle size of the CMC is adjusted using physical means such as grinding, sieving and agglomeration.

 31 Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden, Investigations Nos.

731-TA-1084-1087 (Final), USITC Publication 3787, June 2005, p. I-7.

 32 Chaplin, “Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC).” 2009.

 33 USITC Publication 3787, June 2005, I-8. 

I-15
 For production of the crude CMC, the product is not subject to the various washes and separations that

produce the purified CMC, and as a result is less expensive.34

The most common cross-linked CMC product, croscarmellose, is produced by further processing

purified CMC, first by acidifying a suspension of the product, and then heating the suspension to achieve

the cross-linking.35 ***.36

Akzo reports that the production of cross-linked CMC can take place on the same equipment used

for the production of purified CMC, although a clean-out of the complete production line is required

before production of purified CMC can resume.37 Akzo generally uses *** at its Ardheim facility for

production of cross-linked CMC.38

During the original investigations and in these reviews, petitioner and respondents both reported

that most, if not all, producers use a continuous flow process for the production of both crude and purified

CMC. Both petitioner and respondents agreed that any equipment used in grinding, sieving, and

agglomerating crude CMC cannot also be used to produce a purified product, owing to the risk of

contamination. Although the same equipment is used at the reaction stage to produce crude and purified

CMC.39 Further, grinding, sieving, and agglomerating production lines once used for crude CMC cannot

economically be restored to a clean enough status so that a purified product could ever be produced on

those lines.40

The production process is such that the desired CMC material (whether crude or purified) is not

obtained in a usable form until the product is isolated at the end of the entire production scheme. Once a

manufacturer has decided to produce a certain quantity of purified CMC meeting specific characteristics,

it will not stop the production process to remove crude CMC, at the risk of affecting the purity of the final

purified CMC product. Moreover, a manufacturer cannot increase its output of purified CMC simply by

increasing its production of crude CMC because inadequate capacity to purify the crude CMC acts as a

bottlenect on any additional production of purified CMC.41

With respect to CMC FPS, its manufacturing process reportedly is similar to that of purified

CMC. Aqualon uses dry CMC from the purified CMC production process and incorporates the dry CMC

into a fluidized polymer suspension with the necessary stabilization behavior using separate and

additional processing equipment.42

 34 Ibid., I-8.

 35 D.J. Benford, “Cross-linked Sodium Carboxymethyl Cellulose,” (JECFA Evaluation) World Health

Organization Food Additives Series: 50, retrieved on Feb. 23, 2011 from

http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v50je03.htm.

 36 Responses of Akzo Nobel to the Commission Staff’s Posthearing Questions for Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1084-1087

(Review), 1.

 37 “Responses of Akzo Nobel to the Commission Staff’s Posthearing Questions for Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1084-1087

(Review), 1.

 38 Responses of Akzo Nobel to the Commission Staff’s Posthearing Questions for Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1084-1087

(Review), 1.

 39 USITC Publication 3787, June 2005, I-8; Responses to Commission’s Posthearing Questions on Capacity,

February 28, 2011, and March 4, 2011. 

 40 Ibid., I-8.

 41 Hearing transcript, pp. 197-8 (Neeley); Responses to Commission’s Posthearing Questions on Capacity,

February 28, 2011, and March 4, 2011.

 42 USITC Publication 3787, pages I-8.

I-16
THE DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

The Commission’s determination 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. 

In its original determinations, the Commission defined the domestic like product as all purified

CMC, as the term was defined in the scope of the investigations.43 In its notice of institution in these

current five-year reviews, the Commission solicited comments from interested parties regarding the

appropriate domestic like product and domestic industry.44 Three interested parties commented on the

Commission’s definitions of domestic like product and indicated that they agreed with the definitions of

domestic like product and domestic industry as provided in the Commission’s notice of institution.45 No

party requested that the Commission collect data concerning other possible domestic like products in the

comments on the Commission’s draft questionnaires. No other interested party provided further comment

on the domestic like product.46

U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Producers

During the original investigations, one firm supplied the Commission with information on its

U.S. operations with respect to purified CMC. The firm accounted for *** percent of U.S. production of

purified CMC in 2004.47 In these current proceedings, the Commission issued producers’ questionnaires

to two firms, one of which provided the Commission with information on its purified CMC operations. 

This firm, Aqualon, is believed to account for *** percent of U.S. production of purified CMC in 2009. 

The other firm, Penn Carbose, produces only technical-grade CMC and not purified CMC, according to

Aqualon.48 Aqualon’s position on continuation of the orders, production location(s), related and/or

affiliated firms, and share of reported production of purified CMC in 2009 is presented in table I-9 .

Table I-9

Purified CMC: U.S. producer, position on the orders, U.S. production locations, related and/or

affiliated firms, and shares of 2009-10 reported U.S. production

Firm

Position on

continuation

of the

orders

U.S. production

location(s) Parent Company

Share of

production

(percent)

Aqualon Co. *** Hopewell, VA Hercules Inc., Wilmington, DE ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 43 Ibid., p. 6.

 44 Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden, 75 FR 30431, June 1, 2010.

 45 Substantive Response of Aqualon p. 8; Substantive Response of Akzo p.18; and Substantive Response of Amtex

p. 12.

 46 Hearing transcript, p. 70 (Lebow).

 47 The U.S. producer that supplied the Commission with usable questionnaire information during the original

investigations was Aqualon.

 48 Substantive Response of Aqualon, p. 4.

I-17
U.S. Importers

In the original investigations, 32 U.S. importing firms supplied the Commission with usable

information on their operations involving the importation of purified CMC. Of the responding U.S.

importers, domestic producer Aqualon accounted for *** percent of nonsubject and *** percent of total

reported imports of purified CMC during 2004.

In these current proceedings, the Commission issued importers’ questionnaires to 46 firms

believed to be importers of purified CMC, as well as to the only known U.S. producer of purified CMC. 

Usable questionnaire responses were received from 22 companies, representing virtually all imports from

Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Table I-10 lists all responding U.S. importers of purified

CMC from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Sweden, and all other sources and their import quantities. 

*** companies together accounted for *** percent of total imports in 2009: ***. *** importers

accounted for *** percent of subject imports in 2009: ***. *** importers, *** accounted for *** percent

of total nonsubject imports: *** of nonsubject imports in 2009.

Table I-10

Purified CMC: Reported U.S. imports, by firm and by source, 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. importers responding to the questionnaires were located in Arizona, Delaware, Georgia (2),

Illinois (2), Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New York (2), North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,

Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas (5), and Virginia. 

U. S. Purchasers

Thirty-six purchasers including 20 end users, 11 distributor/resellers, 2 blenders, 1 firm that

classifies itself as both a blender and an end user, 1 firm that is both a distributor/reseller and a blender,

and 1 firm that did not classify its status49 submitted questionnaires. The reporting firms produce a

variety of products using purified CMC including foods, beverages, pharmaceuticals and personal care

products, or function as distributors/resellers to customers using purified CMC in these products as well

as in oilfield applications. Six purchasers bought only U.S.-produced purified CMC during January 2005

through September 2010, while 15 firms purchased both the U.S. product and imports from one or more

subject and/or nonsubject countries during this period. Of the 35 purchasers, 8 reported purchases from

Finland, 8 reported purchases from Mexico, 17 reported purchases from the Netherlands, and 3 reported

purchases from Sweden during the period. Table I-11 presents the purchaser names, location, type of

firm, end uses for purified CMC purchased, and sources of purchases. Sixteen are located in the

Midwest, nine are located in the South or Southwest, eight are located in the Northeast, and three are

located on the West Coast.

Table I-11

Purified CMC: Purchaser names, location, type of firm, end uses, and source(s) of purchases

* * * * * * *

 49 This firm uses purified CMC in drink products. 

I-18
APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND MARKET SHARES

Table I-12 presents apparent U.S. consumption for both the original investigation and the review

 period and table I-13 presents U.S. market shares for the same periods.

Table I-12

Purified CMC: U.S. producer’s U.S. shipments, U.S. shipments of imports, by sources, and

apparent U.S. consumption, 2002-04, 2005-09, January-September 2009, and January-September

2010

* * * * * * *

Table I-13

Purified CMC: U.S. market shares, 2002-04, 2005-09, January-September 2009, and JanuarySeptember 2010

* * * * * * *

I-19

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

Introduction

Purified CMC acts as a thickener, binder, stabilizer, protective colloid, and/or suspension agent,

and is particularly useful as a flow-control aid in water-based solutions for a wide variety of applications. 

It is used in food products, personal care products, industrial and consumer products, pharmaceuticals,

paper and paperboard production, building materials, paint, textiles, ceramics, and oil drilling. 

Aqualon reported that ***. All 17 responding importers out of 22 importers, and all 28

responding purchasers out of 35 purchasers *** reported that overall demand for purified CMC has not

been subject to any cyclical/seasonal fluctuations or product cycles . 

Channels of Distribution

The majority of shipments of purified CMC by both the U.S. producer and importers of product

from all sources went to end users throughout the period for which data were collected, as shown in table

II-1. Mexico had the ***.

Table II-1

Purified CMC: Channels of distribution for domestic product and imports sold in the U.S. market,

by source, 2005-09, January-September 2009, and January-September 2010

* * * * * * *

The producer and importers of purified CMC were asked to report the share of purified CMC 

sold from inventory and the share produced to order during 2009 and also report the lead times for

delivery under each category. The results are shown in table II-2 for Aqualon and importers reporting

imports from Finland, Mexico, and the Netherlands. 

Table II-2

Purified CMC: Share of product sold from inventory and produced to order and lead times for

delivery for the U.S. producer Aqualon and importers from subject1

 countries during 2009 

* * * * * * *

Producers and importers were asked to report the geographic areas in the United States served by

their firms’ commercial shipments of CMC during January 2005 through September 2010.1

 Aqualon

reported that it sells ***. Of the four importers of product from Finland, three reported that they sell ***. 

Of the importers of product from Mexico, one reported that sales were ***, and the other reported that its

sales regions included the ***. The one importer reporting sales of product from the Netherlands

reported that its market region was ***. Responses from firms reporting sales of nonsubject imports

indicate that the market region for nonsubject imports has been national including Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto

Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

 1 No breakouts of regions were provided for imports from Sweden. Imports from Sweden were discontinued after

2008. 

II-1
SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

Supply

U.S. Supply

Based on available information, the U.S. producer, Aqualon, has the ability to respond to changes

in demand with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced purified CMC to the

U.S. market. The main contributing factors to this degree of responsiveness of supply are ***.

Industry capacity

Aqualon’s annual capacity was *** million pounds during 2005-09. During JanuarySeptember 2009 and January-September 2010, Aqualon’s capacity was *** million pounds. During

2005-09, Aqualon’s capacity-utilization rates for purified CMC ranged from a low of *** percent in ***

to a high of *** percent in ***. During January-September 2010, the rate was *** percent as compared

to just *** percent in January-September 2009. This level indicates that Aqualon could expand output in

response to a change in market conditions. 

Alternative markets

During 2005-09, Aqualon’s exports as a share of total shipments of purified CMC ranged from a

low of *** percent in *** to a high of *** percent in ***. During January-September 2010, exports

accounted for *** percent of its total shipments as compared to *** percent in January-September 2009. 

Aqualon *** ***.2

 

Inventory levels

During 2005-09, Aqualon’s ratio of inventories to total shipments for purified CMC ranged from

a low of *** percent in *** to a high of *** percent in ***. During January-September 2010, this ratio

was *** percent as compared to *** percent in January-September 2009. These inventory levels also

indicate that Aqualon could respond to a change in market conditions with an increased supply of purified

CMC.

Production alternatives

Aqualon ***. 

Subject Import Supply From Finland

Based on available information, CP Kelco, the only known producer of purified CMC from

Finland ***.

 2 Aqualon’s producer questionnaire response, question IV-24.

II-2
Industry capacity

CP Kelco’s annual capacity was *** million pounds during 2005-09.3

 During January-September

2009 and January-September 2010, its capacity was *** million pounds. During 2005-09, Finland’s

capacity utilization rates ranged from a low of *** percent in *** to a high of *** percent in ***. During

January-September 2010, the rate was *** percent as compared a level of just *** percent in JanuarySeptember 2009. This level (interim 2010) indicates that CP Kelco has ***. 

Alternative markets

During 2005-09, home market shipments in Finland for purified CMC ranged from a low of ***

percent of total shipments in 2009 to a high of *** percent in 2006. During January-September 2010,

home market shipments accounted for *** percent of total shipments. During 2005-09, CP Kelco’s

exports *** to markets other than the United States consistently accounted for *** percent of its total

shipments. During January-September 2010, these markets accounted for *** percent of its total

shipments as compared to *** percent in interim 2009. The *** for CP Kelco’s exports. 

Inventory levels

During 2005-09, CP Kelco’s ratio of inventories to total shipments for purified CMC ranged from

a low of *** percent in 2009 to a high of *** percent in 2005.4

 This inventory level indicates that CP

Kelco ***.

Production alternatives

CP Kelco ***.

Subject Import Supply From Mexico

Based on available information, Amtex, the only known producer of purified CMC from

Mexico, *** to respond to changes in demand with changes in the quantity of shipments of purified CMC

to the U.S. market. Amtex’s current ***.

Industry capacity

Amtex’s annual capacity was *** million pounds during 2005-09. During January-September

2009 and January-September 2010, its capacity was *** million pounds. During 2005-09, The Mexican

producer’s capacity utilization rates ranged from a low of *** percent in *** to a high of *** percent in

***. During January-September 2010, the rate was *** percent as compared a level of just *** percent in

January-September 2009. The level in 2010 indicates that Amtex ***. 

Alternative markets

During 2005-09, Amtex’s home market for purified CMC ranged from a low of *** percent of

total shipments in 2005 to a high of *** percent in 2009. During January-September 2010, home market

 3 This capacity data is discussed in section IV.

 4

 There was *** Finland inventory data reported for January-September 2009 or 2010. 

II-3
shipments accounted for *** percent of total shipments. Most Mexican exports ***. During 2005-09,

exports to markets other than the United States ***. During January-September 2010, ***. 

Inventory levels

During 2005-09, Amtex’s ratio of inventories to total shipments for purified CMC ranged from a

low of *** percent in *** to a high of *** percent in ***. During January-September 2010, it was ***

percent as compared to *** percent in January-September 2009. This inventory level indicates that

Amtex ***.

Production alternatives

Amtex reported that ***. 

Subject Import Supply From the Netherlands

Based on available information, the purified CMC industry in the Netherlands ***.5

Industry capacity

During the period of review, one of the two Dutch producers, CP Kelco reported plans to ***. 

Total annual capacity in the Netherlands was *** million pounds during 2005. Total capacity ***. 

During January-September 2010 Dutch capacity was *** million pounds as compared to *** million

pounds in January-September 2009. During 2005-09, capacity utilization rates ranged from a low of ***

percent in *** to a high of *** percent in ***. During January-September 2010, the rate was *** percent

as compared to *** percent in January-September 2009. This level indicates that the Netherlands ***. 

Alternative markets

During 2005-09, the Dutch home market for purified CMC ranged from a low of *** percent of

total shipments in 2008 to a high of *** percent in 2009. During January-September 2010, home market

shipments accounted for *** percent of total shipments as compared to *** percent in interim 2009. 

During 2005-09, exports from the Netherlands *** percent of total shipments. During January-September

2010, exports to these markets accounted for *** percent of total shipments compared to *** percent

during January-September 2009. The *** for exports from the Netherlands.

Inventory levels

During 2005-09, the ratio of inventories to total shipments for purified CMC produced in the

Netherlands ranged from a low of *** percent in *** to a high of *** percent in ***. These inventory

levels indicate that the Netherlands ***. During January-September 2010, it was *** percent as

compared to *** percent in January-September 2009.

 5 The data in this section concerns the Dutch industry in the aggregate only. Detailed breakouts of data for the

two Dutch producers, Akzo and CP Kelco are presented in section IV.

II-4
Production alternatives

 One producer of purified CMC in the Netherlands, CP Kelco, reported that *** used to produce

purified CMC. The other, Akzo Nobel, reported that it *** used to produce purified CMC.

Subject Import Supply From Sweden

Production of purified CMC in Sweden has been discontinued. From 2005 to 2007, Swedish

production capabilities remained constant at *** million pounds annually before ***.6

U.S. DEMAND

The demand for purified CMC is a derived demand that depends upon the demand for its end- use

products including food, personal care products, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, paper and paperboard, and

oilfield applications. Because of the wide range of uses for purified CMC, the overall demand for

this product is likely influenced by such macroeconomic variables as quarterly movements in the real

gross domestic product and in personal consumption expenditures. As shown in figure II-1, real gross

domestic product and personal consumption expenditures both increased in all quarters during 2005-07

and then decreased in the first quarter of 2008. They both increased slightly in the second quarter of 2008

and then declined from the third quarter of 2008 through the second quarter of 2009. Both measures

increased in all quarters from July-September 2009 through October-December 2010. Another indicator

of demand for purified CMC is the number of oil and natural gas drilling rigs in operation. As shown in

figure II-2, the rig count increased irregularly from January 2005 through November 2008 and then

decreased during each of the next six months to its lowest level in June 2009 before recovering

throughout the remainder of 2009 and throughout 2010. 

Apparent U.S. consumption of purified CMC increased annually from *** pounds in 2005 to ***

pounds in 2008, then fell sharply to *** pounds in 2009. During January-September 2010 consumption

was *** pounds as compared to *** pounds in January-September 2009. 

The U.S. producer and importers were asked how total demand for purified CMC within the

United States had changed during January-2005-September 2010. They were asked to indicate whether it

had increased or decreased, remained unchanged, or fluctuated. Aqualon, the U.S. producer, reported that

demand ***.7

 Among responding importers, two firms reported that demand had increased, seven

reported that it had fluctuated, and four reported that it was unchanged. Firms reporting fluctuations in

demand over the period frequently linked the fluctuations to volatility in the oilfield affecting demand.

sector, a major market for purified CMC. The worldwide economic downturn was also cited as a factor.

 6 CP Kelco Sweden’s foreign producer questionnaire response, exhibit 3.

 7

 Aqualon and the importers were also asked how total demand for purified CMC outside of the United States had

changed during January-2005-September 2010. Aqualon reported that demand *** during this period. Among the

six importers that responded to the question, three reported that demand outside of the United States had increased,

and three reported that it had fluctuated. Growth in demand in Asia and other markets, fluctuations in oil prices, and

the global recession during 2009 were all cited as factors that influenced demand during this period. 

II-5
Figure II-1

Percent changes in real gross domestic product (GDP) growth and real personal consumption

expenditures, by quarter, 2005-2010

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Figure II-2

Rig counts: Number of drilling rigs actively exploring for or developing oil and natural gas in the 

United States, by month, 2005-2010

Source: Compiled from Baker Hughes data, U.S. monthly averages, 2005-2010.

II-6
Purchasers were also asked a similar question concerning demand within the United States. They

were asked to report whether demand had increased, decreased, remained unchanged, or fluctuated since

2005.8

 Of the 24 responding purchasers, 5 reported an increase, 4 reported a decrease, 10 reported no

change, and 5 reported that it had fluctuated. Two purchasers reporting an increase in demand stated that

the market for purified CMC typically grows at a 3 to 5 percent annual rate. One purchaser reporting

fluctuations in demand reported that its sales are impacted by activity in the oil industry. Another

purchaser reporting fluctuations in demand reported that demand is influenced by general economic

conditions. 

The producer and the importers were also asked whether they anticipated any future changes in

total demand for purified CMC within the United States.9

 Aqualon anticipates an increase in future

demand. While it expects that demand will follow standard annual market growth, it is also working on

CMC applications for new markets that it hopes will lead to additional growth of 1 to 2 percent annually. 

Among 13 importers that responded to the question, 7 reported that they expect changes in demand and 6

reported that no change is anticipated. Importers expecting changes in demand reported that potential

growth would depend on such factors as levels of growth in the U.S. economy and the level of oilfield

drilling activity. One importer estimated that future demand will increase at a 2 to 4 percent annual rate. 

In a similar question purchasers were asked whether demand for purified CMC in the United

States was likely to increase, decrease, fluctuate, or remain unchanged in the future.10 Among the 24

responding purchasers, 5 reported that demand was likely to increase, 5 reported that it was likely to

decrease, 5 reported that it was likely to fluctuate, and 9 reported that it would probably remain

unchanged. Two of the purchasers that expect an increase in demand projected a growth rate of 3 to 5

percent annually. One purchaser that expects a decrease in demand reported that customers are likely to

switch to substitutes because of higher CMC prices. Some purchasers expecting fluctuations in demand

attribute this variability to oilfield activity and general economic conditions. 

Substitute Products

When asked whether substitutes for purified CMC exist, responses were varied. While a majority

of questionnaire respondents answered “no” or indicated that they did not know, Aqualon and several

importers and purchasers listed substitutes for certain applications.11 Substitutes frequently cited were:

guar gum for use in food, pet food, and mining; xanthan gum for food, oral care, oil fields, and mining;

starches and modified starches for oil field drilling fluids; and crude/unrefined or technical CMC for

 8 In addition to this question, purchasers were also asked how demand for purified CMC outside of the United

States had changed since 2005. Of the 18 purchasers that responded to the question, 2 reported that demand had

increased, 3 reported that it had decreased, 2 reported that it had fluctuated, and 11 reported that it was unchanged. 

 9

 Aqualon and the importers were also asked whether they anticipated any future changes in total demand for

purified CMC outside of the United States. Aqualon answered ***. Among the 10 responding importers, 4

answered yes and 6 answered no. Firms expecting changes in demand reported that the changes will be due to

volatility in oil prices and increased demand in major end-use markets for purified CMC in Asia and Europe.

