U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4142 April 2010

Washington, DC 20436

Chloropicrin from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-130 (Third Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman 

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman 

Deanna Tanner Okun 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Cynthia Trainor, Investigator 

Eric Land, Industry Analyst 

Aimee Larsen, Economist 

David Boyland, Accountant 

Patrick Gallagher, Attorney 

Lemuel Shields, Statistical Assistant 

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

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4142 April 2010

Chloropicrin from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-130 (Third Review)

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

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

Commerce’s reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Results of five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

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

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

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

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

U.S. purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

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

Channels of distribution and U.S. market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

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

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

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-4

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

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

Comparisons of domestic products and subject imports ............................. II-11

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-11

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-11

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-12

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-12

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constraints on capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2

i
CONTENTS–Continued

Page

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

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

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

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

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

Financial experience of the U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4

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

Operations on chloropicrin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4

Capital expenditures, research and development expenses, assets, and return on investment . . . III-6

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

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

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

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

U.S. importer’s imports subsequent to September 30, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. importer’s inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2

The industry in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2

Global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

Supply and demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendixes

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

B. Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Comments on the significance of the existing antidumping duty order and

 the likely effects of revocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

D. Regulatory issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

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

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

ii
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-130 (Third Review)

CHLOROPICRIN FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

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

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

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

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

within a reasonably foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this review on July 1, 2009 (74 F.R. 31760) and determined on

October 15, 2009 that it would conduct a full review (74 F.R. 55065, October 26, 2009). Notice of the

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

given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission,

Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on October 15, 2009 (74 F.R.

55065). Counsel for the three domestic producers of chloropicrin offered to submit written testimony in

lieu of an oral hearing presentation. In connection with the offer of written testimony, counsel indicated a

willingness to respond to written questions of the Commissioners by a date to be set by the Commission. 

No other party filed a request to appear at the hearing. Consequently, the public hearing in connection

with the review, scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on February 18, 2010, at the U.S. International Trade

Commission Building was cancelled.

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

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

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

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

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

States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Original Determination

In March 1984, the Commission unanimously determined that an industry in the United States

was being materially injured by reason of imports of chloropicrin from China that were being sold at less

than fair market value.1

 Subsequently, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) issued an

antidumping duty order covering these imports.2

B. The Commission’s Five-Year Reviews

In April 1999, the Commission completed an expedited first five-year review of the order. On the

basis of facts available, the Commission determined that revocation of the order on chloropicrin from

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

States within a reasonably foreseeable time.3

In August 2004, the Commission completed a second expedited review of the order. On the basis

of facts available, it determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on chloropicrin from China

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

within a reasonably foreseeable time.4

C. The Current Review

The Commission instituted this five-year review on July 2, 2009.5

 The Commission received a

joint response to the notice of institution from domestic producers ASHTA Chemicals, Inc. (“ASHTA”);

Niklor Chemical Co., Inc. (“Niklor”);6

 and Trinity Manufacturing, Inc. (“Trinity”) (collectively

“Domestic Producers”). Although the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group

response was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate, the

 1 Chloropicrin from the People’s Republic of China, Inv. No. 731-TA-130 (Final), USITC Pub. 1505 (March

1984) (“Original Determination”).

 2

 Antidumping Duty Order; Chloropicrin From the People’s Republic of China, 49 Fed. Reg. 10691-03 (March

22, 1984).

 3

 Chloropicrin from China, 64 Fed. Reg. 16998 (April 7, 1999).

 4

 Chloropicrin from China, 69 Fed. Reg. 48520 (August 10, 2004).

 5

 Chloropicrin from China, 74 Fed. Reg. 31760 (July 2, 2009).

 6

 Niklor is not currently a producer of chloropicrin nor did it produce during the period examined. Niklor ***,

although economic conditions since the second review have not warranted a resumption of operations. CR at I-18 to

I-19, PR at I-12.

3
Commission determined to conduct a full review in light of information regarding possible changes in

conditions of competition.7

Commerce expedited its five-year review and published its final affirmative review determination

on November 6, 2009.8

In this review, the Domestic Producers submitted a prehearing brief, written testimony, and

written responses to questions from the Commission.9

 The Commission did not receive a brief from any

subject foreign producer or importer, nor did any respondent interested party request to appear at the

Commission’s hearing.

Two U.S. producers, ASHTA and Trinity, accounting for all U.S. production of chloropicrin in

2008, provided complete responses to the Commission’s questionnaires.10 The Commission received a

questionnaire response from one importer accounting for virtually all imports of the subject merchandise

during the period of review.11 The Commission received usable questionnaire responses from nine U.S.

purchasers, eight of whom are believed to account for all of the direct purchases of chloropicrin from U.S.

producers.12 The Commission also reviewed written testimony in lieu of a public hearing, although only

supporters of continuing the antidumping duty order submitted such testimony.13 The Commission did

not receive any responses to foreign producer questionnaires from chloropicrin producers in China.14

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

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

domestic like product” and the “industry.”15 The Act defines “domestic like product” as “a product which

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

 7 Confidential Report (“CR”)/Public Report (“PR”) at app. A. Commissioners Lane, Williamson, and Pinkert

voted to conduct an expedited review. Id.

 8 Chloropicrin from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the

Antidumping Duty Order, 74 Fed. Reg. 57450 (November 6, 2009).

 9 The Commission’s public hearing was originally scheduled for February 18, 2010. The hearing was cancelled

at the request of the Domestic Interested Parties. The Domestic Interested Parties filed written testimony in lieu of

oral testimony. Staff Report, INV-HH-020 (March 16, 2010) (“CR”) at I-2. No respondent interested party objected

to cancellation of the hearing.

 10 CR at I-20, PR at I-12 and CR/PR at Table I-5.

 11 CR at I-20, IV-1, PR at I-13, IV-1. There have been no reported commercial sales of chloropicrin from China

or from nonsubject countries since 1984. ***. CR at IV-3, PR at IV-1.

 12 CR/PR at II-1.

 13 See Domestic Producers’ Written Testimony (March 1, 2010) (“Written Testimony”).

 14 As noted above, this is the Commission’s first full review of the antidumping duty order since it was imposed

in 1984. Along with two of her colleagues, Chairman Shara L. Aranoff voted to conduct a full review in light of

possible changes in market conditions resulting from increasing environmental regulation of chloropicrin. Pursuant

to the decision to conduct a full review, Commission staff mailed questionnaires to domestic producers, importers,

foreign producers, and purchasers of chloropicrin.