 10 Purchasers were also asked whether demand for purified CMC outside the United States was likely to increase,

decrease, fluctuate or remain unchanged in the future. Of the 19 purchasers that responded to the question, 4

indicated that demand was likely to increase, 3 reported that it was likely to decrease, 2 reported that it was likely to

fluctuate, and 10 reported that it was likely to remain unchanged. 

 11 Amtex reported that xanthan gum and guar gum and other products can be substituted for purified CMC in

some food and other applications (Amtex’s posthearing brief, pp. 20-21). ***. 

II-7
paper, paperboard tissue, drilling, and paint.12 Other products mentioned included enzymes in food,

carboxymethylstarch and carboxymethylguar for oil drilling, carrageenan for food and toothpaste,

hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, polyvinylpyrroline (PVP) for textile care, and locust bean gum for food. 

The majority of importers and purchasers that listed substitutes for purified CMC reported that

changes in the prices of these substitutes have not affected the price and/or quantity of purified CMC

during January 2005-September 2010. However, one importer (***) reported that decreases in the prices

of xanthan gum and guar gum over a period of years has enabled some substitution of these products in

place of purified CMC in food applications. In addition, some substitution of carboxymethylstarch and

carboxymethylguar for purified CMC has occurred in the drilling industry and some substitution of crosslinked CMC in place of purified CMC has occurred in certain food applications. *** also reported that

pricing considerations make it possible to substitute technical CMC for purified CMC in paper

production. Another importer (***) reported that guar gum and xanthan gum have been substituted for

purified CMC in mining applications, and starch has been substituted in drilling applications. One

purchaser (***) also reported that it has substituted guar gum and enzymes in certain food applications

due to price considerations. Another purchaser (***) reported that some substitution of guar gum in place

of purified CMC in food and pet food applications has occurred due to increases in CMC prices. 

 

Cost Share

The U.S. producer, importers, and purchasers were asked questions concerning the cost share of 

purified CMC as a percentage of downstream products during January 2005-September 2010. Aqualon

estimated that purified CMC accounted for *** percent of the cost of food; *** percent of the cost of

personal care products, cosmetics, pharmaceutical, and paper and paperboard; *** percent of the cost in

oilfield applications; and *** percent in all other applications, based on its sales during the specified

period. Cost share estimates by importers and end-use purchasers varied widely, depending on the

downstream products. For most food-oriented products including sausage casings, tortilla flour, cocoa,

heavy cream, juice drinks, and soluble drink mixes, the cost share was ***.13 For tooth paste the cost

share was *** percent and for denture adhesives it was *** to *** percent. For personal care and

pharmaceutical products in general, the cost share estimates ranged from less than *** percent to as much

as *** percent. For paper products the costs ranged from less than 1 percent to as much as *** percent. 

The cost share in gravy for pet foods was estimated at *** percent and for scoopable cat litter at ***

percent. For drilling mud, the cost share was estimated at less than 10 percent. 

 

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitutability between domestic products and subject imports, between domestic

products and nonsubject imports, and between subject and nonsubject imports is examined in this section. 

Much of the discussion is based on information obtained from questionnaire responses.

 12 Aqualon stated that there is some substitution among hyrdrocolloids at the margin, but each food additive has

its own characteristics and function, and while some slight adjustments to formulas are possible, complete

substitution is not. Aqualon reported that it *** (Aqualon’s posthearing brief, p. 11).

 13 For a certain spice blend called *** the cost share was *** percent.

II-8
Purchasers

Thirty-six purchasers including 20 end users, 11 distributor/resellers, 2 blenders, 1 firm that

classifies itself as both a blender and an end user, 1 firm that is both a distributor/reseller and a blender,

and 1 firm that did not classify its status14 submitted questionnaire responses. The reporting firms

produce a variety of products using purified CMC including foods, beverages, pharmaceuticals and

personal care products, or function as distributors/resellers to customers using purified CMC in these

products as well as in oilfield applications. Six purchasers bought only U.S.-produced purified CMC

during January 2005 through September 2010, while 15 firms purchased both the U.S. product and

imports from one or more subject and/or nonsubject countries during this period. Of the 35 purchasers, 8

reported purchases from Finland, 8 reported purchases from Mexico, 18 reported purchases from the

Netherlands, and 3 reported purchases from Sweden during the period. The reporting firms purchased a

combined value of $30.6 million of purified CMC during 2009, an amount equal to approximately 31

percent of the value of U.S. apparent consumption in that year. 

When asked to rank the three most important factors involved in purchasing decisions, the 33

responding purchasers most frequently listed availability, price or cost, and quality as the most important

factors (table II-3). Quality was ranked first by 18 purchasers. Other factors mentioned included

approved supplier, contracts, delivery, reliability of supply, and supplier performance.

Table II-3

Purified CMC: Ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Number one factor Number two factor Number three factor

Availability 1 11 5

Price or cost 6 6 14

Quality 18 3 3

Other1 8 12 9

 1 Other factors include approved supplier, contracts, delivery, reliability of supply, and supplier performance.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were also asked whether their firm purchases purified CMC at the lowest

possible price. Of the 36 responding purchasers, 1 answered “always,” 9 answered “usually,” 10

answered “sometimes,” and 16 answered “never.”

To examine further the importance of different factors in purchasing decisions, purchasers were

asked to indicate whether the 15 factors listed in table II-4 were “very important,” “somewhat important,”

or “not important” in their purchasing decisions. The factors most frequently ranked “very important”

were availability (36 purchasers), product consistency (33 purchasers), and quality meets industry

standards (32 purchasers), and reliability of supply (31 purchasers). Other important factors are price (29

purchasers) and delivery time (27 purchasers). 

 14 This firm uses purified CMC in drink products. 

II-9
Table II-4

Purified CMC: Importance of purchasing factors, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Very important Somewhat important Not Important

Number of firms responding

Availability 36 0 0

Delivery terms 21 11 2

Delivery time 27 7 0

Discounts offered 11 15 10

Extension of credit 11 16 9

Price 29 7 0

Minimum quantity requirement 8 22 3

Packaging 13 19 2

Product consistency 33 2 0

Quality meets industry standards 32 2 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 16 15 2

Product range 13 15 5

Reliability of supply 31 3 0

Technical support/service 16 15 3

U.S. transportation costs 9 18 6

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Comparisons of Domestic Products, Subject Imports, and Nonsubject Imports

To determine whether U.S.-produced purified CMC can generally be used in the

same applications as subject imports from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Sweden, and nonsubject

countries, producers, importers, and purchasers were asked whether the product can “always,”

“frequently,” “sometimes,” or “never” be used interchangeably. A majority of questionnaire respondents

reported that U.S.-produced products and imports from each of the subject countries can always or

frequently be used interchangeably (table II-5). One importer (***) that has only imported CMC from the

Netherlands reported that its imported product (produced by CP Kelco) was a specialized manufacturing

product that was not interchangeable with U.S.-produced purified CMC or imports from other sources. 

Another importer (***) reported that the imported product from Mexico has a “comparative advantage”

when used in *** and has a low interchangeability with products from other sources in that application. 

One purchaser (***) reported that purified CMC from China (a nonsubject country) is not always

interchangeable with product from other sources due to variations in product quality. Another purchaser

(***) reported that purified CMC from China, Finland, India, Mexico, and the Netherlands are all

interchangeable for the grades that it uses in the United States. Another purchaser (***) that purchases

imports from Finland and the Netherlands reported that it does not have qualified suppliers from Mexico,

Sweden, or other countries. 

II-10
Table II-5

Purified CMC: Perceived degree of interchangeability of product produced in the United States

and imported from the subject countries, and sold in the U.S. market

Country pair

Number of U.S.

producer’s responses

Number of U.S. importers’

responses

Number of U.S. purchasers’

responses

A FS N A F S N A F S N

United States vs.--

 Finland *** *** *** *** 2 5 1 0 2 5 2 0

 Mexico *** *** *** *** 1 6 2 0 1 6 2 1

 Netherlands *** *** *** *** 2 6 2 1261 1

 Sweden *** *** *** *** 0 6 1 0060 0

 Other countries *** *** *** *** 1 5 1 0140 0

Finland vs.--

 Mexico *** *** *** *** 2 5 1 0 2 5 1 0

 Netherlands *** *** *** *** 2 5 0 0250 0

 Sweden *** *** *** *** 0 5 0 0050 0

 Other countries *** *** *** *** 1 4 0 0140 0

Mexico vs.--

 Netherlands *** *** *** *** 1 6 1 0151 0

 Sweden *** *** *** *** 0 5 1 0051 0

 Other countries *** *** *** *** 1 5 1 0141 0

Netherlands vs.--

 Sweden *** *** *** *** 0 5 0 0050 0

 Other countries *** *** *** *** 1 5 0 0140 0

Sweden vs.--

Other countries *** *** *** *** 0 4 0 0111 2

Note: A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

II-11
In addition to questions concerning interchangeability, questionnaire respondents were also asked

if differences in factors other than price are “always,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “never” a factor in

their sales of purified CMC. The U.S. producer, Aqualon, reported that factors other than price are *** a

consideration in sales of purified CMC when comparing the United States with each of the subject

countries, or when comparing the subject countries with each other and with other nonsubject countries

(table-II-6). In contrast, a majority of importers and purchasers reported that factors other than price are

“always” or “frequently” a factor in such comparisons. One importer (***) reported that imports from

China lack technical support and the consistency needed for applications in the food industry. (***)

reported that there are no longer any food-grade CMC factories located in Sweden, so material is

unavailable from that region. Another purchaser (***) reported that it has previously purchased product

from Finland, and has recently qualified the product from Mexico, but has become so satisfied with the

U.S.-produced product due to *** that it does not see any reason to use anything else. Another purchaser

(***) reported that purified CMC is more readily available from Mexico than from the Netherlands. 

II-12
Table II-6

Purified CMC: Perceived importance of differences in factors other than price between product 

produced in the United States and that imported from the subject countries, and sold in the U.S.

market

Country pair

Number of U.S.

producer’s responses

Number of U.S. importers’

responses

Number of U.S. purchasers’

responses

A FS N A F S N A F S N

United States vs.--

 Finland *** *** *** *** 2 2 1 0 6 0 4 0

 Mexico *** *** *** *** 1 2 2 1 7 1 4 0

 Netherlands *** *** *** *** 2 1 3 0605 1

 Sweden *** *** *** *** 2 1 2 0403 0

 Other countries *** *** *** *** 2 2 3 0402 0

Finland vs.--

 Mexico *** *** *** *** 2 2 1 1 4 0 2 1

 Netherlands *** *** *** *** 1 1 2 1401 1

 Sweden *** *** *** *** 1 1 2 0300 1

 Other countries *** *** *** *** 2 2 2 0301 0

Mexico vs.--

 Netherlands *** *** *** *** 2 2 1 1511 0

 Sweden *** *** *** *** 2 2 1 0300 0

 Other countries *** *** *** *** 1 3 2 1301 0

Netherlands vs.--

 Sweden *** *** *** *** 1 1 2 0300 1

 Other countries *** *** *** *** 1 2 2 1301 0

Sweden vs.--

Other countries *** *** *** *** 1 1 1 0301 0

Note: A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

II-13
Purchasers were also asked to compare U.S.-produced purified and imported purified CMC from

subject and nonsubject countries with respect to the 15 selected characteristics listed in table II-7, noting

whether the domestic product was superior, comparable, or inferior to the imported product.15 Five

purchasers compared the U.S.-produced product with imports from Finland in some or all of the

characteristics listed. A majority of purchasers ranked the U.S.-produced product superior in delivery

time and price. In all other characteristics, neither country was ranked either superior or inferior by a

majority of purchasers. In the comparisons between the United States and Mexico, the products were

ranked comparable in most characteristics, with neither country ranked superior or inferior by a majority

of purchasers in any characteristic. In the comparison between the United States and the Netherlands, a

majority of purchasers ranked the United States superior in delivery time. Neither the United States nor

the Netherlands showed any clear-cut advantage in other characteristics. None of the purchasers

compared product from the United States and Sweden. In the comparisons between the United States and

nonsubject countries, the products were ranked comparable by a majority or plurality of purchasers in all

characteristics. 

 15 In addition to these comparisons, a few purchasers compared purified CMC between the subject countries. In

this very limited sample, the products were generally rated as comparable with regard to most characteristics. 

II-14
Table II-7

Purified CMC: Comparisons of U.S.-produced purified CMC with that imported from subject1

countries and nonsubject countries,

Purchase factors

Number of purchasers’ responses comparing the United States

with--

Finland Mexico Netherlands

Nonsubject

countries

S C I S C I S C I SC I

Availability 2 1 2 1422 11231

Delivery terms 1 3 0 1 4 1 1 3 0 2 4 0

Delivery time 3 1 0 2 3 1 3 1 0 3 3 0

Discounts offered 0 3 1 0500 21051

Extension of credit 0 4 0 0 5 1 0 4 0 1 5 0

Price2 3 20 1321 30132

Minimum quantity requirements 0 5 0 0600 40240

Packaging 1 4 0 1 5 1 0 4 0 1 5 0

Product consistency 0 4 0 0420 40240

Quality meets standards 0 3 0 0410 30150

Quality exceeds industry standards 0 3 0 0510 30150

Product range 1 2 1 2220 31231

Reliability of supply 1 1 2 1411 12240

Technical support/service 1 2 1 1311 21231

U.S. transportation costs2 2 20 2302 20231

 1There were no comparisons between U.S.-produced purified CMC and imports from Sweden.

 2

A rating of superior on price and U.S. transportation costs indicates that the first country generally has lower prices/U.S.

transportation costs than the second country.

Note.--S=superior, C=comparable, and I=inferior.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

II-15
ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

This section discusses elasticity estimates; parties were encouraged to comment on these

estimates in their briefs. None of the parties offered any suggested revisions to the staff’s estimates. 

U.S. Supply Elasticity

The domestic supply elasticity for purified CMC measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied

by U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of purified CMC. The elasticity of domestic supply

depends on several factors, including the level of excess capacity, the ease with which producers can alter

capacity, producers’ ability to shift to production of other products, the existence of inventories, and the

availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced purified CMC. Analysis of these factors, particularly

the existence of excess production capacity, indicates that the elasticity is likely to be in a moderate range

of 1 to 3. 

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for purified CMC measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity

demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of purified CMC. This estimate depends on factors

discussed earlier such as the existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products, as

well as the component share of purified CMC in the production of downstream products. Since the

available information from questionnaire responses suggest that there are possible substitutes for 

this product in some applications, the demand elasticity is likely to be in a medium range of -0.75 to 

-1.25. 

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products. Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality

(e.g., chemistry, appearance, etc.) and conditions of sale (availability, sales terms/discounts/promotions,

etc.). Based on available information, the elasticity of substitution between

 U.S.-produced purified CMC and imported CMC from the subject countries is likely to be in the range of

2 to 4.16

 16 It is likely that imports of purified CMC from Mexico are near the low end of the range since according to

Amtex’s importer questionnaire, ***. 

II-16
PART III: U.S. PRODUCER’S OPERATIONS

Information on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment is presented in this

section of the report and is based on the questionnaire response of the sole U.S. producer of purified

CMC, Aqualon, a Division of Hercules Inc., Wilmington, DE. Aqualon’s U.S. production facilities for

purified CMC are located in Hopewell, VA.1

 Aqualon is also affiliated with two foreign *** subsidiaries

that produce purified CMC, in France and China.2

U. S. PRODUCER CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

Aqualon’s production, capacity, and capacity utilization data are presented in table III-1. 

Aqualon *** other products on the same equipment and machinery used in the production of purified

CMC; purified CMC accounted for *** percent of the firm’s total production of CMC in 2009.3

Table III-1

Purified CMC: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2002-04, 2005-09, JanuarySeptember 2009, and January-September 2010 

* * * * * * *

In the original investigations, Aqualon’s production quantity increased by about *** percent from

2002 to 2004. According to Aqualon, in 2003 the company made a conscious decision to regain market

share at the expense of price and profit.4

 Aqualon’s production quantity decreased irregularly, by ***

percent, during the period of review. Production quantity increased by *** percent from 2005-07, then

decreased by *** percent from 2007-09. Aqualon reported that ***.5

 According to Aqualon, it ***.6

U.S. PRODUCER’S DOMESTIC SHIPMENTS,

 COMPANY TRANSFERS, AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS

Table III-2 presents Aqualon’s shipments during the original investigations and the period of

review. During the original investigations, the unit value of Aqualon’s U.S. commercial shipments of

purified CMC fell by $*** per pound from 2002 to 2004; the correlating quantity of Aqualon’s U.S.

commercial shipments rose by *** percent. Aqualon’s export shipments exhibited a pattern of decreasing

 1 Hercules began the U.S. CMC industry in 1945, then invested in its Hopewell, VA, facility in 1947 and has

continuously produced CMC at Hopewell ever since that time. In the early days of the production of CMC, a few

other U.S. producers entered the market but none stayed in the business for a long term. Hercules has been the sole

U.S. producer of purified CMC since the mid-1970s. USITC Publication 3787, Purified Carboxymethylcellulose

from Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden (Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1084-1087 (Final)), June 2005, 

p. III-1.

 2

 The firms are: ***. Aqualon’s producer questionnaire response, sections I-4 and I-6.

 3

 Aqualon’s producer questionnaire response, section II-5. ***. Staff telephone interview with ***, March 24,

2011. 

 4

 USITC Publication 3787, p. III-1, fn.5.

 5

 Aqualon’s producer questionnaire response, section II-2.

 6

 Ibid.

III-1
unit values (by *** per pound) and export quantities (by *** percent) during the original investigations,

with principal export markets in ***.7

Table III-2

Purified CMC: U.S. producer’s shipments, by type, 2002-04, 2005-09, January-September 2009, and

January-September 2010 

* * * * * * *

During the period of review, Aqualon’s U.S. commercial shipments of purified CMC ***. 

Overall, U.S. commercial shipment quantity decreased irregularly by *** percent during 2005-09. 

However, U.S. commercial shipment quantity increased by *** percent during 2005-08 before decreasing

*** percent during 2008-09. Post the ***, U.S. commercial shipment quantity rose by *** percent in

interim January-September 2010 as compared to the January-September 2009 interim period. The unit

values of U.S. commercial shipments rose *** by $***, from $*** in 2005 to $*** in 2009 before

exhibiting a *** decrease of $*** in interim January-September 2010 as compared to interim JanuarySeptember 2009. 

Although the quantity of Aqualon’s export shipments decreased irregularly by *** percent over

the period of review, the corresponding unit value increased steadily by $***. Aqualon’s export quantity

increased from *** pounds to *** pounds, or by *** percent, from 2005 to 2006 before falling by ***

percent to *** pounds in 2009. Export shipment quantity rose in interim January-September 2010 as

compared to interim January-September 2009 while the analogous export shipment unit value decreased

in interim January-September 2010 as compared with interim January-September 2009. Aqualon’s

principal export markets during the period of review were ***.8

U.S. PRODUCER’S INVENTORIES

Table III-3 presents data on Aqualon’s inventories during the original investigations and the

period of review. During the original investigations, Aqualon’s inventory levels increased steadily, by

*** percent, in response to increases in production and declines in internal consumption quantity and

export shipment quantity. The ratios of end-of-period inventories to production, U.S. shipments, and total

shipments decreased regularly during 2002-04.

Table III-3

Purified CMC: U.S. producer’s end-of-period inventories, 2002-04, 2005-09, January-September

2009, and January-September 2010

* * * * * * *

During the period of review, Aqualon’s inventories fluctuated downward, by *** percent, from

*** pounds in 2005 to *** pounds in 2009 and continued the downward trend with a decrease of ***

percent in interim January-September 2010 as compared to January-September 2009. The ratios of endof-period inventories to production, U.S. shipments, and total shipments reflect the same trend, decreasing

from 2005-08 then increasing in 2009. A comparison of the January-September interim periods shows

that the inventory to production ratio decreased by *** percentage points in January-September 2010 as

 7 Confidential Staff Report, Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden

(Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1084-1087 (Final)), June 2, 2005, p. III-3 and fn. 9.

 8

 Aqualon’s producer questionnaire response, section II-8.

III-2
compared with interim January-September 2009 while the inventory to U.S. and total shipments ratios

decreased by *** and *** percentage points respectively in comparison of the interim periods.

U.S. PRODUCER’S IMPORTS

Data covering Aqualon’s imports of purified CMC for the original investigations and the period

of review are presented in table III-4. Aqualon imported purified CMC from an affiliated company,

Hercules France BV, Alizay, France during the original investigations and from the same company under

different ownership, Ashland Industries France SAS, Alizay, France during the period of review. 

Aqualon *** over the period of review. The U.S. and French plants are each used to supply the majority

needs of their respective “home” markets. Aqualon reported no imports of purified CMC from Finland,

Mexico, the Netherlands, or Sweden during the original investigations or the period of review. Aqualon

supplies the U.S. purified CMC market primarily from Hopewell, VA. Aqualon does, however, import

CMC from France *** ***.9

 Aqualon’s imports from France increased irregularly, by *** percent,

during 2005-09 from *** pounds in 2005 to *** pounds in 2009, peaking at *** pounds, or *** percent

of U.S. production, in 2008. Aqualon’s imports from ***.10 According to Aqualon, ***.11 Aqualon’s

nonsubject imports of purified CMC ranged from *** percent of its U.S. production during the original

investigations and from *** percent of U.S. production during the period of review, ***. The ratios of

Aqualon’s imports to production fell in interim January-September 2010 as compared to interim JanuarySeptember 2009.

Table III-4

Purified CMC: Aqualon’s imports, 2002-04, 2005-09, January-September 2009, and JanuarySeptember 2010

* * * * * * *

Akzo provided data generated from the Datamyne databank with details concerning French

imports of Blanose (the brand name of Aqualon’s food-grade purified CMC). Imports of Blanose were

1,728 metric tons (3,810 thousand pounds) in 2009, of which 950 metic tons (2,094 thousand pounds)

contained the marking “***.” According to Akzo, the grades related to this marking are those that fit the

precise CMC specification of ***, and Akzo received verbal confirmation from *** that its U.S. facilities

receive imports from Aqualon France. Akzo indicated that its estimate of total U.S. consumption of CMC

by *** in 2009 was approximately 1,360 metric tons (2,998 thousand pounds) with the majority of ***’s

U.S. CMC consumption in 2009 sourced from Aqualon’s facility in France. Akzo reported that its

purified CMC supply agreement with *** gives Akzo the ***; therefore, Akzo was made aware that ***

was obtaining food-grade purified CMC at $*** per pound in 2009, a price it could not meet. Akzo

opined that Aqualon imported substantial quantities of purified CMC at a very low price from its French

facility in order to satisfy the demand of ***’s U.S. facilities and argued that Aqualon provided no

verifiable data to indicate that it will discontinue this practice in the future.12

 9 Aqualon’s importer questionnaire response (sections II-6 and II-7b).

 10 Aqualon’s importer questionnaire response (sections II-6 and II-7b).

 11 Aqualon’s importer questionnaire response (section II-6).

 12 Akzo’s posthearing brief, February 28, 2011, p.1 and exh. B. 

III-3
U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Table III-5 shows Aqualon’s employment-related data during the original investigations and the

period of review. During the original investigations, Aqualon’s average number of production and related

workers (“PRWs”) and hours worked by PRWs decreased steadily by a net *** percent during 2002-04.13

Wages paid to Aqualon’s PRWs decreased irregularly, by an overall *** percent during 2002-04;

however, as PRWs decreased during 2002-04, the hourly wages of the remaining PRWs increased

regularly by *** percent over the period of investigation. The productivity of Aqualon’s PRWs rose

steadily, by *** percent, during 2002-04. Corresponding unit labor costs decreased regularly, by a net

$*** per pound during 2002-04. 

Table III-5

Purified CMC: Average number of production and related workers, hours worked, wages paid to

such employees, hourly wages, productivity, and unit labor costs, 2002-04, 2005-09, JanuarySeptember 2009, and January-September 2010

* * * * * * *

During the period of review, the number of production and related workers fluctuated ***

workers and remained at *** workers during the interim periods. Hours worked fluctuated *** in 2009. 

Wages paid and hourly wages rose steadily during the period of review; however, productivity decreased

irregularly, from *** pounds per hour in 2005 to *** pounds in 2009, peaking at *** pounds per hour in

2007. Unit labor costs fluctuated *** per pound during 2005-08 before increasing to $*** per pound in

2009. These trends reflect the *** discussed earlier. Comparisons of the January-September 2009-10

interim periods show PRWs and hours worked remaining the same; wages paid, hourly wages, and

productivity increases; and a decrease of $*** per pound in unit labor costs. 

FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF THE U.S. PRODUCER

Background

The sole U.S. producer, Aqualon, provided usable financial data on its purified CMC

operations.14 Aqualon reported *** during the period for which data were requested, but did report *** in

2005. Because *** represented *** of 2005 net sales value, it is not shown separately in this section of

the report. 

In November 2008, Ashland – a global specialty chemicals company – acquired Hercules in a

transaction valued at approximately $3.4 billion.15 Included in this acquisition was Aqualon, which is

owned by Hercules. After the acquisition, Aqualon’s fiscal year ***. 

 13 At the time, Aqualon argued that some of the decline in 2004 in total number of PRWs was due to the closure

of the MCA plant, which was a captive producer of a source chemical used only in the production of CMC. USITC

Publication 3787, p. III-3, fn. 11.

 14 Aqualon’s sales of purified CMC represented approximately *** percent of net sales for Ashland’s Functional

Ingredients segment and approximately *** percent of Ashland’s total sales for FY 2009. Aqualon’s operating

income for purified CMC represented approximately *** percent of the operating income for Ashland’s Functional

Ingredients segment and approximately *** percent of Ashland’s overall operating income in FY 2009. Ashland’s

2010 annual report, p. M-11.

 15 Ibid., p. M-12.

III-4
Operations on Purified CMC

Income-and-loss data for Aqualon are presented in table III-6. Aqualon experienced an increase

in operating income from 2005 to 2009, as well as between the comparable interim periods. Both total

net sales quantity and value experienced a *** increase from 2005 to 2008, followed by *** declines in

both net sales quantity and value in 2009. Between the comparable interim periods, net sales quantity and

value once again increased.

Table III-6

Purified CMC: Results of operations of U.S. producer Aqualon, 2005-09, January-September 2009, and

January-September 2010

* * * * * * *

The per-unit net sales value steadily increased by $*** from 2005 to 2009, while per-unit

operating costs and expenses (cost of goods sold (“COGS”) and selling, general, and administrative

(“SG&A”) expenses, combined) irregularly increased by $***. Thus, per-unit operating income

generally increased from 2005 to 2009. Between the comparable interim periods, both per-unit revenue

and per-unit operating costs/expenses *** declined, which resulted in a *** increase in operating income.

According to Aqualon, the firm’s U.S. CMC operations have “***.”16 17

Aqualon stated that ***.18 At the hearing in these reviews, Aqualon officials stated that the

explosion and fire at the CP Kelco Netherlands plant had a short-term positive impact on Aqualon’s

profitability in 2009 and 2010 as the company benefitted from CP Kelco customers in need of an

alternative source of supply.19

Variance Analysis

A variance analysis for purified CMC is presented in table III-7.20 The information for the

variance analysis is derived from table III-6. The analysis shows that the increase in operating income in 

2009 as compared with 2005 is attributable to a favorable price variance that more than offset unfavorable

 16 Aqualon’s U.S. producer questionnaire response to question II-16.

 17 During the original investigation, Aqualon’s operating margins declined from *** percent in 2002 to ***

percent in 2003, then became *** percent in 2004. The per-pound net sales values declined by *** percent from

2002-2004, while per-pound COGS increased slightly during the same period. Thus, Aqualon’s operating income

declined. Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden, Invs. Nos. 731-TA1084-1087 (Final), Views of the Commission (BPI version), p. 36. Table I-1 of this report contains additional detail

on Aqualon’s reported financial data for 2002-04.

 18 E-mail correspondence from ***, December 20, 2010. Raw material costs, which accounted for *** percent

of overall COGS during the period for which data were collected, increased on a per-unit basis and as a ratio to sales

through 2008, then declined in 2009 before once again increasing in January-September 2010. In its posthearing

brief, Aqualon provided cost data for cotton linters and wood pulp which ***. Aqualon’s posthearing brief,

Responses to Commission Questions, p. 22.

 19 Hearing transcript (Gruber), p. 33.

 20 A variance analysis is calculated in three parts, sales variance, cost of sales variance, and SG&A expense

variance. Each part consists of a price variance (in the case of the sales variance) or a cost variance (in the case of

the cost of sales and SG&A expense variance) and a volume variance. The sales or cost variance is calculated as the

change in unit price times the new volume, while the volume variance is calculated as the change in volume times

the old unit price. Summarized at the bottom of the table, the price variance is from sales; the cost/expense variance

is the sum of those items from COGS and SG&A variances, respectively; and the volume variance is the sum of the

volume variance lines under price and cost/expense variance. 

III-5
net cost/expense and volume variances (that is, price increases offset an increase in net costs/expenses and

a decline in volume). Between the comparable interim periods, the analysis shows that the increase in

operating income is attributable to favorable volume and net cost/expense variances that offset an

unfavorable price variance (that is, the increase in volume and decrease in net costs/expenses was greater

than the decline in prices).

Table III-7

Purified CMC: Variance analysis on operations of U.S. producer Aqualon, 2005-09, and January-September

2009-10

* * * * * * *

Capital Expenditures and Research and Development Expenses

Aqualon’s reported capital expenditures and research and development (“R&D”) expenses are

shown in table III-8. Reported capital expenditures primarily reflect ***.21 According to Aqualon,

“***.”22 23

Table III-8

Purified CMC: Capital expenditures and research and development expenses of U.S. producer Aqualon,

2005-09, January-September 2009, and January-September 2010

* * * * * * *

Assets and Return on Investment

Data on Aqualon’s total assets and its return on investment (“ROI”) are presented in table III-9. 

The total assets for purified CMC increased from $*** in 2005 to $*** in 2009, and the ROI irregularly

increased from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2009. As previously reported, Aqualon was

acquired by Ashland in November 2008. The assets of the business were ***.24

Table III-9

Purified CMC: Asset values and return on investment of U.S. producer Aqualon, 2005-09

* * * * * * *

 21 E-mail correspondence from ***, December 20, 2010. At the hearing, Aqualon officials provided additional

testimony regarding capital expenditures. See hearing transcript, p. 24 (Panichella), and p. 37 (Gruber). In its

posthearing brief, Aqualon reported a 2011 capital budget of $*** million. Aqualon’s posthearing brief, Responses

to Commission Questions, p. 21.

 22 Ibid.

 23 During the original investigation, Aqualon’s capital expenditures *** from $*** in 2002 to $*** in 2004, and

its R&D expenses *** from $*** in 2002 to $*** in 2004. EDIS document no. 446977.

 24 Ibid.

III-6
PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS AND THE FOREIGN INDUSTRY

U.S. IMPORTS

The Commission sent questionnaires to 46 firms believed to be importers from Finland, Mexico,

Netherlands, Sweden, and nonsubject sources of purified CMC, based on proprietary information

provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”). Questionnaire responses were received

from 22 companies, including from the importers accounting for the vast majority of imports from

Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden.1

 

During the original investigations, purified CMC was provided for under a residual or “basket”

HTS category (subheading 3912.31.00) which contained all purity levels of CMC including crude

(technical) CMC and salts other than the subject sodium salt of CMC. As of January 1, 2005, purified

CMC was provided for under statistical reporting number 3912.31.0010 for caboxymethylcellulose and

its salts containing not less than 90 percent by weight of carboxymethylcellulose, but this statistical

reporting number, which excuding technical CMC, also includes cross-linked CMC, a product that is not

in the scope of the reviews. As both the HTS subheading during the original investigations and the HTS

statistical reporting number valid during the period of review contain salts other than the subject purified

CMC, official Commerce statistics for both the original investigations and period of review are overly

broad.2

 Consequently, data on U.S. imports of purified CMC from both the subject and nonsubject

countries presented in this report are from responses to Commission questionnaires. 

Table IV-1 presents data for U.S. imports of purified CMC both during the original 

investigations and the period of review. Throughout the original investigations, the four subject countries

were the largest sources of U.S. imports of purified CMC and accounted for the majority of total U.S.

imports.3

 During the original investigations, both the volume and value of U.S. imports from nonsubject

sources increased steadily during the period of investigation, and accounted for *** percent of total U.S.

imports during 2004. Nonsubject sources of imports during the original investigations were principally

China and France.4

 1 In addition to the 22 responses, the Commission received 12 responses from firms indicating that they did not

import purified CMC during the period of review. Among the negative responses were companies that imported 

chemicals which were properly classified under statistical reporting number 3912.31.0010 but that do not correspond

to products in the scope of the review. Certain negative responses also reported misclassification of the chemical

imported, citing the correct classification as 3912.31.0090, the classification for technical CMC.

 2

 Effective January 1, 2005, pursuant to a request from Aqualon, imports of purified CMC are separately provided

for under HTS statistical reporting number 3912.31.0010, with all other CMC products provided for under HTS

statistical reporting number 3912.31.0090. Aqualon tariff classification request, July 26, 2004. During the original

investigations, a review of official Commerce statistics and proprietary Customs data for January-March 2005

indicated that imports of purified CMC had not been properly recorded since the tariff classification change. For

example, no imports from China or France were reported under HTS statistical reporting number 3912.31.0010 for

purified CMC, and significant quantities of imports of purified CMC (i.e., Customs entries having average unit

values ranging from $1.00 to $1.54 per pound) from the subject European countries were reported under HTS

statistical reporting number 3912.31.0090 (all other CMC products) during January-March 2005. Importing firms

reported that such imports of purified CMC were mistakenly entered under HTS statistical reporting number

3912.31.0090. USITC Publication 3787, June 2005, pp. IV-3-IV-4, fn.3.

 3

 Ibid.

 4

 Ibid., p. IV-4.

IV-1
Table IV-1

Purified CMC: U.S. imports, by sources, 2002-04, 2005-09, January-September 2009, and JanuarySeptember 2010

* * * * * * *

During the period of review, subject imports increased irregularly, from *** pounds in 2005 to ***

pounds in 2009, peaking at *** pounds in 2007. ***.5

 *** in 2009. However, subject imports of

purified CMC accounted for a *** percent majority of total imports in 2009. 

During the period of review, the volume and value of nonsubject imports of purified CMC

increased during 2005-08, before decreasing in 2009. Nonsubject imports of purified CMC during the

period of review were from China, France, ***. Import volume of purified CMC from China increased

by *** pounds, or by *** percent from *** pounds in 2005 to *** pounds in 2008 before falling to ***

pounds in 2009. Value of Chinese imports of purified CMC followed a similar pattern. Imports of

purified CMC from France increased irregularly by *** pounds or *** percent from *** pounds in 2005

to *** pounds in 2009. The value of French imports of purifed CMC followed a similar pattern.

CUMULATION CONSIDERATIONS

In assessing whether imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product, the

Commission has generally considered four factors: (1) the degree of fungibility, including specific

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

same geographical markets; (3) common channels of distribution; and (4) simultaneous presence in the

market. Channels of distribution are discussed in Part II of this report; fungibility, geographical markets,

and presence in the market are discussed below.

During the original investigations, the Commission found that there was a reasonable overlap of

competition among the domestic merchandise and the subject imports from Finland, Mexico, Netherlands,

and Sweden and cumulated subject imports for purposes of material injury.6

Fungibility and Presence in the Market

Table IV-2 presents U.S. commercial shipment quantities and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipment

quantities by end-use applications for the period of review. The data indicate that, during the period of

review, U.S.-produced purified CMC, as well as imports from the Netherlands were present, to varying

degrees, in all five end-use sectors of the purified CMC market. U.S. imports from Finland and Sweden

were present in four of five end-use sectors, and U.S. imports from Mexico were present, to varying

degrees, in two of five end-use sectors.7

 Imports from three subject countries were present in the food

end-use application category, which accounted for *** percent of reported subject imports during 2009. 

Additional discussion of fungibility is presented in Part II.

 5 ***’s importer questionnaire response, section II-2.

 6

 USITC Publication 3787, p. 13. Commissioner Pearson dissented, finding a reasonable overlap of competition

between subject imports from Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden, but does not exist between subject imports

from Finland and other subject imports. Ibid., pp. 27-28.

 7

 There were no imports from Finland and Sweden present in the all other sector; there were no imports from

Mexico present in the personal care; paper & board; or oilfield sectors. There were no imports at all from Sweden in

2009.

IV-2
Table IV-2

Purified CMC: U.S. shipments of domestically produced and imported products, by end use, 

2005-09, January-September 2009, and January-September 2010

* * * * * * *

Geographical Markets

Purified CMC products produced in the United States are reportedly shipped nationwide. While

imports of purified CMC from the subject countries may enter select Customs districts, such products are

then generally sold nationwide.8

 Table IV-3 presents information on shares of U.S. imports of purified

CMC entered by regions and Customs districts during 2005-09. Imports of purified CMC from Finland

and Mexico principally entered through Customs districts in the South while imports of the subject

product from the Netherlands and Sweden principally entered through districts in the East.

 8 USITC Publication 3787, p. IV-4 and fn. 9.

IV-3
Table IV-3

Purified CMC: U.S. imports by sources and Customs districts, 2005-09

Region

Finland Mexico Netherlands1 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 200

Shares of total quantity (percent)

East2 41.5 28.3 7.3 12.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.6 84.2 54.0 60.2 66.6 79

South4 31.2 39.8 31.6 36.4 20.1 99.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 6.8 4.5 5.8 1.7 0.0 2West5 11.7 4.4 10.9 10.9 13.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.9 11.5 5.1 7.5 2Midwest6 5 15.7 27.5 50.2 40.7 59.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 5.5 28.7 33.1 26.0 15 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

1 Includes imports of products manufactured by Akzo and CP Kelco Netherlands.2 Includes: Baltimore, MD; Charleston, SC; Charlotte, NC; New York, NY; Norfolk, VA; Philadelphia, PA; and Savannah, GA.

3 Not applicable.

4 Includes: Houston-Galveston, TX; Laredo, TX; Mobile, AL; New Orleans, LA; San Juan, PR; and Tampa, FL.5 Includes: Columbia-Snake, OR; Great Falls, MT; Los Angeles, CA; San Diego, CA; San Francisco, CA; and Seattle, WA. 6 Includes: Buffalo, NY; Chicago, IL; Cleveland, OH; Detroit, MI; Pembina, ND; and St. Louis, MO.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.
U.S. INVENTORIES OF PURIFIED CMC FROM

FINLAND, MEXICO, THE NETHERLANDS, AND SWEDEN

Reported inventories held by U.S. importers of purified CMC from Finland, Mexico, the

Netherlands, and Sweden, both during the original investigations and the period of review, are shown in

table IV-4. U.S. importers’ inventories of imports from Finland decreased steadily during 2002-04 and

decreased irregularly during 2005-09. With regard to Mexico, U.S. importers’ end-of period inventories

of imports decreased steadily during 2002-04 and decreased irregularly during 2005-09. U.S. importers’

end-of-period inventories of imports from the Netherlands increased irregularly during 2002-04 and

decreased irregularly during 2005-09. U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports from Sweden

decreased irregularly during 2002-04 and decreased steadily during 2005-08 before ***. The resultant

aggregate of U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of subject imports, and the ratios of such

aggregated subject inventories to both imports and U.S. shipments of imports all decreased steadily

during the 2002-04 period of original investigations, and decreased irregularly during the 2005-09 period

of review. With the exception of then non-producing Sweden, all subject importers exhibited higher

ratios of end-of-period inventories to imports in interim January-September 2009 when compared with

interim January-September 2010. Further, with the exception of Mexico’s subject importers’ end-ofperiod inventories peak in 2007, the remaining subject importers’ and aggregated subject importers’ endof-period inventories peaked in 2005. 

Table IV-4

Purified CMC: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2002-04, 2005-09,

January-September 2009, and January-September 2010 

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ IMPORTS SUBSEQUENT TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2010

The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the

importation of purified CMC from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, or Sweden after September 30,

2010. Of the 22 responding importers, *** reported imports of purified CMC from the subject countries

scheduled after September 30, 2010. Importers and the quantity of purified CMC imported subsequent to

September 30, 2010, are shown in the tabulation below.

* * * * * * *

SUBJECT COUNTRY PRODUCERS

Information on the operations of producers of purified CMC in Finland, Mexico, Netherlands,

and Sweden, their capacity, production, exports to the United States and other export markets, 

inventories of the subject merchandise; and any tariff or non-tariff barriers in home and third-country

markets follows.

IV-5
THE INDUSTRY IN FINLAND

During the original investigations, only one known firm manufactured purified CMC in Finland,

Noviant OY.9

 In these reviews, the Commission received a questionnaire response from the only current

known manufacturer/exporter of purified CMC in Finland: CP Kelco Finland. The firm reported *** to

add, expand, curtail, or shut down production capacity and/or production of purified CMC in Finland

***.10 CP Kelco Finland reported that it had several ***.11 CP Kelco Finland reported that *** percent

of the firm’s total sales in its most recent fiscal year was represented by sales of purified CMC.12 CP

Kelco Finland *** products other than purified CMC on the same equipment and machinery used in the

production of purified CMC.13 The firm reported that its multipurpose production plant serves the ***.14

The firm also reported purified CMC exports to third country markets ***.15 CP Kelco Finland ***

inventories of purified CMC in the United States since 2005.16

Tables IV-5 and IV-6 present data for reported Finnish production and shipments of purified

CMC for the original investigations and the period of review, respectively. During the original

investigations, Finnish production capacity remained constant during 2002-03, before decreasing by ***

percent in 2004. In contrast to this capacity decrease, production increased and end-of period inventories 

decreased during 2002-04. Finnish home market sales fluctuated downward and exports to the United

States increased steadily during 2002-04. Values of Finnish exports to the United States decreased by

*** per pound from 2002 to 2003, then held steady at $*** per pound during 2003-04. Finnish exports to

all other markets also increased steadily during 2002-04. As a result, total Finnish exports increased

steadily during 2002-04. Exports of purified CMC accounted for approximately *** percent of total

shipments of the subject product from Finland during the period of investigation.

Table IV-5

Purified CMC: Finnish production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2002-04

* * * * * * *

Table IV-6

Purified CMC: Finnish production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2005-09,

January-September 2009, and January-September 2010

* * * * * * *

During the period of review, Finnish production capacity remained constant. Production remained the

same in 2005-06, peaked in 2007, and then decreased in 2008 and 2009. Production increased in interim

January-September 2010 as compared to interim January-September 2009. End-of period inventories

decreased during 2005-06, peaked in 2007, and fell in both 2008 and 2009. 

According to CP Kelco, Noviant Finland decided to shut down production line 5 (***) in late 2004 for

productivity reasons. The company reported that the utilization rate for line 5 had been very low for

several years, and in order to keep the line open government safety standards were required to be met,

 9 USITC Publication 3787, p. VII-4.

 10 CP Kelco Finland’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-3 and exhibit 1.

 11 CP Kelco Finland’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-2.

 12 CP Kelco Finland’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-10.

 13 CP Kelco Finland’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-5.

 14 CP Kelco Finland’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-6.

 15 CP Kelco Finland’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-13

 16 CP Kelco Finland’s foreign producer questionnaire response, sections II-11. 

IV-6
additional investment for which was not economically feasible.17 CP Kelco reported its theoretic

maximum capacity for calendar years 2005-09 was *** pounds; however, operating or average

production capacity was reported as *** percent of theoretic maximum capacity to account for vacation

time, planned and unplanned downtimes, etc., and stated that production rarely exceeds *** percent of

maximum capacity.18

According to Aqualon, the CP Kelco owns and operates the largest purified CMC production facility

in the world in Aanekoski, Finland, with approximately *** metric tons (*** pounds) capacity.19

Aqualon takes issue with the methodology by which CP Kelco reported capacity for its Finland CMC

operations, whereby CP Kelco ***,20 and questions the accuracy of the reported capacity figure. 