While other parties responded to the questionnaires, the foreign producer of the subject merchandise in

China did not, despite the diligent efforts of Commission staff. As a result, the record in this review lacks

information that could have been supplied from the foreign producer and that could have been important to the

Commission’s analysis. Having voted to conduct a full review of the order, Chairman Aranoff notes the foreign

producer’s lack of participation with disappointment, and expresses the hope that all interested parties elect to

participate in future investigations and reviews.

 15 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

4
investigation under this subtitle.”16 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to look to the like

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

record indicates any reason to revisit the prior findings.17

A. Product Description

In its third five-year review, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as “chloropicrin, also

known as trichloronitromethane. A major use of the product is as a pre-plant soil fumigant (pesticide). 

Such merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule item number

2904.90.50.”18 

Chloropicrin is a highly toxic liquid chemical compound, used primarily as an active agent in preplant soil fumigants for killing fungi. Small amounts are also used to control insects and rodents in grain

storage and to prevent wood decay. Chloropicrin is a relatively expensive fungicide, so its use is

normally limited to high-value crops such as strawberries, tobacco, flowers, and tree-grown fruit,

although it is also used for relatively lower-value crops which require less fumigant per acre to achieve

the same pest control and resultant increase in yield. Chloropicrin is usually blended with other chemical

agents, such as methyl bromide, into a single fumigant with mixture ranges from less than one percent

chloropicrin to more than 50 percent.19

B. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews

The definition of the subject merchandise has not changed since the original investigation.20 In

the original investigation the Commission defined the domestic like product as “chloropicrin produced

through the use of nitromethane.”21 In its first and second five-year reviews, the Commission defined the

domestic like product as all chloropicrin, consistent with Commerce’s scope.22

 16 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10); see, e.g., Cleo, Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pub. 3577 at 4 (February 2003).

 18 Chloropicrin from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the

Antidumping Duty Order, 74 Fed. Reg. 57450 (November 6, 2009).

 19 CR at I-13 to I-14, PR at I-8 to I-9.

 20 See Original Determination at 3 and n.6.

 21 Original Determination at 3 and n.4.

 22 First Five-Year Review at 4; Second Five-Year Review at 4.

5
C. Analysis and Conclusion

No new facts have been presented to warrant a conclusion regarding the domestic like product

different from that in the Commission’s past determinations. Moreover, no party raised any objections to

this definition of the domestic like product.23

Therefore, we find that the appropriate definition of the domestic like product in this full fiveyear review is all chloropicrin, the same as Commerce’s scope and unchanged from the Commission’s

original determination and two subsequent five-year reviews.24

III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

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

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

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”25 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.

In its original determination and in both prior five-year reviews, the Commission defined the

domestic industry as all domestic producers of chloropicrin.26 During the period examined in the current

review, no domestic producer has imported subject merchandise or is related to a foreign producer or

importer of the subject merchandise. Accordingly, no domestic producer comes within the definition of a

related party.27 Based on our definition of the domestic like product, we define the domestic industry to

include all U.S. producers of the domestic like product.28

IV. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER IS REVOKED

A. Legal Standard

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

antidumping or countervailing duty order unless (1) it makes a determination that dumping or

subsidization is likely to continue or recur and (2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation

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

material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”29 The SAA states that “under the likelihood

 23 Substantive Response of Domestic Producers to the Commission’s Notice of Institution (July 31, 2009)

(“Substantive Response”) at 9-10; Domestic Producers’ Prehearing Brief (February 9, 2010) (“Prehearing Brief”) 

at 2-3.

 24 First Five-Year Review at 4; Second Five-Year Review at 4.

 25 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 are applicable to the entire subtitle containing the

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

 26 Original Determination at 3 and A-5 (Commission defined the domestic industry as the two U.S. producers of

chloropicrin identified in the investigation, Niklor and LCP Chemicals and Plastics, Inc.); First Five-Year Review at

6; Second Five-Year Review at 6.

 27 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B).

 28 As noted above, Niklor does not currently produce chloropicrin, although it reportedly retains the capacity to

do so. CR at I-18 to I-19, PR at I-11 to I-12.

 29 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

6
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.”30 Thus, the

likelihood standard is prospective in nature.31 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that

“likely,” as used in the five-year review provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission

applies that standard in five-year reviews.32 33 34

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.”35 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.”36

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

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

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

merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”37 It

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

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

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

 30 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.

 31 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-362

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

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

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

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

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

addresses this issue.

 35 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 36 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.

 37 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

7
terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C.§

1675(a)(4).38 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.39

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

revoked and the suspended investigations are terminated, 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.40 In doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic

factors,” including four enumerated factors: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing

unused production capacity in the exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise,

or likely increases in inventories; (3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject

merchandise into countries other than the United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if

production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are

currently being used to produce other products.41

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the orders and finding 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.42

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the orders and finding under

review are 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.43 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the

business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry. As instructed by the

statute, we have considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is

related to the order at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order were

revoked.44

As discussed above, no foreign producer of chloropicrin responded to the Commission’s notice of

institution. Accordingly, when appropriate in this review, we have relied on the facts otherwise available,

 38 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). We note that no duty absorption findings have been made by Commerce.

 39 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily

dispositive. SAA at 886.

 40 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 41 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

 42 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.

 43 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 44 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.

8
which consist of information from the original investigation and the first and second five-year reviews, as

well as information submitted in this review, including information provided by the domestic industry,

questionnaire responses, and information available from published sources.45 46

B. Conditions of Competition and Business Cycle

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

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

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”47

1. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews

In the original investigation, the Commission found that the sale of chloropicrin was seasonal,

with the bulk of the product sold during the months of April to October for blending with other chemicals

for use in fumigating fields in summer and fall.48

In its first five-year review, the Commission identified several conditions of competition pertinent

to its analysis of the chloropicrin market. The Commission noted that consumption of chloropicrin had

*** from the time of the original investigation in 1984 to the time of the first review in 1999. It noted

also that chloropicrin was frequently combined with other chemical agents, principally methyl bromide,

and that methyl bromide was scheduled to be phased out over the next six years for environmental

reasons, creating uncertainty about future demand for chloropicrin. At the time of the first review, there

were no nonsubject imports and domestic consumption and domestic production capacity had grown. 

The Commission characterized the market for chloropicrin as mature, and noted that the availability and

prices of raw materials had been steady.49 The Commission found that chloropicrin was a commodity

product, with price an important purchasing factor, and with a relatively high degree of substitutability

between the likely subject imports and the domestic like product.50

 45 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a

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

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

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

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

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

responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification procedures for the evidence before

it, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of Commission investigations.”).

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

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

a whole in making its determination. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. She generally gives credence to the facts supplied by

the participating parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole, and does

not automatically accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless of the

level of participation, the Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factors

and may not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. “In general, the Commission makes

determinations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic

industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869.

 47 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 48 Original Determination at 8; but see Domestic Producers’ Answers to Questions from the Commission (Vice

Chairman Pearson) at 10-11.

 49 First Five-Year Review at 9.

 50 First Five-Year Review at 9-10.

9
In the second five-year review, the Commission again found that consumption of chloropicrin

had grown significantly in the years since the original investigation. With the disappearance of subject

imports from the U.S. market after imposition of the antidumping duty order on chloropicrin from China,

the Commission found that domestic producers had recaptured their earlier share of the market.51

Chloropicrin is primarily used as an active ingredient in fumigants that are applied to soil prior to

planting. When used in fumigants, chloropicrin is often paired with methyl bromide, which has certain

properties that chloropicrin lacks. The Commission noted that the use of methyl bromide had been

curtailed and that its use in the United States was scheduled to be phased-out, except in some limited

applications and for specific periods. As methyl bromide availability use was restricted, users increased

the proportion of other active ingredients, including chloropicrin. The Commission found that the higher

proportions for chloropicrin contributed to increased demand for chloropicrin during the period of review

compared to the periods examined in the original investigation and the first five-year review. The

Commission also found that research had not yet yielded practical alternatives to fumigants containing

methyl bromide and chloropicrin. The Commission concluded that the future effects of the phase-out of

methyl bromide on the demand for chloropicrin were unclear.52

The Commission also found that chloropicrin was a commodity product and that there was

relatively high substitutability between likely subject imports and the domestic like product. As a result,

the Commission found that price was an important consideration in purchasing decisions for chloropicrin.

The Commission concluded that the conditions of competition in the chloropicrin market (aside from the

possible effects of the phase-out of methyl bromide) were not likely to change significantly in the

reasonably foreseeable future.

2. The Current Review

There have been substantial changes in the conditions of competition after the Commission’s

original investigation in 1984, as noted in the two previous five-year reviews. Those changed conditions

have remained in place, and some additional changes have occurred since the Commission’s last five-year

review in 2004. We find the following conditions of competition relevant to our determination.

a. Demand

Demand for chloropicrin depends upon the demand for its end use applications. The most

commonly reported uses include pre-planting soil fumigation applications to buildings and sheds.53 The

U.S. demand for chloropicrin as measured by apparent U.S. consumption decreased slightly from ***

pounds in 2006 to *** pounds in 2007, before increasing to *** pounds in 2008.54 Apparent U.S.

consumption was *** pounds in January-September 2008 and *** pounds in January-September 2009.55

Two contrary trends have affected demand for chloropicrin in recent years, and will likely

continue to do so in the reasonably foreseeable future. In 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (“EPA”) implemented a phase-out of methyl bromide, which was originally scheduled for

 51 Second Five-Year Review at 7.

 52 Second Five-Year Review at 8.

 53 CR at II-6, PR at II-4.

 54 CR/PR at Table B-1.

 55 Id.

10
completion in 2005.56 As the share of methyl bromide in fumigant blends has declined, the share of

chloropicrin has tended to rise.57 On the other hand, chloropicrin has been subject to increasing

regulatory review through the EPA’s re-registration eligibility decision (“RED”) procedures to determine

the chemical’s usability based on its effects on human health and the environment. In 2008 and 2009, the

EPA issued REDs on chloropicrin requiring, among other things, risk mitigation measures including

buffer zones, public notice of use, and community outreach and education programs. In 2009, the state of

California’s EPA issued an evaluation of chloropicrin as a toxic air contaminant; this evaluation is

expected to result in increased restrictions on the use of chloropicrin sometime in 2011.58 Even as the use

of chloropicrin has increased due to the phase-out of methyl bromide, these Federal and state regulatory

restrictions are expected to make the production and use of chloropicrin more complicated and expensive

in the future.

Market participants provided mixed responses when asked whether demand increased, decreased,

fluctuated, or remained the same, but all market participants reported that there have been no changes in

the end uses of chloropicrin since 1984. Of the purchasers that reported that demand increased, most

indicated that the phase-out of methyl bromide led to the increased demand for chloropicrin.59 One

former producer reported that *** and all responding purchasers reported that they anticipated more end

use restrictions on applications for chloropicrin due to the EPA’s RED.60 61 The overall effect of these

contrary trends on future demand is uncertain.

b. Supply

There are currently two domestic producers of chloropicrin.62 The domestic industry’s annual

capacity was *** from 2006 to January-September 2009 at *** pounds.63

Subject imports from China virtually exited the U.S. market after imposition of the antidumping

duty order in 1984. Since that time, only small volumes of subject merchandise have been imported and

no subject imports were sold commercially during the period for which data were collected.64 Nonsubject

imports were not present in the U.S. market during the period of this current review.65

 56 CR at I-14, PR at I-9. Contrary to the EPA’s original schedule to completely phase-out the use of methyl

bromide in the United States by January 1, 2005, that chemical remains in limited use. The EPA granted methyl

bromide a Critical Use Exemption from the January 1, 2005, phase-out date, thus allowing for limited production,

consumption, and importation of methyl bromide for specific uses determined to be “critical.” Farmers in the states

of Florida and California, however, rely heavily on the use of methyl bromide for crops and reportedly participate in

the critical use exemption process. Id. The critical use exemption process remains in effect and, therefore, the final

ban on the production and use of methyl bromide is still pending with no clear indication when, if ever, a full ban

will take effect.

 57 CR at I-16, I-23, PR at I-10, I-14.

 58 CR at I-14 to I-17, PR at I-8 to I-11, and CR/PR at app. D.

 59 CR at II-8, PR at II-5.

 60 Niklor reported ***. Niklor U.S. Producer’s Questionnaire Response, section IV-14.

 61 U.S. Producers’ Questionnaire Responses, section III-8; ; see also Substantive Response at 4-9 and Prehearing

Brief at 6-9.