According to Aqualon, in the original investigation, Noviant reported “projected” capacity for 2005 at

*** pounds *** metric tons for its CMC plant in Finland, and does not appear to have made a *** percent

reduction.21 Aqualon further cited CP Kelco’s response to changes in operations since 2004, where CP

Kelco reported ***.22 Aqualon opined that CP Kelco should report an ***.23 Aqualon further cited CP

Kelco’s reported production levels that ***.24 Aqualon also pointed out that CP Kelco’s *** ***.25 

According to Aqualon, objective observers place the capacity of the CP Kelco Finland plant at *** metric

tons (*** pounds).26 Aqualon further indicated that since CP Kelco’s exports from Finland did not

exceed *** pounds during the period of review, and its annualized Finnish home market sales were

approximately *** pounds for the period, CP Kelco has significant capacity to allow the option to

increase its U.S. exports.27

Akzo indicated its understanding that CP Kelco runs two separate purified CMC lines in its Finnish

plant; a newer line that produces *** metric tons (*** pounds) per year for the food industry, and an older

line that produces approximately *** metric tons (*** pounds for the paper industry.28 According to

Akzo, in the past CP Kelco ran a third line that produced approximately *** metric tons per year of

 17 Collective postconference brief of Noviant, Amtex, and Akzo, July 6, 2004, p. 39 and exh. 33. 

 18 CP Kelco foreign producer questionnaire response (section II-5). CP Kelco reconfirmed that its “actual”

capacity was correctly calculated for these reviews as *** percent of “theoretical” capacity. CP Kelco further cited

that the statutory vacation or “holiday” period for European and Scandinavian employees is considerably longer than

typical U.S. vacation time, which is why European plants tend to operate fewer days per year than U.S. counterparts. 

Email to staff from ***, March 25, 2011.

 19 Aqualon’s prehearing brief, February 10, 2011, pp. 1, 15.

 20 Ibid. According to CP Kelco, *** pounds is a theoretic maximum capacity. Operating or average capacity is

80 percent of theoretic maximum capacity to account for vacation time, planned, and unplanned downtime, etc. 

According to CP Kelco, production rarely exceeds 80 percent of theoretic maximum capacity. CP Kelco’s foreign

producer questionnaire response (section II-5). In the Commission’s Instruction booklet for foreign producer

questionnaires for these reviews, average production capacity is defined as, “The level of production that your

establishment(s) could reasonably have expected attain during the specified periods. Assume normal operating

conditions (i.e., using equipment and machinery in place and ready to operate; normal operating levels (hours per

week/weeks per year) and time for downtime, maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a typical or representative

product mix.” Instruction Booklet: General Information, Instructions, and Definitions for Commission Foreign

Producer/Exporter Questionnaires, p. 5.

 21 Aqualon’s prehearing brief, p. 15.

 22 Ibid., CP Kelco’s foreign producer questionnaire response (section II-2).

 23 Ibid.

 24 Ibid., p. 16.

 25 Ibid.

 26 Ibid., pp. 35-36.

 27 Aqualon’s posthearing brief, February 28, 2011, pp. 7-8; Responses of Aqualon Company to Commission

Questions, pp. 2-3. 

 28 Akzo’s posthearing brief, February 28, 2011, exh. A, p. 2.

IV-7
technical CMC; however, it is generally believed that this line is not in operation, as CP Kelco is no

longer active in this market.29

THE INDUSTRY IN MEXICO

In the original investigations, there was one known manufacturer/exporter of purified CMC in

Mexico, Amtex.30 During the period of review, the Commission received a questionnaire response from

the only known manufacturer/exporter of purified CMC in Mexico: Amtex.31 The firm reported that ***

percent of its total sales in the most recent fiscal year was represented by sales of purified CMC.32 Amtex

*** produce products other than purified CMC on the same equipment and machinery used in the

production of purified CMC, with capacity data ***.33 Amtex reported exports of purified CMC to thirdcountry markets including ***.34 Amtex *** inventories of purified CMC in the United States, ***, since

2005.35 Amtex reported *** change to its operations during the period of review.36

Tables IV-7 and IV-8 present data for reported Mexican production and shipments of purified

CMC for the original investigations and period of review, respectively. During the original

investigations, Mexican production capacity and production increased from 2003 to 2004 ***. *** end-of

period inventories increased irregularly during 2002-04. Mexican home market sales increased during

2002-04, while exports to the United States fluctuated downward. Unit values of Mexican exports to the

United States fell by $*** per pound during 2002-04. Mexican exports to all other export markets

decreased during 2002-04. As a result, total Mexican exports decreased irregularly during 2002-04.

Table IV-7

Purified CMC: Mexican production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2002-04

* * * * * * *

During the period of review, Mexican production capacity for purified CMC ***, while

production increased irregularly and end-of period inventories decreased irregularly.

 29 Ibid.

 30 USITC Publication 3787, p. VII-4.

 31 ***. Amtex’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section I-4.

 32 Amtex’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-10

 33 Amtex’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-5.

 34 Amtex’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-16b.

 35 Amtex’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-11.

 36 Amtex’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-2.

IV-8
Table IV-8

Purified CMC: Mexican production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2005-09,

January-September 2009, and January-September 2010

* * * * * * *

Mexican home market sales increased irregularly during 2005-09, while exports to the United States

fluctuated downward. Unit values of Mexican exports to the United States rose irregularly by $*** per

pound during 2005-09, before dropping by $*** per pound over the interim periods. Mexican exports to

all other export markets increased irregularly during 2005-09. Total Mexican exports decreased

irregularly during 2005-09. All of Amtex’s export markets for purified CMC rose in the JanuarySeptember 2010 interim period when compared to the January-September 2009 interim period. Amtex

reported export markets in *** .37 Tariffs on purified and nonpurified CMC imported into Mexico are 7.2

percent from Japan and 10.0 percent from China and India.38 

Amtex reported that its overall capacity (technical and purifed grades) is ***.39 Amtex reported

that it can ***.40

***.41

THE INDUSTRY IN THE NETHERLANDS

During the original investigations, there were two known producers/exporters of purified CMC in

the Netherlands, Noviant BV and Akzo Netherlands. In these reviews, the Commission received

questionnaire responses from the two current known manufacturers/exporters of purified CMC in the

Netherlands: CP Kelco Netherlands and Akzo Netherlands. Data on the firms’ production and exports of

purified CMC to the United States during 2009 are as follows:

* * * * * * *

During the period of review, CP Kelco Netherlands reported plans to ***.42 However, CP Kelco

***. CP Kelco Netherlands reported that *** percent of the firm’s total sales in its most recent fiscal year

was represented by sales of purified CMC.43 CP Kelco Netherlands also reported purified CMC exports

to markets ***.44 

Akzo Netherlands reported *** plans to add, expand, curtail, or shut down production capacity

and/or production of purified CMC in the Netherlands.45 Akzo Netherlands reported that *** percent of

the firm’s total sales in its most recent fiscal year was represented by sales of purified CMC, and that it

also produces *** on the same equipment and machinery used in the production of purified CMC, with

purified CMC accounting for *** percent, *** accounting for *** percent, and *** accounting for ***

 37 Amtex’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-13.

 38 Amtex’s Response to Additional Questions of the Commission, March 4, 2011, exh. 1. Tariffs on substitute

products for purified CMC, such as Hydroxyethylcellulose, methylcellulose, hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, xanthan

gum, and carrageenan imported into Mexico range from 5 percent to 10 percent primarily for Japan, China, and

India. Ibid. 

 39 Amtex’s foreign producer questionnaire response (section II-6).

 40 Amtex’s foreign producer questionnaire response (section II-7).

 41 Amtex’s response to Commission staff questions, March 4, 2011, exh. 4.

 42 CP Kelco Netherlands’ foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-2 and exhibit 4.

 43 CP Kelco Netherlands’ foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-10.

 44 CP Kelco Netherlands’ foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-16c. 

 45 Akzo’s foreign producer questionnaire response, sections II-2. 

IV-9
percent of total production in 2009, allocated on the basis of ***.46 Akzo *** inventories of CMC in the

United States since 2005 and reported purified CMC exports to ***.47 As to export markets other than

the United States that Akzo developed or where it increased sales of purified CMC since 2005, Akzo

reported ***.48

Tables IV-9 and IV-10 present data for reported Dutch production and shipments of purified

CMC for the original investigations and the period of review, respectively. During the original

investigations, Dutch production capacity increased irregularly during 2002-04, as production increased

steadily, and end-of-period inventories fluctuated downward. Dutch home market sales increased

irregularly during 2002-04, while exports to the United States increased steadily. Unit values of Dutch

exports to the United States fell by $*** per pound during 2002-04. Dutch exports to all other export

markets rose steadily during 2002-04. Exports of purified CMC accounted for more than *** percent of

total shipments of the subject product from the Netherlands during the original investigations.

Table IV-9

Purified CMC: Dutch production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2002-04

* * * * * * *

Table IV-10

Purified CMC: Dutch production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2005-09,

January-September 2009, and January-September 2010

* * * * * * *

During the period of review, Dutch production capacity decreased irregularly during 2005-09.

Capacity was lower in interim January-September 2010 as compared with interim January-September

2009 ***. End-of-period inventories fluctuated downward during 2005-09, before increasing over the

interim periods. Dutch home market sales increased irregularly during 2005-09, while exports to the

United States increased irregularly. Unit values of Dutch exports to the United States rose irregularly by

$*** per pound during 2005-09, and by $*** over the interim periods. Dutch exports to all other export

markets rose during 2005-06, then decreased steadily through the interim periods. Exports of purified

CMC accounted for more than *** percent of total shipments of the subject product from the Netherlands

during the period of review.

Akzo reported that its capacity represents the total capacity of its *** production lines combined

and factors in *** days of shutdown for maintenance. Akzo reported that it can produce technical CMC,

purified CMC, and cross-linked CMC on these lines at its production facility in Arnhem, the Netherlands.

***;49 however, Akzo can produce cross-linked CMC ***. This means that for every pound of purified

CMC that Akzo makes, it could have made approximately *** pounds of cross-linked CMC. Moreover,

since technical CMC is not as refined and thus takes fewer steps to produce than either purified or crosslinked CMC, the output ratio of technical CMC to subject purified CMC is ***. This means that for

every pound of purified CMC that Akzo makes, it reports that it could have made approximately ***

pounds of technical CMC.50 

 46 Akzo’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-10. 

 47 Akzo’s foreign producer questionnaire response, sections II-16c. 

 48 Akzo’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-13. 

 49 Akzo’s foreign producer questionnaire response (section II-7).

 50 Akzo’s responses to Commission staff questions, March 4, 2011, p.2.

IV-10
Akzo reported that it ***.51 Akzo stated that ***.52

THE INDUSTRY IN SWEDEN

In the original investigations, there was one known manufacturer/exporter of purified CMC in

Sweden, Noviant AB. In these reviews, the Commission received a questionnaire response from the only

current known manufacturer/exporter of purified CMC in Sweden: CP Kelco Sweden. The firm reported

***.53 The firm also reported purified CMC exports to third country markets including ***.54 

Tables IV-11 and IV-12 present data for reported Swedish production and shipments of purified

CMC for the original investigations and the period of review, respectively. During the original

investigations, Swedish production capacity increased from 2002 to 2003, then held steady during 2003-

04, while Swedish production and end-of-period inventories increased irregularly during 2002-04. 

Swedish home market sales and exports to the United States decreased steadily during 2002-04.ed

irregularly. Unit values of Swedish exports to the United States fell by $*** per pound from 2002 to

2003, then surpassed 2002 levels during 2004. Swedish exports to all other export markets increased

irregularly during 2002-04. Exports of purified CMC accounted for more than *** percent of total

shipments of the subject product from Sweden during the original investigations.

Table IV-11

Purified CMC: Swedish production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2002-04

* * * * * * *

Table IV-12

Purified CMC: Swedish production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2005-09,

January-September 2009, and January-September 2010

* * * * * * *

During the period of review, Swedish production capacity remained constant from 2005 to 2007,

before ***. Swedish production increased steadily from 2005-07 and end-of-period inventories

fluctuated downward during 2005-07. Swedish home market sales decreased steadily during 2005-07,

while Swedish exports to the United States decreased irregularly in 2005-08. Unit values of Swedish

exports to the United States rose by $*** per pound from 2005 to 2008. Swedish exports to all other

export markets decreased irregularly during 2005-08. Exports of purified CMC accounted for more than

*** percent of total shipments of the subject product from Sweden during 2005-08.

SUBJECT COUNTRIES COMBINED

Data for the combined purified CMC operations in the four subject countries are presented in

table IV-13 for the period of original investigation and table IV-14 for the period of review. 

 51 Ibid., p. 3.

 52 USITC staff telephone interview with Jeffrey Neeley, counsel to Amtex, March 8, 2011.

 53 CP Kelco Sweden’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-2 and exhibit 3.

 54 CP Kelco Sweden’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-16d. 

IV-11
Table IV-13

Purified CMC: Subject countries’ production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories,

2002-04

* * * * * * *

Table IV-14

Purified CMC: Subject countries’ production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories,

2005-09, January-September 2009, and January-September 2010

* * * * * * *

Capacity Allocations

Capacity and production for each product produced by each subject foreign producer are

presented in table IV-15. 

Table IV-15

Purified CMC: Reported capacity allocations for the subject producers, 2005-09, JanuarySeptember 2009, and January-September 2010

* * * * * * *

End Use Markets

Subject producers’ shipments of purified CMC by end-use market for January-September 2010

are presented in table IV-16. The United States accounted for *** percent of total end-use market

shipments during January-September 2010. Subject producers’ total export shipments to the United

States, by specific end-use market, are as follows: food, *** percent; personal care, *** percent; paper

and board, *** percent; oil field, *** percent; and all other end-use markets, *** percent. *** reported 

the largest exports of purified CMC to the U.S. food market, with *** percent of its total food end-use

shipments directed to the U.S. market. *** was the largest exporter of purified CMC to the U.S. personal

care (*** percent), paper and board (*** percent), and oilfield (*** percent) markets during JanuarySeptember 2010. 

Table IV-16

Purified CMC: Foreign producers’ shipments of purified CMC by end-use market, JanuarySeptember 2010

* * * * * * *

IV-12
DUMPING IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

There are no known purified CMC third-country import relief investigations or existing

antidumping duty orders on the subject product from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, or Sweden in any

countries other than the United States.55 No subject countries’ exports of purified CMC are subject to

tariff or non-tariff barriers to trade in any countries other than the United States, nor are these exports

subject to current proceedings in any countries other than the United States that might result in tariff or

non-tariff barriers to trade.56

THE GLOBAL INDUSTRY AND DEMAND

The Global Industry

Table IV-17 presents data on global production capacity for purified CMC during 2009. 

According to these data, there are *** major producers of CMC in the world that *** accounted for about

*** of global purified CMC production capacity in 2009: ***.

Table IV-17

Purified CMC: Production capacity, United States, subject countries, other Europe, and Asia, 2009

* * * * * * *

China

China is the *** at *** manufacturing facilities.57 Global companies are represented as producers

of purified CMC in China with capacities as follows: ***.58

Parties were asked to provide information on the industry in China - its size, the number of

participants/companies/firms, and its capability to produce for all sectors. Aqualon reported *** metric

tons (*** pounds) of total CMC capacity in China available at *** producers capable of producing CMC

*** percent, with *** of those producers capable of producing CMC of *** percent purity CMC: ***. 

Aqualon’s total reported capacity in China for the *** producers identified as producing *** percent

purified CMC was *** metric tons (*** pounds), *** in table IV-17.59

Aqualon imported *** pounds of purified CMC from China in 2008 to ***.60

Akzo reported the number of CMC producers in China at ***, with around *** producing

purified grades and about *** producing non-purified grades.61 According to Akzo, the discrepancy

results from the fact that the majority of Chinese non-purified CMC producers are not registered with the

 55 Importers’ questionnaire responses (section I-12). Respondents’ foreign producer questionnaire responses

(section II-12b).

 56 Respondents’ foreign producer questionnaire responses (section II-12a and section II-12b).

 57 ***.

 58 Ibid., p. 98. ***. Staff telephone interview with ***, March 10, 2011. 

 59 Aqualon’s posthearing brief, February 28, 2011, attachment 3 (***).

 60 ***’s importer questionnaire response (sections II-6 and II-7b).

 61 Akzo’s posthearing brief, Responses to the Commission’s Questions, p. 5.

IV-13
Administration of Industry and Commerce at the local level and that some of these producers operate with

no company name.62 Akzo estimated that total Chinese CMC production capacity rose to 320 thousand

metric tons (705.5 million pounds) per year in 2010, with actual production at around 180 thousand

metric tons (396.8 million pounds) with approximately 120 thousand metric tons (264.6 million pounds)

of purified CMC and 60 thousand tons (132.3 million pounds) of non-purified CMC.63 Akzo defined

Chinese purified CMC as having a purity level of over 95 percent and cited uses for Chinese purified

CMC in such applications as food, oil drilling, toothpaste, pharmaceuticals, and paper; whereas Chinese

non-purified CMC, defined as having a purity level of over 70 percent, is primarily used for pottery,

construction, and detergents.64 Akzo further noted that in recent years, Chinese prices for CMC have

risen due to increased costs of raw materials, including cotton, wood pulp, monochloroacetic acid, and

sodium hydroxide.65

Amtex *** CMC producers in China; however, no differentiation was provided between purified

and non purified grades of CMC.66

***.67

***.68

***.69

France

***.70 ***.71 These imports were ***.72 Further discussion of Aqualon’s imports of purified

CMC from France is presented in Part III.

Colombia

Amtex reported installed capacity for purified CMC at its Colombian facility as *** metric tons

(*** pounds). Amtex’s Columbian facilities’ production and shipments of purified CMC are presented in

the following tabulation:

* * * * * * *

*** imported *** pounds of purified CMC from Colombia in 2005 to ***.73

 62 Ibid.

 63 Ibid.

 64 Ibid.

 65 Ibid., p. 6.

 66 Amtex’s Response to Additional Questions of the Commission, , March 4, 2011, exh. 2.

 67 ***.

 68 Ibid.

 69 Ibid.

 70 Ibid., p. 55.

 71 ***’s importer questionnaire response (section II-9).

 72 Aqualon’s importer questionnaire response (section II-9).

 73 ***’s importer questionnaire response (sections II-6 and II-7b).

IV-14
Argentina

Amtex’s installed capacity for purified CMC in its Argentinian facility is approximately ***

metric tons (*** pounds). Amtex’s Argentinian facilities’ production and shipments of purified CMC are

presented in the following tabulation:

* * * * * * *

Global Demand

All major producers of purified CMC produce and sell purified CMC throughout the world either

individually, through related companies, or both.74 Table IV-18 presents data on estimated global demand

for purified CMC during 2009. Total world consumption is estimated at *** million pounds. U.S.

apparent consumption of purified CMC represented approximately *** percent of world demand.

Table IV-18

Purified CMC: Global demand, U.S. consumption, and shares, 2009

* * * * * * *

 74 USITC Publication 3787, June 2005, p. VII-3, fn. 9.

IV-15

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICING

Raw Material Costs

During the original investigations, total raw material costs averaged about *** of Aqualon’s total

costs of goods sold for purified CMC.1

 Raw materials have continued to account for a large share of the

cost of producing purified CMC during 2005-09. The costs ranged from a low of *** percent of the costof-goods sold (COGS) in 2005 to a high of *** percent in 2008. During January-September 2010, raw

material costs accounted for *** percent of the cost-of-good sold.

The principal raw material inputs used to produce domestic purified CMC are cellulose,

monochloroacetic acid, and caustic soda. Major inputs in the cost of cellulose are cotton linters and wood

pulp. Annual costs (in dollars per kilogram) of cotton and wood pulp during 2006-10 are shown in the

tabulation.2

Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Cotton $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

High-viscosity wood pulp *** *** *** *** ***

Fluff (low-viscosity wood pulp *** *** *** *** ***

Source: Aqualon’s posthearing brief, p. 22

U.S. Inland Transportation

The U.S. producer and importers of CMC from subject countries were asked to report U.S. inland

transportation delivery costs as an approximate percentage of the total delivered price of purified CMC

during January 2005-September 2010. The U.S. producer, Aqualon, estimated a cost of *** percent. 

Among importers, estimates ranged from *** percent to *** percent. 

The U.S. producer and importers of purified CMC from subject countries were also asked to

estimate the percentages of their sales that were delivered within varying distances of their production or

storage facilities. Aqualon estimated that *** percent of its sales was delivered within 100 miles of its

production facilities, *** percent were within 101 to 1,000 miles, and *** percent involved distances of

over 1,000 miles. Of the two importers reporting U.S. shipments of imports separately for Finland, one

importer (***) estimated that *** percent of its shipments was for distances of less than 100 miles and the

other (***) estimated that *** percent was for distances between 101 miles and 1,000 miles and ***

percent were for distances of more than 1,000 miles. Of the two importers reporting U.S. shipments of

imports separately for Mexico, one (***) estimated that *** percent of sales were for distances between

101 miles and 1,000 miles and the other (***) estimated that between *** and *** percent of its

shipments involved distances of 101 to 1,000 miles, and between *** and *** percent involved distances

 1 Confidential Staff Report, Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, Netherlands and Sweden

(Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1084-1087 (Final), June 2, 2005, p. V-1.