 62 CR/PR at Table I-5. The two producers are ASHTA and Trinity.

 63 CR/PR at Table B-1.

 64 CR at IV-3, PR at IV-1, and CR/PR at Table B-1.

 65 CR/PR at Table B-1. In addition to the domestic industry and Dalian, there are three chloropicrin producers in

Japan. Because Japanese chloropicrin consumption exceeds production, Japanese producers have shown no interest

in the U.S. market at any time for which the Commission has data since 1981. CR at IV-7 to IV-8, PR at IV-3 to IV11
c. Other Conditions

There is a high degree of substitutability between domestically produced chloropicrin and the

subject imports, and price is an important consideration in purchasing decisions.66 Purchasers listed price

and availability as the most important factors affecting their chloropicrin purchasing decisions.67

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

1. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews

In the original investigation, the volume of U.S. imports of chloropicrin from China increased

from a negligible amount in 1980 to a substantial amount in 1981, and more than tripled in 1982, before

declining slightly in 1983. The U.S. market share held by imports of chloropicrin from China increased

significantly from 1980 to 1982 before declining in 1983.68

In its first-five year review, the Commission found that the subject import volume would likely

increase significantly and be significant if the order were revoked. The Commission based its conclusion

largely on the record from the original investigation. Although there were no subject imports in the

period examined in the first review, the volume of subject imports had increased from *** pounds in

1980 to *** pounds in 1982.69 China was the source of virtually all imported chloropicrin in the U.S.

market, and the Chinese industry was highly export-oriented, with the United States as its primary export

market.70 Production capacity in China appeared to have increased since the original determination, and

China continued to export significant volumes to third country markets.71

In the second five-year review, the Commission concluded, on the basis of facts available, that

subject import volume was likely to increase significantly and would be significant if the order were

revoked. The conclusion was based largely on the records from the original investigation and the first

five-year review, and information submitted by the domestic industry. Although the Commission

acknowledged that there were no subject imports in the United States at the time of the review, the

Commission inferred from the available data that, at a minimum, total production capacity for

chloropicrin in China was significantly greater than in the original investigation. In addition, the

Commission noted that the volume of U.S. imports of chloropicrin from China in 1982 was equivalent to

*** of apparent U.S. consumption in 2004.72 The Commission found that these circumstances suggested

that the chloropicrin industry in China had ample ability to export significant volumes of chloropicrin to

the United States if the order were revoked. The Commission concluded, because of the similarities in

the conditions of competition prevailing at the time and those existing prior to the imposition of the order,

that it was likely that the chloropicrin industry in China would resume shipping significant volumes of

chloropicrin to the U.S. market in the absence of the antidumping duty order.73

4; Domestic Producers’ Answers to Questions from the Commission (Chairman Aranoff) at 2-3.

 66 CR at V-10, PR at V-3 to V-4. When asked how frequently they purchase chloropicrin at the lowest price,

seven purchasers indicated “always” or “usually,” two reported “sometimes,” and only one reported “never.” Id.

 67 CR/PR at Tables II-2 and II-3.

 68 Original Determination at 5. The Commission found that subject imports were discontinued after Commerce’s

preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value in September 1983. Id. at n.15.

 69 First Five-Year Review at 11.

 70 First Five-Year Review at 11.

 71 First Five-Year Review at 12.

 72 Second Five-Year Review Confidential Views at 13.

 73 Second Five-Year Review at 10.

12
2. The Current Review

 Several factors support the conclusion that the subject import volume is likely to be significant in

the event of revocation of the order.

First, the sole Chinese producer, Dalian Dyechem International Corporation (“Dalian”),

reportedly has considerable production capacity and unused capacity. The Domestic Producers estimate

that Dalian has the ability to produce at least *** pounds of chloropicrin annually and believe that Dalian

has plans to expand its production capacity to *** pounds within the next year.74 The Domestic

Producers estimate that Dalian’s excess production capacity is *** pounds, and estimate this excess

capacity to be the equivalent of *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption.75

Second, the Chinese industry is highly export-oriented. Dalian states on its website that it exports

chloropicrin to many countries in the world and that its exports increase every year. In addition, Dalian

claims that it works to increase production of chloropicrin to meet consumer demand in both domestic

and foreign markets.76 Information from the original investigation also shows that the Chinese industry is

highly export-oriented.77

Finally, the United States is an attractive market for the Chinese producers because of its size. 

The United States was the world’s second largest consumer of chloropicrin with more than *** of global

consumption in 200878 and, despite projected slow growth in demand, is likely to remain one of the top

chloropicrin markets.79 In addition, the Chinese industry faces barriers in other markets. For example,

although the European Union was the third largest global consumer of chloropicrin, the importation of

Chinese chloropicrin reportedly ***.80

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

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

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

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

revoked.

D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

1. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews

In its original determination, the Commission found that consistent underselling by subject

imports forced U.S. producers to reduce their prices by significant margins in order to compete with the

less than fair value imports of chloropicrin from China.81

In its first five-year review, the Commission found that revocation of the antidumping duty order

would be likely to lead to significant price effects, including significant underselling, and significant price

 74 CR at IV-6, PR at IV-3; Prehearing Brief at 12; Written Testimony at 5.

 75 Prehearing Brief at 12. The Commission notes that *** million pounds would be equivalent to *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption in 2008. See CR/PR at Table B-1.

 76 CR at IV-6, PR at IV-3.

 77 Original Determination at 5 (imports of chloropicrin from China increased from a negligible amount in 1980 to

a substantial amount in 1981, and more than tripled in 1982).

 78 According to the ***. CR at IV-7 to IV-8, PR at IV-4. 

 79 CR/PR at Table IV-4. In addition, U.S. purchasers reported that they would be interested in purchasing

Chinese chloropicrin, in the absence of the antidumping order, to develop additional competitive sources of

chloropicrin. CR/PR at C-5 and C-6; see also CR at IV-3, PR at IV-1 ***.

 80 CR at IV-6, n.15, PR at IV-3, n.15. 

 81 Original Determination at 5.

13
suppression and depression.82 The Commission noted that the record contained little pricing data and it

based its finding largely on the record from the original investigation.83

The Commission found that there was a relatively high level of substitutability between

domestically produced chloropicrin and subject imports because of the commodity nature of the product. 

It noted that price was an important factor in purchasing decisions, that subject imports exhibited

significant margins of underselling in the original investigation, and that there was no evidence that these

facts had changed by the time of the first review. The Commission reasoned that, given these facts, it was

likely that the Chinese producers would offer attractively low prices to U.S. purchasers in order to regain

market share, as they did in the original investigation, if the antidumping duty order were revoked. 