 2

 To create the table for each year, Aqualon took its actual consumption costs of each material and divided by the

respective quantities to determine each of the fiscal year’s pricing by material type (email from attorney representing

Aqualon, March 16, 2011). 

V-1
of over 1,000 miles. One importer (***) reporting separately for the Netherlands stated that ***. 

Another importer (***) reporting on combined shipments from Finland, the Netherlands, and Sweden

estimated that *** percent of its shipments was for distances less than 100 miles, *** percent was for

distances between 101 and 1,000 miles, and *** percent was for distances of more than 1,000 miles.

PRICING PRACTICES

In the original investigations, questionnaire respondents reported that prices were determined by a

mixture of transaction-by-transaction negotiations, list prices, and contracts.3

 Aqualon reported that it

*** on both a delivered and f.o.b. basis. The majority of sales were on a contract basis.

When asked how prices were determined during January 2005 through September 2010, answers

varied. Aqualon reported that they were determined ***. Among importers, one importer of purified

CMC from Finland reported that it used ***; two importers of product from Mexico reported that ***;

one importer of product from the Netherlands reported the ***; and one importer of product from

Finland, the Netherlands, and Sweden reported using ***. 

Aqualon reported that it ***. One importer of purified CMC from Finland reported that ***. 

None of the other importers reported providing quantity discounts. Neither Aqualon nor any of the

importers ***.

Aqualon quotes prices ***, while importers from subject countries quote both delivered and f.o.b.

prices. Two importers of purified CMC from Mexico and one importer of product from the Netherlands

reported that they ***. Two importers of purified CMC from Finland both quotes prices on an ***. 

Another importer of product from Finland, the Netherlands, and Sweden reported that it quotes on either

an ***. 

 Aqualon reported that ***. Breakouts between spot and contract sales by the subject countries

were varied. Of the three firms reporting sales of imports from Finland, one reported that all sales are

made under short-term contracts, one reported that *** percent are sold under long-term contracts, and

*** percent are sold under short-term contracts, and one reported that sales are made ***. Of the two

importers of product from Mexico, one reported that ***, and the other reported that ***. Of two firms

reporting sales of imports from the Netherlands, one estimated that ***. The widely varied contracts

involving sales of imports from subject countries ranged from periods of 90 days to as much as several

years. Prices and quantities may or may not be fixed during the contract periods. 

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested the U.S. producer and importers of purified CMC from Finland,

Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden to provide quarterly data for the total quantity and value of

shipments of purified CMC to end users in the U.S. market during the period January 2005 through

September 2010.4

 The products for which pricing data were requested are as follows:5

 3 Confidential Staff Report, Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, Netherlands and Sweden

(Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1084-1087 (Final) June 2, 2005, pp. V-6 to V-8.

 4

 In addition to this data, importers that use purified CMC internally were asked to report prices paid for imports

from the subject country. However, very little usable data was reported. One importer ***. 

 5

 The pricing products shown are the same as those used in the original investigations. None of the parties asked

that the product categories be revised.

V-2
Product 1.–High viscosity (approximately 1,000 to 3,000 Mpas in 1 percent solution), degree of

substitution approximately 0.65 to 0.90 (i.e., 6.5 to 9.0 carboxymethyl groups per 10 anhydro- glucose

units), used for regulated (food or personal care) applications, excluding pharmaceutical. The trade

names of the suppliers for this product are: Aqualon–7HF; Noviant–Cekol 30,000; Akzo–Akucel AF278;

Amtex–PE 31FG.

Product 2.–Very high viscosity (approximately 2,500 to 9,000 Mpas in 1 percent solution), degree of

substitution approximately 0.65 to 0.90 (i.e., 6.5 to 9.0 carboxymethyl groups per 10 anhydroglucose

units), used for regulated (food or personal care) applications, excluding pharmaceutical. The trade

names of the suppliers for this product are: Aqualon–7H4F and 9H4F; Noviant–Cekol 50,000;

Akzo–Akucell 280X and 298X; Amtex–F1-4000 and F1-6000 (both formerly included in PE 32 FG). 

Product 3.–Medium viscosity (approximately 400 to 800 Mpas in 2 percent solution), degree of

substitution approximately 0.65 to 0.90 (i.e., 6.5 to 9.0 carboxymethyl groups per 10 anhydro- glucose

units), used for regulated (food or personal care) applications, excluding pharmaceutical. The trade

names of the suppliers for this product are: Aqualon–7MF; Noviant–Cekol 700; Akzo–Akucel AF150

and AF 170; Amtex–F2 750.

Product 4.–Medium viscosity (approximately 400 to 800 Mpas in 2 percent solution), degree of

substitution approximately 0.65 to 0.90 (i.e., 6.5 to 9.0 carboxymethyl groups per 10 anhydro- glucose

units), non-regulated (e.g., paper) applications (i.e., standard grade). The trade names of the suppliers for

this product are: Aqualon–7MT; Noviant–Finnfix 700; Akzo–None; Amtex–P 2 750. 

Product 5.–Low viscosity (approximately 20 to 1,000 Mpas in 4 percent solution, 5 to 100 Mpas in 2

percent solution), degree of substitution approximately 0.65 to 0.90 (i.e., 6.5 to 9.0 carboxymethyl groups

per 10 anhydroglucose units), non-regulated (e.g., paper) applications (i.e., standard grade). The trade

names of the suppliers for this product are: Aqualon (98 percent CMC minimum)–7L1, 7L2, and 7L;

Noviant (98 percent CMC minimum)–Finnfix 5, Finnfix 10, and Finnfix 30; Akzo–None; Amtex (92

percent CMC minimum)–P2-10, P2-30, and P2-75.

Product 6.–High viscosity (minimum 1,500 Mpas in 1 percent solution), degree of substitution 0.8 to 1.5

(i.e., 8 to 15 carboxymethyl groups per 10 anhydroglucose units), to oilfield customers. This product is

often sold to customers bearing the particular customer’s trade name for its oil drilling product, such as

Drispac, Milpac, and Polypac. Less frequently, the product bears a proprietary name of the manufacturer,

such as Aqualon’s Aquapac or Akzo’s Staflo. In all cases, the specifications and not the label on the bag

should be the controlling factor in reporting.

The U.S. producer, Aqualon, reported price data on sales to end users of all six products in all

quarters during January 2005 and September 2010, and six importers of product from subject countries

reported varying amounts of prices on sales to end users during this period. The price data reported by

Aqualon accounted for *** percent of the quantity of its U.S. shipments during this period. The importer

price data accounted for *** percent of U.S shipments of imports from Finland, *** percent of U.S.

shipments of imports from Mexico, *** percent of U.S. shipments of imports from the Netherlands,6

 and

*** percent of U.S. shipments of imports from Sweden. 

 6 Azko price data accounted for 8.9 percent of the total U.S. imports shipment data for the Netherlands in quantity

terms and. CP Kelco price data accounted for 20 percent.

V-3
Price Trends

Quarterly weighted-average price data for U.S.-produced and imported purified CMC from the

subject countries are presented in tables V-1 through V-6 and figure V-1 for the period January 2005

through September 2010. U.S. producer prices for all six products increased overall during the 23 quarter

period, despite frequent fluctuations from quarter to quarter. Prices of imports from Finland for products

4 and 5 also increased overall for the 23 quarter period. Sales of imports from Finland for products ***

and therefore, meaningful trends could not be reported for these products. Prices of products 1 and 2

from Mexico also increased overall during January 2005-September 1010. Prices of products 3 and 6

from Mexico also increased overall during the quarters where sales were reported while prices for

products 4 and 5 decreased. Prices of products 1, 2, 3, and 6 from the Netherlands all increased during

quarters where sales were reported, while the price of product 5 from the Netherlands decreased.7

 Prices

of imports from Sweden were only reported for product 3 during the last half of 2006 and the first quarter

of 2007. A summary of price ranges and percentage changes in prices is presented in table V-7. 

In examining trends in shipments during the 23 quarter period, U.S. shipments of products 3, 4, 5,

and 6 have decreased irregularly, while U.S. shipments of products 1 and 2 have fluctuated. Shipments

of products 4 and 5 from Finland have increased during the period despite wide fluctuations from quarter

to quarter. No clear trends are evident for shipments from Mexico and the Netherlands.

Table V-1

Purified CMC: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of product 1 sold to end users and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2005-September 2010

* * * * * * *

Table V-2

Purified CMC: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of product 2 sold to end users and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2005-September 2010

* * * * * * *

Table V-3

Purified CMC: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of product 3 sold to end users and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2005-September 2010

* * * * * * *

Table V-4

Purified CMC: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of product 4 sold to end users and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2005-September 2010

* * * * * * *

 7 Dutch prices for CP Kelco were only reported ***. Prices, quantities, and margins for the Netherlands with ***

data excluded are shown in appendix E. 

V-4
Table V-5

Purified CMC: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of product 5 sold to end users and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2005-September 2010

* * * * * * *

Table V-6

Purified CMC: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of product 6 sold to end users and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2005-September 2010

* * * * * * *

Figure V-1

Purified CMC: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product, by

quarters, January 2005-September 2010

* * * * * * *

Table V-7

Purified CMC: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices for products 1-6 from the United States,

Finland, Mexico, Netherlands and Sweden, January 2005-September 2010

* * * * * * *

Price Comparisons

Prices of imports from Finland and Mexico were lower than prices of U.S.-produced purified

CMC in the majority of quarterly comparisons during January 2005 through September 2010, as were the

three price comparisons involving Sweden, while prices of imports from the Netherlands were higher in

the majority of cases. Breakouts of margins of underselling/overselling by product and by country are

shown in table V-8.8

 8 ***. 

V-5
Table-V-8

Purified CMC: Instances of underselling (overselling) and the range of margins, by countries,

January 2005-September 2010

Item

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances Range (percent) Number of instances Range (percent)

By product:

Product 1 18 0.6-14.7 31 1.5-122.5

Product 2 26 0.3-26.3 18 1.2-138.1

Product 3 11 5.2-33.6 22 0.4-125.5

Product 4 22 2.9-33.5 11 2.5-25.6

Product 5 45 3.3-47.4 6 1.6-31.4

Product 6 0 - 18 0.9-128.5

By country:

Finland 49 0.6 - 33.5 11 3.2 - 128.5

Mexico 56 0.6 - 47.4 24 1.2 - 25.6

Netherlands 14 0.3 - 26.3 71 0.4 - 138.1

Sweden 3 23.5 -27.4 0 -

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Results of equivalent f.o.b quarterly price comparisons during 2002-04 from the original

investigation are shown in table II-9. The data show that prices of imports from Finland were lower than

prices of U.S.-produced purified CMC in all comparison, prices of imports from Mexico and Finland

were lower in the majority of comparisons, and prices of Dutch imports were higher in the majority of

comparisons.9

 9 Confidential Staff Report, Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, Netherlands and Sweden

(Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1084-1087 (Final), June 2, 2005, pp. V-21 through V-26. In addition to the f.o.b. price

comparisons, there were also net delivered purchase price comparisons during the original investigations. In these

comparisons prices of imports from Finland were lower than U.S. prices in 25 comparisons and higher in 3

comparisons; prices of imports from Mexico were lower in 18 comparisons and higher in 29comparisons; prices of

imports from the Netherlands were lower in 20 comparisons and higher in 29 comparisons; and prices of imports

from Sweden were lower in 18 comparisons and higher in 6 comparisons (table V-16 in the Confidential Staff

Report).

V-6
Table-V-9

Purified CMC: Instances of underselling (overselling) and the range of margins, by countries, 

2002-2004

Item

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances Range (percent) Number of instances Range (percent)

By product:

Product 1 20 0.6-21.4 6 0.6-27.2

Product 2 11 1.4-24.4 14 4.7-86.0

Product 3 10 7.5-22.2 13 4.0-351.5

Product 4 12 26.5-42.6 5 57.5-78.9

Product 5 23 15.2-27.5 4 4.3-10.6

Product 6 1 2.1-2.1 11 1.5-40.5

By country:

Finland 24 17.7-42.6 0 -

Mexico 23 1.3-28.7 18 4.3-86.0

Netherlands 21 0.6-24.4 29 0.6-351.5

Sweden 9 7.5-22.2 6 21.6-280.7

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

V-7

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES AND THE

COMMISSION’S STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

A-1

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 30431 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 10–5–217, 

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. 

the General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–2532. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be 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., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (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 investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission voted to institute this 

investigation on December 16, 2009, 

based on a complaint filed by Knowles 

Electronics LLC of Itasca, Illinois 

(‘‘Knowles’’). 74 FR 68077 (Dec. 22, 

2009). The complaint named as the sole 

respondent Analog Devices Inc. of 

Norwood, Massachusetts (‘‘Analog’’). 

The accused products are microphone 

packages. Knowles’ complaint asserts 

one claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,781,231, 

and numerous claims of U.S. Patent No. 

7,242,089. 

Knowles also filed with its complaint 

a motion for temporary relief that 

requested that the Commission issue a 

temporary limited exclusion order and 

temporary cease and desist order. The 

ID at issue is the ALJ’s denial of 

Knowles’ motion. In that ID, the ALJ 

analyzed the four factors for preliminary 

relief: likelihood of success on the 

merits, irreparable harm, balance of 

hardships, and public interest. 

On the likelihood of success on the 

merits, the ALJ found that all but one of 

the asserted patent claims were likely 

anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,324,907 

to Halteren. Some of these same claims 

were also likely anticipated by U.S. 

Patent No. 6,594,369 to Une. The 

remaining claim, while not invalid, was 

not likely infringed. There was no 

patent claim for which Knowles 

demonstrated a likelihood of success on 

the merits (i.e., as to both validity and 

infringement). 

The ID also found that Knowles had 

not demonstrated irreparable harm. In 

particular, the ID found that Analog’s 

sales of accused microphone packages 

had not caused Knowles lost sales, had 

not damaged Knowles’ relationships 

with its customers, and otherwise had 

no proven detrimental effect on 

Knowles. The ALJ found that these two 

factors (likelihood of success and 

irreparable harm) precluded temporary 

relief here. Nonetheless, the ALJ 

considered the remaining two factors 

(balance of hardships and the public 

interest). As to these remaining two 

factors, the ID found that the balance of 

hardships favored Knowles, and the ID 

also found that the public interest 

would not preclude preliminary relief. 

On review to the Commission, the 

parties filed opening and reply 

comments, as authorized by 19 CFR 

210.66(c) & (e)(1). These comments do 

not take issue with the ALJ’s findings 

regarding the balance of hardships or 

the public interest. Instead, the 

comments principally deal with 

Knowles’ likelihood of success on the 

merits, challenging various aspects of 

the ALJ’s analyses of validity and 

infringement. The private parties also 

dispute whether the Commission should 

address at all the likelihood of success, 

as Knowles now concedes to the 

Commission that it has not suffered 

irreparable harm. Thus, Knowles 

believes that the question of likelihood 

of success is moot and urges the 

Commission not to reach likelihood of 

success. Analog has taken the position 

that Knowles’ concession is 

inappropriate and that the Commission 

should decide likelihood of success. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s ID 

and the subsequent comments and reply 

comments, the Commission finds that 

even absent Knowles’ concession, 

irreparable harm has not been 

demonstrated. It was Knowles’ burden 

to demonstrate that such harm was 

likely absent temporary relief, and it 

failed to meet that burden. Winter v. 

Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 129 

S. Ct. 365, 375 (2008). The Commission 

notes, in addition to the reasons 

discussed in the ID, that Knowles did 

not seek temporary relief to exclude the 

only product it has identified that 

allegedly contains the accused 

microphone package. See Complaint of 

Knowles Elecs. LLC Under Section 337 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended 

¶¶ 6, 18, 48–49 (Nov. 12, 2009). The 

Commission has therefore determined 

not to review the ID’s finding of lack of 

irreparable harm and the ID’s denial of 

temporary relief. The parties have not 

sought the Commission’s review as to 

the balance of hardships and public 

interest analyses, and the Commission 

has determined not to review the ID’s 

findings on those issues. 

Because irreparable harm is 

dispositive here, the Commission need 

not evaluate the likelihood of success on 

the merits, and therefore, the 

Commission has determined to review 

the ID’s finding on likelihood of success 

and to take no position on it. See Beloit 

Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421 (Fed. 

Cir. 1984). The Commission’s decision 

enables the ALJ to assess the merits 

unburdened by Commission 

impressions that may have been formed 

on a limited temporary-relief record. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in 

sections 210.52 and 210.66 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.52, 210.66). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: May 21, 2010. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12742 Filed 5–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1084–1087 

(Review)] 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 

Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the antidumping duty orders 

on carboxymethylcellulose from 

Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and 

Sweden. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

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

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on 

carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 

Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of material injury. 

Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, 

interested parties are requested to 

respond to this notice by submitting the 

information specified below to the 

Commission; 1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is July 1, 2010. Comments on 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
30432 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 

2Commerce excluded three forms of 

carboxymethylcellulose from the scope of the 

original investigations: unpurified or crude 

carboxymethylcellulose (often called ‘‘technical 

carboxymethylcellulose’’), carboxymethylcellulose 

in fluidized polymer suspension, and 

carboxymethylcellulose that is cross-linked through 

heat treatment. 

the adequacy of responses may be filed 

with the Commission by August 16, 

2010. For further information 

concerning the conduct of these reviews 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207), as most recently amended at 74 FR 

2847 (January 16, 2009). 

DATES: Effective Date: June 1, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On July 11, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce issued 

antidumping duty orders on imports of 

purified carboxymethylcellulose from 

Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and 

Sweden (70 FR 39734). The Commission 

is conducting reviews to determine 

whether revocation of the orders would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to the 

domestic industry within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. It will assess the 

adequacy of interested party responses 

to this notice of institution to determine 

whether to conduct full or expedited 

reviews. The Commission’s 

determinations in any expedited 

reviews will be based on the facts 

available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions.—The following 

definitions apply to these reviews: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year review, as defined 

by the Department of Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Countries in these 

reviews are Finland, Mexico, 

Netherlands, and Sweden. 

(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 

determinations, the Commission found 

one Domestic Like Product consisting of 

all forms of purified 

carboxymethylcellulose, as that term 

was defined by Commerce in the scope 

of the original investigations.2

(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. Based on its finding that the 

Domestic Like Product consisted of all 

purified carboxymethylcellulose, the 

Commission found in its original 

determinations that the Domestic 

Industry consisted of Aqualon, the only 

domestic producer of purified 

carboxymethylcellulose at that time. 

(5) The Order Date is the date that the 

antidumping duty orders under review 

became effective. In these reviews, the 

Order Date is July 11, 2005. 

(6) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

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

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the reviews. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

official has advised that a five-year 

review is not considered the ‘‘same 

particular matter’’ as the corresponding 

underlying original investigation for 

purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post 

employment statute for Federal 

employees, and Commission rule 

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

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are not 

required to seek Commission approval 

to appear in a review under Commission 

rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy 

Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205– 

3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

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

who are parties to the reviews. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification.—Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with these 

reviews must certify that the 

information is accurate and complete to 

the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In 

making the certification, the submitter 

will be deemed to consent, unless 

otherwise specified, for the 

Commission, its employees, and 

contract personnel to use the 

information provided in any other 

reviews or investigations of the same or 

comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

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

Written submissions.—Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is July 1, 2010. Pursuant 

to section 207.62(b) of the Commission’s 

rules, eligible parties (as specified in 

Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also 

file comments concerning the adequacy 

of responses to the notice of institution 

and whether the Commission should 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 30433 

conduct an expedited or full review. 

The deadline for filing such comments 

is August 16, 2010. All written 

submissions must conform with the 

provisions of sections 201.8 and 207.3 

of the Commission’s rules and any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

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

accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each 

document filed by a party to the reviews 

must be served on all other parties to 

the reviews (as identified by either the 

public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the reviews you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information.—Pursuant to section 

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

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determinations in the reviews. 

Information To Be Provided In 

Response To This Notice Of Institution: 

If you are a domestic producer, union/ 

worker group, or trade/business 

association; import/export Subject 

Merchandise from more than one 

Subject Country; or produce Subject 

Merchandise in more than one Subject 

Country, you may file a single response. 

If you do so, please ensure that your 

response to each question includes the 

information requested for each pertinent 

Subject Country. As used below, the 

term ‘‘firm’’ includes any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address) and name, telephone number, 

fax number, and E-mail address of the 

certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

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

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

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

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in these reviews by providing 

information requested by the 

Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on the Domestic Industry in 

general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

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

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of 

subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

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

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in each Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries since 

the Order Date. 

(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in 

the U.S. market for the Domestic Like 

Product and the Subject Merchandise 

(including street address, World Wide 

Web address, and the name, telephone 

number, fax number, and E-mail address 

of a responsible official at each firm). 

(8) A list of known sources of 

information on national or regional 

prices for the Domestic Like Product or 

the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or 

other markets. 

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

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2009, except as noted 

(report quantity data in pounds and 

value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). 

If you are a union/worker group or 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms in which your workers are 

employed/which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., 

the level of production that your 

establishment(s) could reasonably have 

expected to attain during the year, 

assuming normal operating conditions 

(using equipment and machinery in 

place and ready to operate), normal 

operating levels (hours per week/weeks 

per year), time for downtime, 

maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a 

typical or representative product mix); 

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

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); 

(d) The quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

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

(e) The value of (i) Net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of the Domestic Like Product 

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

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

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

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country(ies), provide 

the following information on your 

firm’s(s’) operations on that product 

during calendar year 2009 (report 

quantity data in pounds and value data 

in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/ 

business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from each Subject 

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

imports; 

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

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from each 

Subject Country; and 

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

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from each Subject Country. 