Consequently, the Commission concluded that prices for domestically produced chloropicrin would likely

decline to a significant degree in response to the likely significant volumes of substitutable subject

imports offered at lower prices.84

In the second five-year review, the Commission noted that the level of substitutability suggested

that price was an important, if not critical, criterion in the purchasing decision for customers and that

there was no evidence in the record to suggest that these facts had changed. The Commission found it

likely that the chloropicrin industry in China would offer attractively low prices to U.S. purchasers to

regain market share and concluded that domestic prices would likely decline to a significant degree in

response to the likely significant volumes of subject imports offered at low prices. As a result, the

Commission found that revocation would lead to significant price effects, including significant

underselling by subject imports, as well as significant price suppression and depression in the reasonably

foreseeable future.85

2. The Current Review

The record in this review indicates that imported chloropicrin remains a commodity product that

is readily substitutable with the domestic like product. Price remains an important factor in the purchase

of chloropicrin, with most purchasers reporting that price is “very important” and ranking price most

often as the number one factor in their purchasing decisions.86

There are no new pricing comparisons for subject and domestic chloropicrin on the record of this

review.87 88 Domestic producer Trinity reported that, upon revocation, subject imports ***.89 ASHTA

concurred, reporting that revocation ***.90 Purchaser *** agreed as well, indicating that the Chinese

producer would attempt to buy its way into the market by selling at significantly lower prices.91 Although

subject imports have essentially exited the U.S. market as a result of the antidumping duty order in

 82 First Five-Year Review at 14.

 83 First Five-Year Review at 13-14.

 84 First Five-Year Review at 13.

 85 Second Five-Year Review at 11. See also CR at V-10, PR at V-3 to V-4 (most purchasers reported they

“always” or “usually” purchase chloropicrin at the lowest price).

 86 CR/PR at Tables II-2 and II-3.

 87 ***. CR at IV-3, PR at IV-1.

 88 Quarterly prices for U.S.-produced chloropicrin generally fluctuated from January 2006-September 2009 with

one major increase during mid-2008. CR at V-9, PR at V-3; and CR/PR at Table V-1 and Figures V-1 and V-2.

 89 CR at C-3, PR at C-3.

 90 CR at C-3, PR at C-3.

 91 CR at C-6, PR at C-5.

14
1984,92 the Domestic Producers note that the Chinese industry exports substantial quantitites of

chloropicrin to third countries, particularly to Japan, at prices that are 20 to 40 percent below U.S.

prices.93

If the order were revoked, it is likely that the U.S. market for chloropicrin would become an

attractive export market for Dalian, based on Dalian’s substantial unused capacity and export orientation,

the limited number of global markets, and the size of and current attractive prices in the U.S. market. It is

also likely, upon revocation of the order, that Dalian would resume its aggressive underselling practices to

increase U.S. market share. Due to the high degree of interchangeability between subject and domestic

chloropicrin and the importance of price in purchasing decisions, the underselling is likely to result in

significant adverse price effects, similar to those found in the original investigation.94 Thus, given the

likely significant volume of subject imports, we conclude that, if the antidumping duty order under review

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

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

effects on the prices of the domestic like product.

E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports95

1. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews

In its original determination, the Commission found that the subject imports significantly affected

the U.S. market structure and resulted in the domestic producers losing significant sales and market share

to the subject imports.96 The Commission also noted that the condition of the domestic industry improved

after Commerce announced its preliminary margin determination.97

In its first five-year review, the Commission noted that, during the period examined in the

original investigation, the domestic industry experienced declines in shipments, market share, and

capacity utilization, and that the industry’s financial condition had deteriorated as well. The Commission

also noted that after the entry of the order, subject imports exited the market and the domestic industry’s

market share increased. Given that domestic and subject chloropicrin are substitutable, and that demand

 92 In September 1983, Commerce preliminarily determined in its less than fair value investigation of chloropicrin

from China a 222 percent dumping margin for the subject merchandise. As a result, the Chinese producers ceased

their exports of chloropicrin to the United States. Original Determination at n.10. 

 93 Substantive Response at 2; see also U.S. Purchaser’s Comments at C-6 (“Importers will make offers based on

price.”).

 94 Original Determination at 6.

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

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

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

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

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

magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy” in making its

determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute defines the “magnitude of the margin of

dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as “the dumping margin or margins determined by the

administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887.

In the final results of its expedited sunset review of the antidumping duty order on chloropicrin from China,

Commerce found likely antidumping duty margins of 58.0 percent for both the China National Chemicals Import and

Export Corporation (SINOCHEM) and the PRC-Wide Entity. 74 Fed. Reg. at 57450.

 96 Original Determination at 6, 9.

 97 Original Determination at 4, n.10.

15
is not likely to increase due to new technology or product developments, the Commission found it likely

that any future increase in the market share of subject imports would be largely at the expense of the

domestic industry. The Commission found future demand for chloropicrin somewhat uncertain, given the

phase-out of methyl bromide.98

The Commission found that, based on the limited record evidence, if the order were revoked the

likely volume of subject imports would be significant and that these imports would have significant

adverse price effects. The likely volume of subject imports would likely have a significant adverse

impact on the production, shipment, sales and revenue levels of the domestic industry, given the

substitutable nature of the product. The Commission concluded that, if the antidumping duty order were

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

within a reasonably foreseeable time.99

In the Commission’s second five-year review, the Commission found that the basic

substitutability of the product enabled the domestic industry to readily replace subject imports after

imposition of the order and to regain market share. The Commission also found that demand was

unlikely to be increased by product development or new technology and concluded that any future

increase in the market share of subject imports would be largely at the expense of the domestic industry. 

The likely volume of subject imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on the production,

shipment, sales and revenue levels of the domestic industry, given the substitutable nature of the product. 

The Commission found that the likely volume of subject imports would be significant and that these

imports would have significant adverse price effects if the order were revoked. As a result of these

findings, the Commission concluded, based on the limited record in the review, that subject imports

would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably

foreseeable time if the antidumping order were revoked.100

2. The Current Review

The condition of the domestic industry generally declined from 2006 to 2007 before improving

substantially in 2008 and in January-June 2009. U.S. production of chloropicrin decreased from ***

pounds in 2006 to *** pounds in 2007, before increasing to *** pounds in 2008. It was *** pounds in

January-September 2008 and *** pounds in January-September 2009.101 The domestic industry’s

production capacity remained constant from 2006 to 2008 at *** pounds. It was *** pounds in JanuarySeptember 2008 and January-September 2009. Capacity utilization decreased from *** percent in 2006

to *** percent in 2007, before increasing to *** percent in 2008. It was *** percent in JanuarySeptember 2008 and *** percent in January-September 2009.102

U.S. shipments decreased from *** pounds in 2006 to *** pounds in 2007 before increasing to

*** pounds in 2008. Shipments were *** pounds in January-September 2008 and *** pounds in

January-September 2009. Net sales increased from *** pounds in 2006 to *** pounds in 2007 before

decreasing slightly to *** pounds in 2008, and were *** pounds in January-September 2008 and ***

pounds in January-September 2009.103

 98 First Five-Year Review at 15.

 99 First Five-Year Review at 16.

 100 Second Five-Year Review at 12. The Commission did not find, however, that the domestic industry was in a

weakened state due to the limited information on the record. Id.

 101 CR/PR at Table B-1.

 102 CR/PR at Table B-1.

 103 CR/PR at Table B-1.

16
Domestic producers’ inventories declined from *** pounds in 2006 to *** pounds in 2007 and

were *** pounds in 2008. Inventories were *** pounds in January-September 2008 and *** pounds in

January-September 2009.104

The domestic industry’s production and related workers (PRWs) increased from *** in 2006 to

*** in 2007 before increasing to *** in 2008. The number of PRWs was *** in January-September 2008

and *** in January-September 2009. The number of hours worked increased from *** in 2006 to *** in

2007 to *** in 2008. The hours worked were *** in January-September 2008 and *** in JanuarySeptember 2009.105

The domestic industry’s financial performance declined from 2006 to 2007, although most of this

decline can be attributed to increased costs faced by the domestic industry.106 The industry’s financial

performance substantially improved in 2008 and January-September 2009. The industry’s operating

income *** from $*** in 2006 to *** in 2007, before *** to an operating income of $*** in 2008. 

Operating income was $*** in January-September 2008 and $*** in January-September 2009.107

Although gross profits remained relatively stable during 2006 to 2007, the industry’s operating income

margin *** from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007.108 The industry’s operating income *** to

*** percent in 2009, and was *** percent in January-September 2008 and *** percent in JanuarySeptember 2009.109

We have also considered the role of other factors including nonsubject imports and demand. In

light of the *** of such imports in the U.S. market, the subject imports would likely have a significant

adverse impact because there are *** nonsubject imports to displace. We attribute the exceptionally

improved performance in the domestic industry’s production and capacity utilization rates in 2008 to the

increase in demand created by the continued phase-out of methyl bromide, the particularly favorable

weather conditions for chloropicrin use, and the ***.110 With the existing exceptions to the complete

phase-out of the use of methyl bromide and the lack of alternative uses for chloropicrin, future increases

in demand for chloropicrin are uncertain at best.111 Therefore, considerations of factors other than the

 104 CR/PR at Table B-1. The ratio of domestic producers’ inventories to U.S. shipments decreased from ***

percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007, before increasing to *** percent in 2008. It was *** percent in JanuarySeptember 2008 and *** percent in January-September 2009. Id.

 105 CR/PR at Table B-1. Productivity (pounds/hour) decreased from *** in 2006 to *** in 2007, before

increasing to *** in 2008. It was *** in January-September 2008 and *** January-September 2009. Id.

 106 During 2006 to 2007, the domestic industry's SGA expenses per unit *** percent and the unit cost of goods

sold ***. CR/PR at Table B-1.

 107 The industry’s capital expenditures were $*** in 2006 and 2007 and $*** in 2009. Capital expenditures were

$*** in January-September 2008 and $*** in January-September 2009. CR/PR at Table B-1.

 108 The contrast between gross profits and the operating income margin during 2006 to 2007 is largely the result

of the sharp increase in selling, general and administrative expenses which increased by 82.1 percent during this

period. CR/PR at Table B-1.

 109 Based on these trends, we do not find that the domestic industry is vulnerable to the likely volume and price

effects of the subject imports.

 110 Domestic Producers’ Answers to Questions from the Commission (Chairman Aranoff) at 1. The Domestic

Producers reported that the allowable percentage of methyl bromide in a mix with chloropicrin went from sixtyseven percent in 2007 to fifty percent in 2008. In addition, the Domestic Producers claim that the largest

chloropicrin market in the United States, California, experienced unusual weather conditions in 2008 with a wet fall

causing greater infestation followed by a dry fumigation season that permited more intensive use of chloropicrin. Id.

 111 The record also indicates that the domestic industry’s continued improvement in January-June 2009 was

based, in part, on the domestic industry’s ability to increase ***. CR at III-4 and III-11, PR at III-2 and III-5, and

CR/PR at Table B-1.

17
subject imports do not detract from our finding that the subject imports will have a likely material adverse

impact on the domestic industry.

Consequently, based on the record in this review, we conclude that revocation of the order would

likely lead to a significant increase in subject imports that would undersell the domestic like product and

significantly suppress or depress U.S. prices. Decreased prices for chloropicrin would not significantly

stimulate additional demand, but would likely cause purchasers to switch to lower-priced subject imports. 

Given that there do not appear to be any alternative third country sources of chloropicrin available to U.S.

purchasers, any gain in market share by the subject imports after revocation would come entirely at the

domestic industry’s expense. Thus, we find that the volume and price effects of the subject imports

would likely have a significant adverse impact on the production, shipments, sales, market share, and

revenues of the domestic industry. Declines in these indicators of industry performance would have a

direct adverse impact on the industry’s profitability and employment, as well as its ability to raise capital

and to make and maintain capital investments. Although we acknowledge that the various regulatory

restrictions pertaining to chloropicrin production and use, as well as the uncertain demand for the product

in the reasonably foreseeable future, may also adversely affect the domestic industry, this does not

diminish the likely significant adverse effects that increased subject imports would have on the domestic

industry, as noted above. Therefore, we conclude that, if the antidumping duty order were revoked,

subject imports from China would likely have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry

within a reasonably foreseeable time.

CONCLUSION

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

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

industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

18
PART I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND

On July 2, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”) gave

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

 that it had instituted

a review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty finding on chloropicrin from China

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

 On

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

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

 Selected information relating to the schedule of this proceeding appears in the 

tabulation on the following page.5

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

 2 All interested parties were requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information requested by the

Commission. Chloropicrin from China, 74 FR 31760, July 2, 2009. The Commission received one submission in

response to its notice of institution for the subject review. It was filed on behalf of ASHTA Chemicals, Inc.

(“ASHTA”), a successor firm to petitioner LCP in the original investigation, Niklor Chemical Co., Inc. (“Niklor”), a

petitioner in the original investigation, and Trinity Manufacturing, Inc. (“Trinity”). Domestic interested parties’

response to the notice of institution, July 31, 2009. 