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

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
30434 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 10–5–218, 

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. 

2Following the five-year reviews, Commerce 

revoked the antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel plate from Canada effective May 21, 2004 (70 

FR 41207, July 18, 2005). 3Following a changed circumstances review, 

Commerce revoked the countervailing duty order 

on stainless steel plate from Italy, effective 

September 4, 1998 (71 FR 15380, March 28, 2006). 

Country(ies), provide the following 

information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2009 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars, landed and duty-paid at the 

U.S. port but not including antidumping 

duties). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in each Subject Country accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) the quantity and value of your 

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

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

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

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country since the Order 

Date, and significant changes, if any, 

that are likely to occur within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. Supply 

conditions to consider include 

technology; production methods; 

development efforts; ability to increase 

production (including the shift of 

production facilities used for other 

products and the use, cost, or 

availability of major inputs into 

production); and factors related to the 

ability to shift supply among different 

national markets (including barriers to 

importation in foreign markets or 

changes in market demand abroad). 

Demand conditions to consider include 

end uses and applications; the existence 

and availability of substitute products; 

and the level of competition among the 

Domestic Like Product produced in the 

United States, Subject Merchandise 

produced in each Subject Country, and 

such merchandise from other countries. 

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: May 24, 2010. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12760 Filed 5–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–376 and 379 

and 731–TA–788, 790–793 (Second Review)] 

Stainless Steel Plate From Belgium, 

Italy, Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the countervailing duty 

orders on stainless steel plate from 

Belgium and South Africa and the 

antidumping duty orders on stainless 

steel plate from Belgium, Italy, Korea, 

South Africa, and Taiwan. 
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Notices 30777 

Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act 

provides for ‘‘ * * * the establishment 

* * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of 

entry of the United States, to expedite 

and encourage foreign commerce, and 

for other purposes,’’ and authorizes the 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to 

qualified corporations the privilege of 

establishing foreign-trade zones in or 

adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection ports of entry; 

Whereas, the Board’s regulations (15 

CFR part 400) provide for the 

establishment of special-purpose 

subzones when existing zone facilities 

cannot serve the specific use involved, 

and when the activity results in a 

significant public benefit and is in the 

public interest; 

Whereas, the Cedar Rapids Airport 

Commission, grantee of FTZ 175, has 

made application to the Board for 

authority to establish special-purpose 

subzone status with manufacturing 

authority at the Deere & Company 

facilities, located in Waterloo, Iowa 

(FTZ Docket 50–2009, filed 11/12/2009); 

Whereas, notice inviting public 

comment has been given in the Federal 

Register (74 FR 59524, 11/18/2009) and 

the application has been processed 

pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s 

regulations; and, 

Whereas, the Board adopts the 

findings and recommendations of the 

examiner’s report, and finds that the 

requirements of the FTZ Act and 

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and 

that the proposal is in the public 

interest; 

Now, therefore, the Board hereby 

grants authority for subzone status for 

activity related to the manufacturing 

and distribution of agricultural 

equipment at the facilities of Deere & 

Company, located in Waterloo, Iowa 

(Subzone 175A), as described in the 

application and Federal Register notice, 

subject to the FTZ Act and the Board’s 

regulations, including Section 400.28. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of 

May, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13214 Filed 6–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Order No. 1681] 

Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; 

South Florida Materials Corporation 

(Distribution of Petroleum Products); 

Port Everglades, FL 

Pursuant to its authority under the ForeignTrade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the ForeignTrade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the 

following Order: 

Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act 

provides for ‘‘* * * the establishment 

* * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of 

entry of the United States, to expedite 

and encourage foreign commerce, and 

for other purposes,’’ and authorizes the 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to 

qualified corporations the privilege of 

establishing foreign-trade zones in or 

adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection ports of entry; 

Whereas, the Board’s regulations (15 

CFR part 400) provide for the 

establishment of special-purpose 

subzones when existing zone facilities 

cannot serve the specific use involved, 

and when the activity results in a 

significant public benefit and is in the 

public interest; 

Whereas, Broward County, Florida, 

grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 25, has 

made application to the Board for 

authority to establish a special-purpose 

subzone at the petroleum product 

storage and distribution facility of South 

Florida Materials Corporation (d/b/a 

Vencenergy), located in Port Everglades, 

Florida, (FTZ Docket 44–2009, filed 10/ 

22/2009); 

Whereas, notice inviting public 

comment has been given in the Federal 

Register (74 FR 55812–55813, 10/29/ 

2009) and the application has been 

processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and 

the Board’s regulations; and, 

Whereas, the Board adopts the 

findings and recommendations of the 

examiner’s report, and finds that the 

requirements of the FTZ Act and 

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and 

that the proposal is in the public 

interest; 

Now, therefore, the Board hereby 

grants authority for subzone status for 

activity related to petroleum product 

storage and distribution at the facility of 

South Florida Materials Corporation 

(d/b/a Vencenergy), located in Port 

Everglades (Subzone 25F), as described 

in the application and Federal Register 

notice, subject to the FTZ Act and the 

Board’s regulations, including Section 

400.28. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of 

May 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13210 Filed 6–1–10; 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 and countervailing duty 

orders listed below. The International 

Trade Commission (‘‘the Commission’’) 

is publishing concurrently with this 

notice its notice of Institution of FiveYear Review which covers the same 

orders. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 1, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230. For 

information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 

13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 

62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on 

methodological or analytical issues 

relevant to the Department’s conduct of 

Sunset Reviews is set forth in the 

Department’s Policy Bulletin 98.3— 

Policies Regarding the Conduct of FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
30778 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Notices 

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 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

and countervailing duty orders: 

DOC Case No. ITC Case No. Country Product Department 

contact 

A–405–803 ........ 731–TA–1084 ... Finland .................... Carboxymethyl-cellulose ......................... Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–201–834 ........ 731–TA–1085 ... Mexico .................... Carboxymethyl-cellulose ......................... Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–421–811 ........ 731–TA–1086 ... Netherlands ............ Carboxymethyl-cellulose ......................... Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–405–803 ........ 731–TA–1087 ... Sweden .................. Carboxymethyl-cellulose ......................... Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–423–808 ........ 731–TA–788 ..... Belgium .................. Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (2nd Review).Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182. 

A–475–822 ........ 731–TA–790 ..... Italy ......................... Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (2nd Review).Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182. 

A–580–831 ........ 731–TA–791 ..... Korea ...................... Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (2nd Review).Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182. 

A–791–805 ........ 731–TA–792 ..... South Africa ............ Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (2nd Review).Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182. 

A–583–830 ........ 731–TA–783 ..... Taiwan .................... Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (2nd Review).Brandon Farlander (202) 482–1391. 

A–428–825 ........ 731–TA–798 ..... Germany ................. Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

(2nd Review).

Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–475–824 ........ 731–TA–799 ..... Italy ......................... Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

(2nd Review).

Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–588–845 ........ 731–TA–800 ..... Japan ...................... Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

(2nd Review).

Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–580–834 ........ 731–TA–801 ..... Korea ...................... Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

(2nd Review).

Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–201–822 ........ 731–TA–802 ..... Mexico .................... Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

(2nd Review).

Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–583–831 ........ 731–TA–803 ..... Taiwan .................... Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

(2nd Review).

Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

C–423–809 ....... 701–TA–376 ..... Belgium .................. Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (2nd Review).Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182. 

C–791–806 ....... 701–TA–379 ..... South Africa ............ Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (2nd Review).Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182. 

C–580–835 ....... 701–TA–382 ..... Korea ...................... Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

(2nd Review).

Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182. 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statute and Department’s 

regulations, the Department schedule 

for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past 

revocations and continuations, and 

current service lists, available to the 

public on the Department’s Internet 

Web site at the following address: 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/. All 

submissions in these Sunset Reviews 

must be filed in accordance with the 

Department’s regulations regarding 

format, translation, service, and 

certification of documents. These rules 

can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews 

can be very short, we urge interested 

parties to apply for access to proprietary 

information under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The Department’s regulations on 

submission of proprietary information 

and eligibility to receive access to 

business proprietary information under 

APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304– 

306. 

Information Required From Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties defined in 

section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b) wishing 

to participate in a Sunset Review must 

respond not later than 15 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The 

required contents of the notice of intent 

to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with the 

Department’s regulations, if we do not 

receive a notice of intent to participate 

from at least one domestic interested 

party by the 15-day deadline, the 

Department will automatically revoke 

the order without further review. See 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

If we receive an order-specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the Sunset 

Review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order-specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 

requirements. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Notices 30779 

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. 

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department. 

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218 

(c). 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13058 Filed 6–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

Notice of Jointly Owned Invention 

Available for Licensing 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of jointly owned 

invention available for licensing. 

SUMMARY: The invention listed below is 

jointly owned by the U.S. Government, 

as represented by the Department of 

Commerce, and by Applied Research 

Associates, Inc. The Department of 

Commerce’s interest in the invention is 

available for licensing in accordance 

with 35 U.S.C. 207 and 37 CFR part 404 

to achieve expeditious 

commercialization of results of federally 

funded research and development. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Technical and licensing information on 

this invention may be obtained by 

writing to: National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, Office of 

Technology Partnerships, Building 222, 

Room A242, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. 

Information is also available via 

telephone: 301–975–2649, fax 301–975– 

3482, or e-mail: nathalie.rioux@nist.gov. 

Any request for information should 

include the NIST Docket number or 

Patent number and title for the 

invention as indicated below. 

The invention available for licensing 

is: 

[NIST DOCKET NUMBER: 10–004] 

Title: Gradient Elution Moving 

Boundary Electrophoresis for the 

Analysis of Complex Samples and 

Detection of Toxins. 

Abstract: Methods of detecting the 

presence of toxins in a sample using 

electrophoretic separations and of 

performing electrophoretic separation of 

complex samples are provided. The 

method of detecting the presence of 

toxins includes reacting a sample and a 

substrate with a signaling enzyme 

which converts the substrate to the 

product in a reaction medium, 

introducing a run buffer into a 

separation channel having an inlet end, 

selectively introducing at least one of 

the substrate and the product of the 

reaction medium into the inlet end of 

the separation channel, 

electrophoretically separating the 

substrate and the product, and 

determining the rate of conversion of 

the substrate to the product, wherein a 

change in the rate of conversion is 

indicative of the presence of toxins. The 

method of performing electrophoretic 

separations of complex samples having 

charged particulates and oppositely 

charged analytes comprises introducing 

a run buffer into a separation channel 

having an inlet end, selectively 

introducing the oppositely charged 

analytes in the complex sample into the 

separation channel, and 

electrophoretically separating the 

charged particulates and the oppositely 

charged analytes. Additionally, a device 

for varying with respect to time the bulk 

flow of a fluid in a separation channel 

of an electrophoretic device having a 

buffer reservoir in fluid contact with the 

separation channel is provided. The 

device includes a pressure sensor in 

fluid contact with a buffer reservoir, a 

high pressure reservoir in selective 

fluidic communication with the buffer 

reservoir, a low pressure reservoir in 

selective fluidic communication with 

the buffer reservoir and in fluidic 

communication with the high pressure 

reservoir, and a pumping device for 

pumping a gas from the low pressure 

reservoir to the high pressure reservoir. 

Dated: May 25, 2010. 

Katharine B. Gebbie, 

Director, Physics Laboratory. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13200 Filed 6–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XW62 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone off Alaska; Stock Assessment of 

Eastern Bering Sea Pollock; Peer 

Review Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has requested the 

Center for Independent Experts (CIE) to 

conduct a peer review of the agency’s 

stock assessment of Eastern Bering Sea 

walleye pollock (Theragra 

chalcogramma). The CIE, operated by 

Northern Taiga Ventures, Inc., provides 

independent peer reviews of NMFS’s 

fisheries stock assessments. The Eastern 

Bering Sea pollock stock assessment is 

reviewed annually by the Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center, the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(NPFMC) Plan Team, and the NPFMC 

Scientific and Statistical Committee. 

The CIE review will examine whether 

the assessment incorporates the best 

available scientific information and 

provides a reasonable approach to 

understanding the population dynamics 

and stock status of Eastern Bering Sea 

pollock. The public is invited to attend 

and observe the presentations and 

discussions between the CIE panel and 

the NMFS scientists who collected and 

processed the data, and designed the 

underlying model. 

DATES: The public meeting will be held 

from June 28 through July 2, 2010, 9 

a.m. to 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time. 

ADDRESSES: The review will be held at 

the NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., 

Building 4, Seattle, WA 98115. Photo 

identification is required to enter this 

facility. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Ianelli, 206–526–6510. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CIE 

panel will consist of three peer 

reviewers who will assess materials 

related to the topic, participate in a 

review workshop with the NMFS 

scientists who developed the model and 

the analytical approach, and produce a 

report. This review will be highly 

technical in nature and will cover 

mathematical details of the analytical 

approach. More information about the 

CIE is available on its website at 

www.ciereviews.org. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2010 / Notices 57815 

experiment, or survey or disseminate 

any information to the public. 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

These proposed supplementary rules 

do not constitute a significant energy 

action. The proposed supplementary 

rules will not have an adverse effect on 

energy supplies, production, or 

consumption, and have no connection 

with energy policy. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

These proposed supplementary rules 

do not contain information collection 

requirements that the Office of 

Management and Budget must approve 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

Author 

The principal author of this 

supplementary rule is Keith McGrath, 

State Staff Law Enforcement Ranger, 

Bureau of Land Management. 

For the reasons stated in the 

Preamble, and under the authority of 43 

CFR 8365.1–6, the Idaho State Director,

Bureau of Land Management, issues 

supplementary rules for public lands in 

Idaho, to read as follows: 

Supplementary Rules for the State of 

Idaho 

Definitions 

Alcoholic beverage means any liquid 

or solid, patented or not, containing 

alcohol, spirits, or wine, and susceptible 

of being consumed by a human being, 

for beverage purposes, and containing 

more than 3 percent of alcohol by 

weight. 

Alcohol means the product of 

distillation of any fermented liquor, 

rectified either once or more often, 

whatever may be the origin thereof, or 

synthetic ethyl alcohol. 

Beer means any beverage obtained by 

the alcoholic fermentation of an 

infusion or decoction of barley, malt 

and/or other ingredients in drinkable 

water. 

Wine means any alcoholic beverage 

obtained by the fermentation of the 

natural sugar content of fruits (grapes, 

apples, etc.) or other agricultural 

products containing sugar (honey, milk, 

etc.). 

Vehicle means any motorized 

transportation conveyance designed and

licensed for use on roadways, such as an 

automobile, bus, or truck, and any 

motorized conveyance originally 

equipped with safety belts. 

Off Highway Vehicle means any 

motorized vehicle capable of, or

designed for, travel on or immediately 

over land, water, or other natural 

terrain. On public land administered by 

the BLM within the State of Idaho, you 

must not: 

A. Violate any state laws relating to 

the purchase, possession, supply, use or 

consumption of alcohol; 

B. Drink from or possess an open 

alcoholic beverage containers, including 

beer or wine containers, while operating 

or as a passenger in or on either a 

vehicle or off highway vehicle; and 

C. Possess any drug paraphernalia in 

violation of any State law. 

Penalties: On public lands under 

section 303(a) of the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 

U.S.C. 1733(a) and 43 CFR 8360.0–7, 

any person who violates any of these 

supplementary rules may be tried before 

a United States Magistrate and fined no 

more than $1,000 or imprisoned for no 

more than 12 months, or both. Such 

violations may also be subject to 

enhanced fines provided for by 18 

U.S.C. 3571. 

Peter J. Ditton, 

Acting Idaho State Director. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23719 Filed 9–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–GG–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigations Nos. 731–TA–1084–1087 

(Review)] 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From 

Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and 

Sweden 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of full five-year 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty orders on purified 

carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 

Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of a full review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) 

(the Act) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on purified 

carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 

Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden 

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: September 14, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cynthia Trainor (202–205–3354), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On September 7, 2010, 

the Commission determined that 

responses to its notice of institution of 

the subject five-year reviews were such 

that full reviews pursuant to section 

751(c)(5) of the Act should proceed. A 

record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements are available from the Office 

of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in these reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11 of the 

Commission’s rules, by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. A party that 

filed a notice of appearance following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the reviews need not 

file an additional notice of appearance. 

The Secretary will maintain a public 

service list containing the names and 

addresses of all persons, or their 

representatives, who are parties to the 

reviews. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made by 45 days after 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
57816 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2010 / Notices 

publication of this notice. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

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

who are parties to the reviews. A party 

granted access to BPI following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the reviews need not 

reapply for such access. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Staff report.—The prehearing staff 

report in the reviews will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on January 26, 

2011, and a public version will be 

issued thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.64 of the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing.—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the 

reviews beginning at 9:30 a.m. on 

February 16, 2011, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building. Requests to appear at the 

hearing should be filed in writing with 

the Secretary to the Commission on or 

before February 8, 2011. A nonparty 

who has testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the hearing. All parties and 

nonparties desiring to appear at the 

hearing and make oral presentations 

should attend a prehearing conference 

to be held at 9:30 a.m. on February 10, 

2011, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Oral testimony 

and written materials to be submitted at 

the public hearing are governed by 

sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, 

and 207.66 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Written submissions.—Each party to 

the reviews may submit a prehearing 

brief to the Commission. Prehearing 

briefs must conform with the provisions 

of section 207.65 of the Commission’s 

rules; the deadline for filing is February 

9, 2011. Parties may also file written 

testimony in connection with their 

presentation at the hearing, as provided 

in section 207.24 of the Commission’s 

rules, and posthearing briefs, which 

must conform with the provisions of 

section 207.67 of the Commission’s 

rules. The deadline for filing 

posthearing briefs is February 28, 2011; 

witness testimony must be filed no later 

than three days before the hearing. In 

addition, any person who has not 

entered an appearance as a party to the 

reviews may submit a written statement 

of information pertinent to the subject of 

the reviews on or before February 28, 

2011. On April 1, 2011, the Commission 

will make available to parties all 

information on which they have not had 

an opportunity to comment. Parties may 

submit final comments on this 

information on or before April 5, 2011, 

but such final comments must not 

contain new factual information and 

must otherwise comply with section 

207.68 of the Commission’s rules. All 

written submissions must conform with 

the provisions of section 201.8 of the 

Commission’s rules; any submissions 

that contain BPI must also conform with 

the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II(C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

reviews must be served on all other 

parties to the reviews (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 15, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23677 Filed 9–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Notice is hereby given that on August 

26, 2010, an electronic version of a 

proposed Consent Decree was lodged in 

the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Georgia in United

States v. Tronox Pigments (Savannah), 

Inc., No. 408–259. The Consent Decree 

settles the United States’ claims against 

Tronox Pigments (Savannah), Inc. 

(‘‘Tronox Pigments’’) for civil penalties 

and injunctive relief based on violations 

of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et 

seq. (‘‘CAA’’) and implementing 

regulations, as well as a permit issued 

to Tronox Pigments by the State of 

Georgia pursuant to a State 

Implementation Plan (‘‘Georgia SIP’’) 

approved by EPA pursuant to the CAA 

and a permit issued to Tronox Pigments 

under Title V of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 

7661–7661f (‘‘CAA’’) and Georgia’s Title 

V regulations; violations of the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act 

(‘‘RCRA’’), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. and 

implementing regulations; violations of 

the Clean Water Act (‘‘CWA’’), 33 U.S.C. 

1251 et seq. and implementing 

regulations; and a violation of Section 

103(a) of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 

1980, as amended, (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 

U.S.C. 9603(a) and implementing 

regulations.

Under the terms of the proposed 

Consent Decree, Tronox Pigments will, 

among other things, apply for an 

amended Title V permit to include the 

air emissions limits contained in the 

consent decree upon any resumption of 

titanium dioxide production at the 

Savannah facility. The consent decree 

requires Tronox to continue performing 

a RCRA investigation and cleanup 

under State supervision, including 

addressing the new areas of 

noncompliance identified by EPA. For 

CWA compliance, Tronox Pigments will 

complete the excavation of the ditch 

system. Tronox Pigments and its 

affiliates have filed for bankruptcy 

protection under Chapter 11 of the 

Bankruptcy Code, and under the 

consent decree a civil penalty of $4.2 

million will be treated as an allowed 

claim. The consent decree resolves the 

litigation filed in the Southern District 

of Georgia.

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of thirty (30) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

relating to the proposed Consent Decree. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, and either e-mailed to 

pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or 

mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, and should refer to United 

States v. Tronox Pigments (Savannah), 

Inc., No. 408–259 and DOJ No. 90–5–2– 

1–09052.


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
61700 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Notices 

1With respect to the antidumping duty order on 

CMC from Mexico, the Department is conducting a 

full sunset review, the preliminary results of which 

were signed on September 20, 2010. See Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Mexico: Preliminary 

Results of the First Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of 

Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 60084 (September 

29, 2010). 

2Aqualon Company is a division of Hercules 

Incorporated. 

Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

South Africa: 

Columbus Stainless .......................................................................................................................................................................... 41.63 

All-Others Rate ................................................................................................................................................................................. 41.63 

South Korea: 

Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................................................... 16.26 

All-Others Rate ................................................................................................................................................................................. 16.26 

Yieh United Steel Corporation .......................................................................................................................................................... 8.02 

YUSCO/Ta Chen .............................................................................................................................................................................. 10.20 

All-Others Rate ................................................................................................................................................................................. 7.39

* AMS Belgium is the successor-in-interest to ALZ N.V. 

** Thyssen Krupp Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A is the successor-in-interest to Acciai Speciali Terni SpA. 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective orders 

is hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: September 30, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25216 Filed 10–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–405–803, A–421–811, A–401–808] 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From 

Finland, the Netherlands, and Sweden: 

Final Results of the Expedited First 

Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping 

Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On June 2, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated first sunset 

reviews of the antidumping duty orders 

on purified carboxymethylcellulose 

(CMC) from, inter alia, Finland, the 

Netherlands, and Sweden, pursuant to 

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

as amended (the Act). The Department 

has conducted expedited (120-day) 

sunset reviews of the Finland, the 

Netherlands, and Sweden antidumping 

duty orders pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2).1 As a result of 

these sunset reviews, the Department 

finds that revocation of the antidumping 

duty orders would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dena Crossland or Angelica Mendoza, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3362 or (202) 482– 

3019, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 2, 2010, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

notice of initiation of the sunset reviews 

of the antidumping duty orders on CMC 

from Finland, the Netherlands, Mexico, 

and Sweden, pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Act. See Initiation of Five-Year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 75 FR 30777 (June 2, 

2010) (Notice of Initiation). 

The Department received a notice of 

intent to participate from domestic 

interested party Aqualon Company 

(Aqualon) 2 within the deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 

Aqualon claimed interested party status 

under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as 

the sole manufacturer of a domestic-like 

product in the United States. 

The Department received adequate 

substantive responses to the Notice of 

Initiation from Aqualon within the 30- 

day deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no 

substantive responses from respondent 

interested parties with respect to the 

antidumping duty orders on CMC from 

Finland and Sweden. 

On July 2, 2010, respondent Akzo 

Nobel filed a response concerning the 

sunset review of CMC from the 

Netherlands. Using the data provided by 

Aqualon in its July 1, 2010, substantive 

response, and data provided by Akzo 

Nobel in its July, 2, 2010, response, the 

Department found that Akzo Nobel 

accounted for less than 50 percent of 

exports of subject merchandise from the 

Netherlands. On July 22, 2010, the 

Department determined that Akzo 

Nobel’s response was not adequate 

because it did not account for more than 

50 percent of the total exports of subject 

merchandise to the United States over 

the relevant five-year period as required 

by 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A). See 

Memorandum to Richard O. Weible, 

Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, 

‘‘Adequacy Determination in the First 

Five-Year ‘Sunset Review’ (2005 

through 2009) of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from the 

Netherlands,’’ dated July 22, 2010. 

As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department 

determined that it would conduct 

expedited (120-day) sunset reviews of 

the antidumping duty orders on CMC 

from Finland, the Netherlands, and 

Sweden and notified the U.S. 

International Trade Commission. See 

Letter to Ms. Catherine DeFilippo, 

Director, Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, from 

James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/ 

CVD Operations, entitled ‘‘Expedited 

and Full Sunset Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders Initiated in 

June 2010,’’ dated July 22, 2010. 

On September 15, 2010, the 

Department contacted Aqualon 

regarding its reference to Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) number 3913.31.00.10 at page 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Notices 61701 

3Although HTSUS number 3912.31.00.10 may be 

more specific to subject merchandise, it was not 

created until 2005. As such, we are relying on 

HTSUS number 3912.31.00 for purposes of these 

sunset reviews because in determining whether 

revocation of an order would likely lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping, the 

Department considers the margins established in 

the investigation and/or reviews conducted during 

the sunset review period as well as the volume of 

imports for the periods before and after the issuance 

of the order. See section 752(c)(1) of the Act. 

4The Department preliminarily determined that 

Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals B.V. is the 

successor-in-interest to Akzo Nobel Surface 

Chemistry B.V. See Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose From the Netherlands; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 48310 (August 10, 

2010). The Department intends to issue the final 

results on December 8, 2010 (the deadline may be 

extended). 

12 of the Appendix of its substantive 

response, dated July 1, 2010. Aqualon 

stated on September 15, 2010, that it 

had mistakenly referenced the wrong 

HTSUS number in its substantive 

response and intended to reference 

HTSUS number 3912.31.00.10. See 

Memorandum to the File from Dena 

Crossland, Regarding Preliminary 

Results of First Sunset Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 

the Netherlands, and Sweden; 

Correction to Domestic Interested 

Party’s July 1, 2010, Substantive 

Response, dated September 23, 2010. 

Scope of the Orders 

The merchandise covered by the 

orders is all purified CMC, sometimes 

also referred to as purified sodium CMC, 

polyanionic cellulose, or cellulose gum, 

which is a white to off-white, non-toxic, 

odorless, biodegradable powder, 

comprising sodium CMC that has been 

refined and purified to a minimum 

assay of 90 percent. Purified CMC does 

not include unpurified or crude CMC, 

CMC Fluidized Polymer Suspensions, 

and CMC that is cross-linked through 

heat treatment. Purified CMC is CMC 

that has undergone one or more 

purification operations, which, at a 

minimum, reduce the remaining salt 

and other by-product portion of the 

product to less than ten percent. The 

merchandise subject to the orders is 

currently classified in the HTSUS at 

subheading 3912.31.00.3 This tariff 

classification is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes; 

however, the written description of the 

scope of the orders is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in these reviews are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Expedited First 

Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping 

Duty Orders on Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, 

the Netherlands, and Sweden’’ from 

Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, to 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration 

(Decision Memo), which is hereby 

adopted by, and issued concurrently 

with, this notice. The issues discussed 

in the Decision Memo include the 

likelihood of continuation or recurrence 

of dumping and the magnitude of the 

margins likely to prevail if the orders 

were revoked. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in these reviews and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the 

main Department building. In addition, 

a complete version of the Decision 

Memo can be accessed directly on the 

Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The 

paper copy and electronic version of the 

Decision Memo are identical in content. 

Final Results of Reviews 

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on CMC from 

Finland, the Netherlands, and Sweden 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of dumping at the 

following weighted-average percentage 

margins: 

Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

Finland: 

CP Kelco Oy ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6.65 

All Others Rate ................................................................................................................................................................................. 6.65 

The Netherlands: 

Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry B.V.4 ............................................................................................................................................... 13.39 

CP Kelco B.V. ................................................................................................................................................................................... 14.88 

All Others Rate ................................................................................................................................................................................. 14.57 

Sweden: 

CP Kelco AB ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 25.29 

All Others Rate ................................................................................................................................................................................. 25.29 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

61702 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Notices 

4The Department preliminarily determined that 

Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals B.V. is the 

successor-in-interest to Akzo Nobel Surface 

Chemistry B.V. See Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose From the Netherlands; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 48310 (August 10, 

2010). The Department intends to issue the final 

results on December 8, 2010 (the deadline may be 

extended). 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective orders 

is hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: September 30, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25210 Filed 10–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN: 0648–XZ42 

Fisheries of the South Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, 

Assessment and Review (SEDAR); 

South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council (SAFMC) Scientific and 

Statistical Committee (SSC); Gulf of 

Mexico Fishery Management Council 

(GMFMC) Scientific and Statistical 

Committee; Public Meetings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of SEDAR spiny lobster

update assessment review. 

SUMMARY: SEDAR will hold a meeting of 

the spiny lobster update assessment 

review panel. The meeting will be held 

in Key West, FL. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

DATES: The meeting will be held 

November 18–19, 2010. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Key West Marriott, 3841 N. 

Roosevelt Blvd., Key West, FL 33040; 

telephone: (800) 546–0885. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim 

Iverson, Public Information Officer, 

4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North 

Charleston, SC 29405; telephone: (843) 

571–4366; e-mail: 

Kim.Iverson@safmc.net. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf 

of Mexico, South Atlantic, and 

Caribbean Fishery Management 

Councils, in conjunction with NOAA 

Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf 

States Marine Fisheries Commissions 

have implemented the Southeast Data, 

Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 

process, a multi-step method for 

determining the status of fish stocks in 

the Southeast Region. SEDAR update 

assessments add additional years of 

information to benchmark assessment 

models developed and approved 

previously. SEDAR Update assessments 

are developed through a workshop and 

webinar process including 

representatives from State and Federal 

Agencies, Council SSCs and Advisory 

Panels, NGO’s, and fishery constituents. 

Update assessments are reviewed by 

Council SSCs. 

Representatives of the GMFMC and 

SAFMC SSCs are conducting this 

review of the updated spiny lobster 

assessment. They will develop stock 

status and fishing level 

recommendations that will be provided 

to each Council’s SSC for consideration. 

Spiny Lobster Update Review Schedule: 

November 18, 2010: 9 a.m. - 6 p.m. 

November 19, 2010: 8 a.m. - 12 p.m. 

The established daily times may be 

adjusted as necessary to accommodate 

the timely completion of discussion 

relevant to the assessment process. Such 

adjustments may result in the meeting 

being extended from, or completed prior 

to, the time established by this notice. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before this group for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during this meeting. Action will 

be restricted to those issues specifically 

listed in this notice and any issues 

arising after publication of this notice 

that require emergency action under 

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, provided the public has been 

notified of the Council’s intent to take 

final action to address the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

These meetings are physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to the Council office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) 

at least 10 business days prior to each 

workshop. 

Dated: September 30, 2010. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25056 Filed 10–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–549–822] 

Notice of Initiation and Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review: Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: A Foods 1991 Co., Limited (A 

Foods) has requested a changed 

circumstances review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from 

Thailand pursuant to section 751(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216(b). The 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) is initiating this changed 

circumstances review and issuing this 

notice of preliminary results pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii). We have 

preliminarily determined that A Foods 

is the successor-in-interest to May Ao 

Company Limited (May Ao). 

DATES: Effective Date: October 6, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Eastwood, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–3874. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 1, 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from 

Thailand. See Notice of Amended Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from Thailand, 70 FR 5145 (Feb. 

1, 2005). 

On September 1, 2010, A Foods 

informed the Department that it 

changed its name from May Ao and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Notices 3159 

complaint and the notice of 

investigation will not be granted unless 

good cause therefor is shown. 

Failure of a respondent to file a timely 

response to each allegation in the 

amended complaint and in this notice 

may be deemed to constitute a waiver of 

the right to appear and contest the 

allegations of the amended complaint 

and this notice, and to authorize the 

administrative law judge and the 

Commission, without further notice to 

the respondent, to find the facts to be as 

alleged in the amended complaint and 

this notice and to enter an initial 

determination and a final determination 

containing such findings, and may 

result in the issuance of an exclusion 

order or a cease and desist order or both 

directed against the respondent. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: January 13, 2011. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–1002 Filed 1–18–11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1084–1087 

(Review)] 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From 

Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and 

Sweden 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Revised schedule for the subject 

reviews. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 7, 2011. 

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 investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 15, 2010, the Commission 

established a schedule for the conduct 

of this review (75 FR 57815, September 

22, 2010). Due to a scheduling conflict 

with the hearing in another proceeding, 

the Commission is issuing a revised 

schedule. Specifically, the public 

hearing in connection with the reviews, 

scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on 

February 16, 2011, is rescheduled to 

begin at 9:30 a.m. on February 15, 2011 

at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. 

For further information concerning 

this investigation see the Commission’s 

notice cited above and the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). 

Authority: This investigation is being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to sections 207.24 and 207.66 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: January 12, 2011. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–948 Filed 1–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of a Consent Decree 

Under the Clean Water Act 

Notice is hereby given that on January 

6, 2011, a proposed Consent Decree in 

United States and State of Indiana v. 

City of Evansville, Indiana and 

Evansville Water and Sewer Utility 

Board, Civil Action No. 3:09–CV–128, 

was lodged with the United States 

District Court for the Southern District 

of Indiana. 

In this action the United States and 

the State of Indiana seek civil penalties 

and injunctive relief for violations of the 

Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 

in connection with the City of 

Evansville’s operation of its municipal 

wastewater and sewer system. The 

United States’ and State of Indiana’s 

Complaint alleges that Evansville 

violated the Clean Water Act and 

Indiana law by, inter alia: (1) 

Discharging untreated sewage in such a 

way as to cause violations of applicable 

water quality standards for E. coli in the 

receiving streams; (2) discharging 

untreated sewage from the combined 

sewer collection system during dry 

weather into ‘‘waters of the United 

States’’ and ‘‘waters of the state’’; (3) 

failing to maximize treatable flow to the 

city’s two wastewater treatment plants, 

known as the ‘‘East Plant’’ and the ‘‘West 

Plant,’’ during wet weather events, 

causing discharges of untreated sewage 

from combined sewer overflow (‘‘CSO’’) 

outfalls during times when there is 

remaining treatment capacity at the East 

Plant and the West Plant; (4) failing to 

properly operate and maintain the city’s 

combined sewer and separate sanitary 

sewer collection systems in violation of 

the city’s two NPDES permits; (5) 

illegally discharging untreated sewage 

from the city’s sanitary sewer collection 

systems into navigable waters and their 

tributaries in violation of the city’s two 

NPDES permits; (6) creating an 

imminent and substantial endangerment 

by releasing sewage onto public and 

private property and into residential 

dwellings and other buildings; and (7) 

failing to adequately report discharges 

from the collection system and CSO 

outfalls in violation of the reporting 

provisions in the city’s NPDES permits. 

Under the proposed Decree, the City 

will be required to remedy the 

deficiencies in the capacity, operation 

and maintenance of Evansville’s East 

Plant and West Plant, combined sewer 

system, and sanitary sewer system at a 

cost that may exceed $500 million. 

Evansville must make these 

improvements by calendar year 2032 or, 

if Evansville demonstrates a lack of 

financial capability, by calendar year 

2037. In addition, the proposed Decree 

requires Evansville to pay the United 

States a civil penalty of $420,000 and 

the State of Indiana a civil penalty of 

$70,000, and spend an estimated $4 

million to connect homes with failing 

septic systems to the city’s sewer 

system. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of thirty (30) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

relating to the proposed Consent Decree. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, and either e-mailed to 

pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or 

mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, and should refer to United 

States and State of Indiana v. City of 

Evansville, Indiana, D.J. Ref. 90–5–1–1– 

08738. 

The proposed Consent Decree may be 

examined at the Office of the United 

States Attorney, Southern District of 

Indiana, 10 W. Market Street, Suite 

2100, Indianapolis, IN 46204 (contact 

Assistant United States Attorney Tom 

Kieper (317/226–6333)), and at U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, IL 60604–3590 (contact 

Associate Regional Counsel Nicole 

Cantello (312/886–2870)). During the 

public comment period, the proposed 

Consent Decree may also be examined 

on the following Department of Justice 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2011 / Notices 4865 

them in a visually intuitive graphical 

format. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations. 

Frequency: On Occasion. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

OMB Desk Officer: Jasmeet Seehra, 

(202) 395–3123. 

Copies of the above information 

collection proposal can be obtained by 

calling or writing Diana Hynek, 

Departmental Paperwork Clearance 

Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of 

Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 

dHynek@doc.gov). 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to, OMB Desk Officer, Jasmeet 

Seehra, FAX Number (202) 395–5167, or 

Jasmeet_K._Seehra@omb.eop.gov). 

Dated: January 24, 2011. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–1798 Filed 1–26–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Order No. 1736] 

Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 

104 Under Alternative Site Framework 

Savannah, GA 

Pursuant to its authority under the ForeignTrade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the ForeignTrade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the 

following Order: 

Whereas, the Board adopted the 

alternative site framework (ASF) in 

December 2008 (74 FR 1170, 01/12/09; 

correction 74 FR 3987, 01/22/09; 75 FR 

71069–71070, 11/22/10) as an option for 

the establishment or reorganization of 

general-purpose zones; 

Whereas, the Savannah Airport 

Commission, grantee of Foreign-Trade 

Zone 104, submitted an application to 

the Board (FTZ Docket 51–2010, filed 

8/26/2010) for authority to reorganize 

under the ASF with a service area of the 

Georgia counties of Bulloch, Bryan, 

Chatham, Effingham, Evans, Liberty, 

Long, and Screven in and adjacent to 

the Savannah Customs and Border 

Protection port of entry; FTZ 104’s 

existing, new, and renumbered Sites 1, 

2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16 would 

be categorized as magnet sites; and the 

grantee proposes three initial usagedriven sites (Sites 9, 10, and 13); 

Whereas, notice inviting public 

comment was given in the Federal 

Register (75 FR 53637–53638, 9/1/2010) 

and the application has been processed 

pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s 

regulations; and, 

Whereas, the Board adopts the 

findings and recommendation of the 

examiner’s report, and finds that the 

requirements of the FTZ Act and 

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and 

that the proposal is in the public 

interest; 

Now, therefore, the Board hereby 

orders: 

The application to reorganize FTZ 104 

under the alternative site framework is 

approved, subject to the FTZ Act and 

the Board’s regulations, including 

Section 400.28, to the Board’s standard 

2,000-acre activation limit for the 

overall general-purpose zone project, to 

a five-year ASF sunset provision for 

magnet sites that would terminate 

authority for Sites 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 

14, 15, and 16 if not activated by 

January 31, 2016, and to a three-year 

ASF sunset provision for usage-driven 

sites that would terminate authority for 

Sites 9, 10, and 13 if no foreign-status 

merchandise is admitted for a bona fide 

customs purpose by January 31, 2014. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of 

January 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board. 

Attest: 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–1767 Filed 1–26–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–834] 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From 

Mexico: Final Results of the First FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of Antidumping 

Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 29, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published a notice of 

preliminary results of the full sunset 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on purified carboxymethylcellulose 

(‘‘CMC’’) from Mexico pursuant to 

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

as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose from Mexico: 

Preliminary Results of the First Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of Antidumping 

Duty Order, 75 FR 60084 (September 29, 

2010) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). We 

provided interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on our 

Preliminary Results. The Department 

did not receive comments from either 

domestic or respondent interested 

parties. As a result of this review, the 

Department continues to find that that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order with respect to CMC from Mexico 

would likely lead to continuation or 

recurrence of dumping at the levels 

listed below in the section entitled 

‘‘Final Results of Review.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dena Crossland or Angelica Mendoza, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3362 or (202) 482– 

3019, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 29, 2010, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice of preliminary results 

of the full sunset review of antidumping 

duty order on CMC from Mexico, 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. 

See Preliminary Results, 75 FR 60084. In 

our Preliminary Results, we found that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order with respect to CMC from Mexico 

would likely lead to a continuation or 

recurrence of dumping at the margins 

determined in the final determination of 

the original investigation. Id. We 

provided interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on our 

Preliminary Results. Id. We did not 

receive comments from either domestic 

or respondent interested parties. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by the order 

is all purified CMC, sometimes also 

referred to as purified sodium CMC, 

polyanionic cellulose, or cellulose gum, 

which is a white to off-white, non-toxic, 

odorless, biodegradable powder, 

comprising sodium CMC that has been 

refined and purified to a minimum 

assay of 90 percent. Purified CMC does 

not include unpurified or crude CMC, 

CMC Fluidized Polymer Suspensions, 

and CMC that is cross-linked through 

heat treatment. Purified CMC is CMC 

that has undergone one or more 

purification operations, which, at a 

minimum, reduce the remaining salt 

and other by-product portion of the 

product to less than ten percent. The 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

4866 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2011 / Notices 

1Although HTSUS number 3912.31.00.10 may be 

more specific to subject merchandise, it was not 

created until 2005. As such, we are relying on 

HTSUS number 3912.31.00 for purposes of this 

sunset review because in determining whether 

revocation of an order would likely lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping, the 

Department considers the margins established in 

the investigation and/or reviews conducted during 

the sunset review period as well as the volume of 

imports for the periods before and after the issuance 

of the order. See section 752(c)(1) of the Act. 

merchandise subject to the order is 

currently classified in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) at subheading 3912.31.00.1

This tariff classification is provided for 

convenience and Customs purposes; 

however, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Final Results of Review 

We have made no changes to our 

Preliminary Results, 75 FR 60084. We 

continue to find that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order with respect to 

CMC from Mexico would likely lead to 

a continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the following percentage weightedaverage margins: 

Manufacturer/producer/exporter 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

percentage 

Quimica Amtex ......................... 12.61 

All Others .................................. 12.61 

In accordance with section 752(c)(3) 

of the Act, we will notify the 

International Trade Commission of the 

final results of this full sunset review. 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with section 351.305 of the 

Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: January 20, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–1797 Filed 1–26–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Proposed Methodology for 

Implementation of Section 772(c)(2)(B) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as Amended, 

In Certain Non-Market Economy 

Antidumping Proceedings; Request for 

Comment 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the ‘‘Department’’) seeks public 

comment on its proposed 

methodological change to reduce the 

export price or constructed export price 

in certain non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

antidumping proceedings by the amount 

of an export tax, duty, or other charge, 

pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(B) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. 

DATES: To be assured of consideration, 

comments must be received no later 

than February 28, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Albert Hsu, Senior Economist, Office of 

Policy, Import Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–4491. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(B) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

‘‘Act’’), the Department is instructed to 

reduce the export price or constructed 

export price used in the dumping 

margin calculation by ‘‘the amount, if 

included in such price, of any export 

tax, duty, or other charge imposed by 

the exporting country on the exportation 

of the subject merchandise to the United 

States, other than an export tax, duty, or 

other charge described in section 

771(6)(C) {of the Act}.’’ However, the 

Department’s administrative practice 

has been that it cannot apply section 

772(c)(2)(B) in NME antidumping 

proceedings because pervasive 

government intervention in NMEs 

precluded proper valuation of taxes 

paid by NME respondents to NME 

governments. This practice originated in 

the less-than-fair-value investigations of 

pure magnesium and magnesium alloy 

from the Russian Federation, which the 

Department then considered to be an 

NME. See Pure Magnesium and Alloy 

Magnesium from the Russian 

Federation, 60 FR 16440 (Mar. 30, 1995) 

(final determination of sales at less than 

fair value) (‘‘Russian Magnesium’’) 

(Comment 10). In those investigations, 

the Department determined not to 

reduce the NME respondents’ U.S. 

prices based upon an export tax paid to 

the NME government, the Russian 

Federation. Id. 