 3

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

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

notice of institution. Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 74 FR 31412, July 1, 2009. 

 4

 The Commission found that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (74 FR

31760, July 2, 2009) was adequate, but that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate (74 FR

55065, October 26, 2009). Notwithstanding the Commission’s determination that the respondent interested party

group response was inadequate, the Commission determined to conduct a full review in light of information

regarding possible changes in conditions of competition. These include possible changes in market conditions

resulting from increasing environmental regulation of chloropicrin. Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane, Irving A.

Williamson, and Dean A. Pinkert, dissented citing both the lack of adequate respondent participation and their

finding that the record in the adequacy phase did not indicate sufficient changes in the conditions of competition

since the original investigation and the first and second five-year reviews to warrant conducting a full review. 

Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy.

 5

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

adequacy appear in app. A and may also be found at the Commission’s web site (internet address www.usitc.gov). 

Commissioners’ votes on whether to conduct an expedited or a full review may also be found at the web site. 

I-1
Effective date Action

March 22, 1984 Department of Commerce’s antidumping duty order (49 FR 10691)

November 2, 1998 Commission’s institution (63 FR 58761) and Commerce’s initiation (63 FR

58709) of first review

March 9, 1999 Commerce’s final results of expedited first review (64 FR 11440)

April 7, 1999 Commission’s expedited first review determination (64 FR 16998)

April 14, 1999 Commerce’s first continuation order concerning the antidumping duty finding (64

FR 42655, August 5, 1999)

March 1, 2004 Commission’s institution (69 FR 9638) and Commerce’s initiation (69 FR 9585)

of second review

July 6, 2004 Commerce’s final results of expedited second review (69 FR 40601)

August 10, 2004 Commission’s expedited second review determination (69 FR 48520)

August 23, 2004 Commerce’s second continuation order concerning the antidumping duty finding

(69 FR 51811)

July 1, 2009 Commission’s institution (74 FR 31760, July 2, 2009) and Commerce’s initiation

(74 FR 31412) of third review

October 15, 2009 Commission’s determination to conduct a full review and scheduling of the

review (74 FR 55065, October 26, 2009)

November 6, 2009 Commerce’s final results of expedited third review (74 FR 57450)

February 18, 2010 Date for Commission’s hearing (hearing cancelled at the request of domestic

interested parties)

April 6, 2010 Commission’s vote

April 19, 2010 Commission’s determination transmitted to Commerce

THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION AND SUBSEQUENT FIVE-YEAR REVIEWS

The Commission instituted an antidumping duty investigation concerning chloropicrin from

China (Inv. No. 731-TA-130) on April 6, 1983, after a petition was filed with the Commission and the

U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) by counsel for Niklor and LCP Chemicals & Plastics, Inc.

(“LCP”), alleging sales at LTFV of chloropicrin from China. In March 1984, the Commission

unanimously determined that an industry in the United States was being materially injured by reason of

imports of chloropicrin from China sold at LTFV.6

 After receipt of the Commission’s determination,

Commerce issued an antidumping duty finding on imports of chloropicrin from China. The weighted

average margins for the Chinese manufacturers found by Commerce to have made LTFV sales of the

subject merchandise were 58.0 percent for China National Chemicals Import and Export Corp.

(SINOCHEM), and 58.0 percent for all other Chinese manufacturers/producers/exporters.7

 6 49 FR 11893, March 28, 1984.

 7

 49 FR 10691, March 22, 1984.

I-2
On November 2, 1998, the Commission instituted the first five-year review of the antidumping

duty finding on chloropicrin from China and determined that revocation of the finding on chloropicrin

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

United States within a foreseeable time.8

 Following affirmative determinations in the five-year reviews

by Commerce and the Commission, effective April 14, 1999, Commerce issued a continuation of the

antidumping duty finding on imports of chloropicrin from China.9

In August 2004, the Commission completed a second expedited five-year review of the

antidumping duty finding on chloropicrin from China and determined that revocation of the finding

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

within a foreseeable time.10 Following affirmative determinations in the second five-year reviews by

Commerce and the Commission, effective August 23, 2004, Commerce issued a continuation of the

antidumping duty order on imports of chloropicrin from China.11

SUMMARY DATA

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

and current reviews. From 1980 to 1983, the period for which data were collected in the original

investigation, the U.S. industry’s production, shipments, and net sales decreased irregularly over the

period. Capacity utilization of the U.S. industry fluctuated during the period, experiencing a slight

increase in 1983. As noted in Table I-1, certain data, including U.S. production, shipments, and imports

of chloropicrin for the first and second five-year expedited reviews were based on estimates submitted by

domestic interested parties in response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the respective reviews. 

In the current five-year review, U.S. industry data and related information are based on the questionnaire

responses of two U.S. producers of chloropicrin and U.S. import data and related information are based

on the questionnaire response of *** U.S. importer of chloropicrin. Both U.S. producers’ responses and

importer response are believed to have accounted for virtually all U. S. production of chloropicrin and the

vast majority of the total subject U.S. imports from China during 2008, which are *** percent of total

U.S. apparent consumption of chloropicrin. There were no imports of chloropicrin from nonsubject

countries during the period for which data were collected.

Table I-1

Chloropicrin: Summary data from the original investigation, first and second reviews, and current

review, 1980-83, 1997, 2003 and 2006-08

* * * * * * *

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

 8 Chloropicrin from China, 64 FR 16998, April 7, 1999. 

 9 Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order: Chloropicrin from China, 64 FR 42655, August 5, 1999.

 10 Chloropicrin from China, 69 FR 48520, August 10, 2004. 

 11 Continuation of Antidumping Duty Findings: Chloropicrin from China, 69 FR 51811, August 23, 2004. 

I-3
“would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the

case may be) and of material injury.”

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

recurrence of material injury–

(1) IN GENERAL.-- . . . the Commission shall determine whether revocation of an

order, or termination of a suspended investigation, would be likely to lead to

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

Commission shall consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the

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

is terminated. The Commission shall take into account--

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

impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry before the order was

issued or the suspension agreement was accepted, 

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

or the suspension agreement, 

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

or the suspension agreement is terminated, and 

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

absorption . . ..

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

if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the Commission shall

consider whether the likely volume of imports of the subject merchandise would be

significant if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, either in

absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States. In so

doing, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors, including--

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

capacity in the exporting country, 

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

inventories, 

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

countries other than the United States, and 

(D) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in the foreign

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

being used to produce other products.

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

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

Commission shall consider whether--

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

merchandise as compared to domestic like products, and 

(B) imports of the subject merchandise are likely to enter the United States at

prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on

the price of domestic like product.