The Russian Magnesium petitioners 

subsequently challenged this 

determination before the Court of 

International Trade (‘‘CIT’’), and the CIT 

granted the Department’s request for a 

voluntary remand to further explain its 

reasoning. See Magnesium Corp. of 

America v. United States, 20 CIT 1092, 

1113–14 (1996) (‘‘Mag. Corp. I’’). In its 

remand results, the Department 

explained its ‘‘uniform approach’’ to 

transfers between NME governments 

and NME companies. The Department 

stated, in relevant part: 

The {NME} is governed by a presumption 

of widespread intervention and influence in 

the economic activities of enterprises. An 

export tax charged for one purpose may be 

offset by government transfers provided for 

another purpose. * * * 

To make a deduction for export taxes 

imposed by a NME government would 

unreasonably isolate one part of the web of 

transactions between government and 

producer. The Department’s uniform 

approach to intra-NME transfers can be seen 

in its policy regarding transfers (or 

‘‘subsidies’’) paid by a NME government to a 

NME producer. The Department—with the 

approval of the Court of Appeals—has 

declined to find such transfers to be 

subsidies given the nature of a {NME}. Such 

an economy is riddled with distortions, with 

the government influencing prices and cost 

structures, regulating investment, wages and 

private ownership, and allocating credit. 

Attempts to isolate individual government 

interventions in this setting—whether they 

be transfers from the government or from 

exporters to the government—make no sense. 

See Remand Redetermination: 

Magnesium Corp. of America, et al. v. 

United States, at 6–8, dated Oct. 28, 

1996 (‘‘Remand Redetermination’’) 

(available at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/tlei/ 

index.html). 

The CIT upheld the Department’s 

remand results. See Magnesium Corp. of 

America v. United States, 20 CIT 1464, 

1466 (1996) (‘‘Mag. Corp. II’’). The U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

then affirmed the CIT’s decision, stating 

that it agreed with the reasoning put 

forward in the Department’s Remand 

Redetermination. See Magnesium Corp. 

of America, 166 F.3d 1364, 1370–71 

(Fed. Cir. 1999) (‘‘Mag. Corp. III’’). 

However, since Mag. Corp. III, the 

Department has changed its practice 

with respect to application of the 

countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) law to 

subsidized merchandise from China and 

Vietnam, which the Department 

continues to designate as NMEs. As 

explained in the countervailing duty 

investigations of Coated Free Sheet 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATIONS ON ADEQUACY

in

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden

Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1084-1087 (Review)

On September 7, 2010, the Commission determined that it should proceed to full reviews in the

subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5)).

 The Commission received one response to the notice of institution from a domestic interested

party, Aqualon Company (“Aqualon”). Aqualon, the petitioner and only domestic producer in the

original investigations, currently is the only known producer of purified carboxymethylcellulose

(“CMC”) in the United States. The Commission found Aqualon’s individual response to be adequate. 

With respect to the orders concerning purified CMC from Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden, the

Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response was adequate.

The Commission received an adequate response concerning the antidumping duty order on

purified CMC from Mexico filed by Quimica Amtex, S.A. de C.V. (“Amtex”), a foreign producer and

exporter of subject merchandise from Mexico. With respect to the review of the antidumping duty order

on purified CMC from the Netherlands, the Commission received an adequate response filed by Azko

Nobel Functional Chemicals B.V. (“ANFC”), a subject producer/exporter in the Netherlands.

The Commission found that the respondent interested party group responses were adequate with

respect to the orders on purified CMC from Mexico and the Netherlands because respondents from each

of these countries accounted for a significant share of the production of subject merchandise in their

respective countries.

Because the group and individual responses from both domestic interested parties and respondent

interested parties were adequate in the reviews of the orders concerning purified CMC from Mexico and

the Netherlands, the Commission determined to conduct full reviews in these proceedings.

The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested parties in the reviews

concerning subject imports from Finland and Sweden, and therefore determined that the respondent

interested party group responses for these countries were not adequate. The Commission nevertheless

voted to conduct full reviews concerning subject imports from Finland and Sweden to promote

administrative efficiency in light of the Commission’s determination to conduct full reviews of the other

orders in these grouped reviews.

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and on the

Commission’s website (http://www.usitc.gov).
APPENDIX B

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

B-1

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade

Commission’s hearing:

Subject: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico,

Netherlands, and Sweden

Inv. Nos.: 731-TA-1084-1087 (Review)

Date and Time: February 15, 2011 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with these reviews in the Main Hearing Room, 500 E Street

(room 101), SW, Washington, D.C.

EMBASSY APPEARANCE:

Embassy of Mexico

Washington, D.C.

Salvador Behar, Legal Counsel for International Trade

OPENING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of Orders (Edward M. Lebow,

Haynes and Boone, LLP)

In Opposition to Continuation of Orders (Jeffrey S. Neeley,

Barnes, Richardson & Colburn and Matthew T. West,

Baker Botts LLP)

In Support of Continuation of

 Antidumping Duty Orders:

Haynes and Boone LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Aqualon Company

John E. Panichella, President, Aqualon Company

Jeffrey S. Wolff, Vice-President, Regulated Industries,

Aqualon Company

-1-
In Support of Continuation of

 Antidumping Duty Orders (continued):

Karen Gruber, Global Business Director, CMC, 

Aqualon Company

Zissis Pappas, Global Industries Director, Oilfield and

and Specialties Businesses, Aqualon Comp

Daniel W. Klett, Principal, Capital Trade Inc.

Edward M. Lebow ) – OF COUNSEL

In Opposition to Continuation of

 Antidumping Duty Orders:

Barnes, Richardson & Colburn

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Quimica Amtex, S.A. de C.V. (“Amtex”)

Volker Nessel, General Manager, Amtex

Corrado Piotti, Vice President and Director 

of Sales, Amtex

David Gazzera, General Manager, Amtex 

Chemicals, LLC

Eduardo de la Fuente, Director, Technology and

Quality, Azteca Milling

Jeffrey S. Neeley )

) – OF COUNSEL

Matthew T. McGrath )

-2-
In Opposition to Continuation of

 Antidumping Duty Orders (continued):

Baker Botts LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals B.V. (“Akzo Nobel”)

Frank Grootnibbelink, Finance Director, Akzo Nobel

Philip Raatjes, Business Director CMC, Akzo Nobel

Susan Henley Manning, Ph.D., Senior Vice President,

& D.C. Managing Director, Compass Lexecon

Matthew T. West )

) – OF COUNSEL

Jason A. Wilcox )

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of Orders (Edward Lebow,

Haynes and Boone, LLP)

In Opposition to Continuation of Orders (Jeffrey S. Neeley,

Barnes, Richardson & Colburn and Matthew T. West,

Baker Botts LLP)

-END-

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-1

Purified CMC: Summary tables

Table No. Imports Countries cumulated

C-1 Market shares for subject country imports are

based on shipments of U.S. imports.

Four subject countries.

C-2 Market shares for subject country imports are

based on shipments of U.S. imports.

Finland, Netherlands, and

Mexico.

C-3 Market shares for subject country imports are

based on shipments of U.S. imports.

Finland and Netherlands and

Mexico and Sweden

C-3

Table C-1

Purified CMC: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2005-09, January-September 2009, and

January-September 2010

* * * * * * *

Table C-2

Purified CMC: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2005-09, January-September 2009, and

January-September 2010

* * * * * * *

Table C-3

Purified CMC: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2005-09, January-September 2009, and

January-September 2010

* * * * * * *

C-5

APPENDIX D

COMMENTS ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EXISTING 

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS AND

THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

D-1

U.S. PRODUCERS COMMENTS

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any anticipated changes in the

character of their operations or organization relating to the production of purified CMC in the

future if the antidumping duty orders on purified CMC from Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, or

Sweden were to be revoked. 

(Question II-4)

Aqualon

“***.”

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe the significance of the antidumping

duty orders on their production capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases,

employment, revenues, costs, profits, cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development

expenditures, and asset values. (Question II-16) 

Aqualon

“***.”

The Commission asked U.S. producers whether they anticipated changes in their

production capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues,

costs, profits, cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development expenditures, or asset

values relating to the production of purified CMC in the future if the antidumping duty orders

were to be revoked. (Question II-17)

Aqualon

“***

***.”

U.S. IMPORTERS COMMENTS

The Commission asked U.S. importers if they would anticipate any changes in their

operations or organization relating to the importation of purified CMC the future if the

antidumping duty orders were to be revoked. (Question II-4)

***

“*** no longer imports purified CMC. After two importations in 2008, the decision was made to

purchase the limited amount of purified CMC we require in our end use domestically.”

D-3
***

“No answer.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“Purified CMC from Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden could be more competitive, than now. 

We would consider purchasing from those countries.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“Yes, we would then consider including Subject country establishments in our tender process.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“***.”

D-4
***

“No response.”

***

“We believe that the existence of the anti-dumping order has made us more competitive than we

otherwise would have been and see no reason to make changes in the event the order is revoked.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“Move to Finland and Mexico if pricing negotiations create favorable pricing.”

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe the significance of the existing

antidumping duty orders covering imports of purified CMC in terms of their effect on their firms’

imports, U.S. shipments of imports, and inventories. (Question II-10)

***

“We are no longer the Importer of Record of purified CMC and for the two shipments where we did act as

the Importer of Record, the amount we require in our end-use product comprises a small percent (0.5%)

of our overall product mix that cost was not a significant factor for us. The driving factor for us

purchasing our purified CMC is that there is the same CMC supplier that is used in our European product,

not cost.”

D-5
***

“The existing ADD order served as a disadvantage to my company, as thus we were obligated to pay

antidumping duty (ADD) for import of CMC from CP Kelco in the Netherlands. Prior to purchase from

CP Kelco, we explored opportunities to source CMC from other suppliers, both domestically and other

foreign sources, but no other such sources could provide CMC with the unique properties required –

specifically, extremely low “degree of substitution” which was not available from all other sources. CP

Kelco (the Netherlands) produced this material via pilot plant manufacturing to my company’s unique

specification of very low “degree of substitution” - D S O. 35.”

***

“None.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“We do not import from Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, or Sweden. And we do not have any further plans

to import from these countries.”

***

“Our import from Mexico is occasional, just to cover needs we cannot satisfy with owned local inventory,

therefor the antidumping does not affect our business significantly.”

***

“*** imported only from China and currently purchases CMC from U.S. producers only. Our CMC

business started after the anti-dumping order so we have no reference to use to judge any significant

effect on our business.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“Imported material no longer cost competitive.”

***

“We had multiple sources for our U.S. operations prior to 2005. Afterwards we had Italian and Chinese

sources as the U.S. supplier did not support out *** pricing needs. Since 2005 we have approved 4

additional Chinese and 1 Indian source for our global requirements.”

D-6
***

“Other than increasing the cost of the goods, the antidumping duty did not materially change our imports,

shipments, or inventories.”

***

“The orders have had no effect on our business. *** imported a small volume of CMC from Japan in

2005 and 2006, but has not been involved in this market since we stopped importing CMC from Japan in

July 2006. *** never imported from the subject countries, either before or after the order was put into

place, and has no relationships with any CMC producers or exporters in the subject countries.”

***

“***.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“*** goal is to be the preferred partner for providing innovative products and solutions through the use of

nature-based chemistry. Our products are derived from natural raw materials, and *** strives to provide

these products with minimal modifications. These products serve many functions, including viscosity

modification, thickening, suspension, stabilization and gelation. We have not changed this mission or the

underlying strategy simply because of an anti-dumping order. We have invested significant resources

related to the compliance aspect of the order(s), and are more focused on modeling the impact pricing

may have on our anti-dumping margins so that we can make sound business decisions, but these are

secondary to the core belief that ethical behavior, environmentally conscious behavior and safe behavior

are cornerstones to building an integrated sustainable company. *** is a dynamic, globally-directed and

customer-focused company. Our reputation and success depends on the integrity of our employees’

individual actions and decisions.”

***

“The antidumping order did not bring any significant change for ***. The customers of the company are

virtually the same as before the order. The drop in demand for purified CMC from such customers is not

attributable to the antidumping order, but to world economic situation and particularly the slow recovery

of the US market from said crisis.”

***

“*** is a very small player in the U.S. market and does not have sufficient knowledge of relevant aspects

of the U.S. market to provide meaningful comments on the effects of the order.”

D-7
***

“We believe that this decrease in demand that we experienced for purified sales in 2008 and 2009 was a

result of the economic downturn in the U.S.; as such it is difficult for us to determine the extent to which

the antidumping duty order covering purified CMC from*** caused a decrease in our sales. While we

saw an increase in sales in 2006 over 2005, sales in the years 2007, 2008, and 2009 did decrease. We

believe that factors relating to customers’ use of purified CMC products and overall economic conditions

in the U.S. played a larger role for this decrease than the imposition of the antidumping duty order. In

2010, we have seen a significant increase in sales over 2009. We believe that this increase in demand in

the U.S. will continue.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“In 2005 and 2006 we were not the importer of record and 2007 and beyond we stopped purchasing from

these countries.”

***

“Little or no impact.”

***

“No significance.”

The Commission requested U.S. importers if they would anticipate any changes in their

imports, U.S. shipments of imports, or inventories of purified CMC in the future if the antidumping

duty orders were to be revoked. (Question II-11)

***

“Again, because we do not import purified CMC ourselves and the amount we use is minimal, we do not

anticipate any changes.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“No answer.”

D-8
***

“No answer.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“Expectations are that U.S. producers will become immediately uncompetitive due to low cost imports in

particular from Mexico.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“More competitive costs could result in imports of CMC.”

***

“We would bring Mexico and Finland suppliers into the bid process to increase the competitive global

edge.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“***.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“We believe that the existence of the anti-dumping order has made us more competitive than we

otherwise would have been and see no reason to make changes in the event the order is revoked.”

D-9
***

“No answer.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“At this time our business plan does not anticipate any measurable increase in sales of purified CMC

products to customers in the U.S., even if the antidumping duty is lifted. As noted above, we do believe

there may be an increasing demand for purified CMC compared to recent years. As this demand

increases, we would expect to sell more to those customers to meet their increased demand. This assumes

that the market price for CMC in the U.S. would be strong enough to justify the sale (*** has nor

historically been a price-setter in the U.S. purified CMC market, but rather has been a price-taker). To the

extent that the antidumping duty order may affect the market prices for purified CMC that we would be

able to obtain for our products, the removal of the order (in combination with other market factors such as

demand and market price) may allow for slight increases in our sales or purified CMC in the U.S.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“Our firm would entertain offers from qualified firms within these subject countries.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“If pricing from Finland and Mexico were favorable.”

U.S. PURCHASERS COMMENTS

The Commission requested U.S. purchasers to describe the likely effects of any revocation

of the subject antidumping duty orders on the future activities of their firm and the entire U.S.

market. (Questions III-31 (1) and III-31 (2)). The following are quotations from the responses of

purchasers:

(1) Effects on the activities of the firm

***

“No change.”

D-10
***

No answer.

***

“Revocation may make the PAC from the subject countries more price competitive to Chinese PAC and

warrant consideration by ***.”

***

“Revocation will allow Finland to be competitive and allow for secondary sources of supply. Currently

Ashland doers not have any downward pressure on pricing.”

***

“Cost us income.”

***

“Product availability.”

***

“It will not likely change anything. We have CMC from US, Finland, and Mexico qualified. We buy the

US material because of the technical service and equipment which is provided at a competitive cost.”

***

“Market not improved. Very tight - Gov’t interference has created pricing issues and confusion..”

***

“We will continue to operate as is as we don’t buy from US sources.”

***

“No change anticipated.”

***

“Not known.”

***

“Unknown.”

D-11
***

“Oilfield market has shifted from purified grades and no changes in demand are anticipated.”

***

“As a distributor of purified CMC that we purchase from Mexico, we believe the revocation of the anti

dumping orders for the imports of purified CMC from Mexico will not harm Hercules, Inc., the major

purified CMC producer in the United States.”

***

“If prices were to increase we would go back to other product.”

***

“The fire/closure of CP Kelco’s factory in the Netherlands in August 2009 removed a 10,000 mt annual

capacity of Food and Pharmaceutical grade material from the market. CP Kelco has tried to fill this gap

with material from its factory in Finland, but they are unable to make all of the products that were

produced in the Netherlands. As such, they have dropped some customers and/or products. Additionally,

the CMC market has been very tight over the past 6 months due to increased demand and reduced supply

of specialty cotton linters that are a key raw material.”

***

“Material in Finland and Netherlands & Mexico will be competitive on global pricing basis and will be

part of our future annual tenders for the US business. Several already provide products outside the US to

our company.”

***

“Related information is not known.”

***

“None.”

***

“These activities will not change our requirements for “CMC”. If our product is a success I imagine the

price will reduce and availability will increase if the antidumping duty is removed.”

***

“As noted in section I-7 and validated by our 2005-2010 purchasing history data it is unlikely that

revocation would change our purchasing decisions. Upon any revocation of the duty we would analyze

the best value equation and allocate accordingly.”

D-12
***

“No effects anticipated because CMC is a minor component in only a few of *** products.”

***

“No change to what we do.”

***

“Market will determine price levels.”

***

“1. Would allow for negotiations to take place with standardized responses with common baselines.

2. Would ease financial pressures for U.S. medical device manufacturers using foreign sources of purified

CMC. 3. Would reinforce open market principles.”

***

“From Mexico: We will benefit as they are unable to compete in all markets despite customer demand for

their product & quality.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“No direct impact on our future activities.”

***

“My firm will entertain offers from qualified sources in target countries.”

***

“No change in the relationship with our current supply.”

***

“Not sure.”

***

“None.”

***

“I don’t know.”

D-13
***

“Hopefully this will open up avenues to approve a secondary source.”

***

“I don’t know.”

***

“Unknown.”

(2) Effects on the entire U.S. market

***

“No change.”

***

“Aqualon has not improved the products or processes with the funds they have received during the time

perceived. Not certain what validity this act did for the consumers.

***

“Revocation may make the PAC from the subject countries more competitive.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“Cost us income.”

***

“Product availability.”

***

“Unknown.”

***

“? Don’t know.”

D-14
***

“Because of other pressures in the market (cotton prices), prices will go up regardless and any cost

savings associated with revocation of these tariffs will probably be invisible.”

***

“No change anticipated.”

***

“Not known.”

***

“Unknown.”

***

“u/k.”

***

“It will be to the advantage of USA users of purified CMC to have the opportunity to purchase from all

suppliers domestic and foreign imports. This will open the market to new product opportunities. A

closed market to imported purified CMC if allowed to continue could cost the US market the opportunity

to discover possible new CMC technology and products from foreign imports. Competition always

improves a market and products.”

***

“Don’t know.”

***

“n/a.”

***

“They will have an opportunity to quote for business in the US as all other approved sources are able to

today.”

***

“Related information is not known.”

***

“Unknown.”

D-15
***

“Price reduction and availability increase.”

***

“We cannot speak with any certainty but our perspective is that revocation of the duty would require US

manufacturers to evaluate their operating efficiencies, capacity utilization, and feed-stock flexibility in

order to assess how they can be long-term viable in the CMC market. This may also lead to

manufacturers becoming more focused on particular grades/markets where they are most competitive.”

***

“Unknown.”

***

“Price should decline if duty is revoked.”

***

“Market will determine price levels.”

***

“1. Allow for competition. 2. Allow for additional growth for residual business (i.e., transportation,

warehousing, distribution, etc.). 3. Improve opportunities for offshore chem companies to move business

to U.S.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“Market prices may drop to more acceptable levels”

***

“No comment.”

***

“This firm has not monitored the CMC industry to have sufficient knowledge to identify or discuss the

effects on the US market as a whole.”

***

“Not sure.”

D-16
***

“Unknown.”

***

“I don’t know.”

***

“Availability.”

***

“I don’t know.”

***

“Unknown.”

FOREIGN PRODUCERS/EXPORTERS’ COMMENTS

The Commission requested foreign producers to indicate whether they anticipated any

changes in their operations or organization relating to the production of purified CMC in the

future if the antidumping duty orders were to be revoked, and if yes, to describe those changes. 

(Question II-4)

Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals B.V.

“***.”

Quimica Amtex S.A.de C.V.

“***.”

CP Kelco

“***.”

The Commission requested foreign producers to identify export markets (other than the

United States) where they have developed or to which they have increased their sales of purified

CMC as a result of the antidumping duty orders. (Question II-13)

Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals B.V.

“***.”

D-17
Quimica Amtex S.A.de C.V.

“***.”

CP Kelco

“***.”

The Commission requested foreign producers to describe the significance of the existing

antidumping duty orders covering imports of purified CMC in terms of their effect on their firms’

production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other

markets, and inventories. (Question II-14)

Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals B.V.

“***.”

Quimica Amtex S.A.de C.V.

“***.”

CP Kelco

“***.”

The Commission asked foreign producers if they would anticipate any changes in their

production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other

markets, or inventories in the future if the antidumping duty orders were to be revoked. 

(Question II-15)

Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals B.V.

“*** .”

Quimica Amtex S.A.de C.V.

“***.”

CP Kelco

“***.”

D-18
The Commission asked foreign producers to discuss any anticipated changes in terms of the

product range, product mix, or marketing of purified CMC in their home markets, for export to

the United States, or for export to third-country markets in the future, identifying the time

period(s) involved and the factor(s) that they believe would be responsible for such changes. 

(Question III-11)

Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals B.V.

“***.”

Quimica Amtex S.A.de C.V.

“***.”

CP Kelco

“***.”

D-19

APPENDIX E

DUTCH PRICE DATA FOR PRODUCTS 2 AND 3 WITH *** 

EXCLUDED

E-1

Table V2

Purified CMC: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of product 2 sold to end users and

margins of underselling/(overselling) for the United States and the Netherlands with *** data

excluded in the quarters where it reported, by quarters, July-September 2006 through April-June

2008

* * * * * * *

Table V-3

Purified CMC: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of product 3 sold to end users and

margins of underselling/(overselling)for the United States and the Netherlands with *** data

excluded in the quarters where it reported, by quarters, April-June 2007 and January-March 2008

* * * * * * *

E-3