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

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

is terminated, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors which are

likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including, but

not limited to–

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

investments, and utilization of capacity, 

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

growth, ability to raise capital, and investment, and 

(C) likely negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of

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

the domestic like product.

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

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

industry.

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

consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy. If

a countervailable subsidy is involved, the Commission shall consider information regarding the nature of

the countervailable subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the

Subsidies Agreement.”

Organization of the Report

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

presented throughout this report. A summary of trade and financial data for chloropicrin as collected in

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

U.S. producers of chloropicrin that are believed to have accounted for virtually all of domestic production

of chloropicrin in 2008. U.S. import data and related information are based on the questionnaire

responses of *** U.S. importer of chloropicrin that is believed to have accounted for the vast majority of

the total subject U.S. imports from China during 2008. Foreign industry data and related information are

based on the Substantive Response of Domestic Producers (Third Review) and ***.12 Responses by U.S.

producers, importers, and purchasers of chloropicrin to a series of questions concerning the significance

of the existing antidumping duty finding and the likely effects of revocation of the finding are presented

in appendix C. A summary of the regulatory environment for chloropicrin is presented in appendix D.

COMMERCE’S REVIEWS

Administrative Reviews

Commerce has conducted one administrative review of the antidumping duty order on

chloropicrin from China as shown in table I-2. Lack of interest from the foreign producer to request

administrative reviews has resulted in several intents to revoke the antidumping duty order throughout the

years. In each instance, the involved U.S. producers protested the intent to revoke and Commerce

determined to uphold the order.

 12 Substantive Response of Domestic Producers, July 31, 2009, and ***.

I-5
Table I-2

Chloropicrin: Administrative review of the antidumping duty order for China

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter

Margin

(percent)

January 22, 1985 (50 FR 2844) 09/19/83-01/31/84 Sinochem 58.0

Sinochem/William Hunt & Co. Ltd.1 58.0

 1 William Hunt & Co. Ltd. is a third country reseller of Sinochem’s merchandise to the United States.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Results of Five-Year Reviews

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

reviews. 

Table I-3

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

producers/exporters in China

Producer/exporter

First five-year

review margin

(percent)

Second five-year

review margin

(percent)

Third five-year

review margin

(percent)

China National Chemicals Import and Export

Corp. (Sinochem)

58.0 58.0 58.0

All others 58.0 58.0 58.0

Source: Final results of first expedited five-year review, 64 FR 11440, March 9, 1999; final results of second

expedited five-year review, 69 FR 40601, July 6, 2004; final results of third expedited five-year review, 74 FR

57450, November 6, 2009.

DISTRIBUTION OF CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT FUNDS

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

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

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

producers incur after the issuance of such orders.13 Qualified U.S. producers of chloropicrin have been

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

CDSOA relating to the orders covering the subject merchandise beginning in Federal fiscal year 2002.14

There have been no CDSOA claims or disbursements for chloropicrin from China in connection with the

antidumping duty finding for the five most recent complete Federal fiscal years, October 1-September 30,

2004-08. 

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

 14 19 CFR 159.64 (g).

I-6
THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

The imported chloropicrin subject to the antidumping finding under review, as defined by

Commerce in its 2009 final results of its expedited sunset review, is as follows: 

Chloropicrin, also know as trichloronitromethane. A major use of the product is as a

pre-plant soil fumigant (pesticide). Such merchandise is currently classifiable under

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) item number 2904.90.50.05. The HTS item number

is provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains

dispositive.15

Tariff Treatment

Imports of this product are currently classifiable as chloropicrin under Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) subheading 2904.90.50 and statistical reporting number

2904.90.5005 as set forth in table I-4.

Table I-4

Chloropicrin: Harmonized Tariff Schedule provision, article description, and duty rates

HTS provision Article description

General1 Special2 Column 23

Rates 

2904

 

2904.90.50 

 

2904.90.5005

 

Sulfonated, nitrated or nitrosated

derivatives of hydrocarbons, whether or

not halogenated:

 Other

 Trichloronitromethane (chloropicrin)

 

3.7 % Free (A, AU,

BH, CA, CL,

E, IL, J, JO,

MA, MX, OM,

P, PE, SG)

25%

1

 Normal trade relations, sometimes referred to as the most-favored-nation duty rate. 2

 Special rates apply to imports of chloropicrin from certain trading partners of the United States as follows: A

(GSP); AU (United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement; BH (United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement

Implementation Act); CA and MX (North American Free Trade Agreement); CL (United States-Chile Free Trade

Agreement); E (Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act); IL (United States-Israel Free Trade Area); J (Andean

Trade Preference Act); JO (United States-Jordan Free Trade Area Implementation Act); MA (United StatesMorocco Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act); OM (United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement

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

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

States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement). China is not eligible for any special duty rates. 3

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

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

 15 Chloropicrin From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the

Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 57450, November 6, 2009.

I-7
THE PRODUCT

Description and Applications

Chloropicrin is a highly toxic liquid chemical compound that has the formula CCl3NO2. At the

time of the original investigation, it was used primarily as an active agent in pre-plant soil fumigants16 for

killing fungi; in addition, small amounts were used to control insects and rodents in grain storage and to

prevent decay in wood.17 Because of the high cost of using chloropicrin as a soil fungicide18 it is used

mostly for high unit value crops such as strawberries, tobacco, flowers, and tree-grown fruit; when used

for relatively low unit value crops, such as potatoes, it is generally because such crops require less

fumigant per acre to achieve the same pest control and accompanying increase in yield.19

Chloropicrin is still used primarily as a soil fumigant and usually is blended with other chemical

agents into a single fumigant. The chloropicrin component of a mixed fumigant can range from less than

one percent to more than 50 percent. A substantial amount of chloropicrin has been used for soil

fumigation with methyl bromide (CH3Br). However, in 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency

(“EPA”) implemented a phase-out of the soil fumigant methyl bromide. In 2001, the volume of methyl

bromide was reduced to 50 percent of the 1991 U.S. production volume. In 2003, the EPA implemented

a 70 percent reduction from the 1991 production volume, and methyl bromide was scheduled to be phased

out entirely in 2005.20 However, methyl bromide has been granted a Critical Use Exemption from the

EPA and Montreal Protocol.21 This allows for limited production, consumption, and importations of

methyl bromide after the January 1, 2005 phase-out date for specific uses determined by the Protocol

Parties to be “critical.” However, States such as California and Florida that rely heavily on the use of

methyl bromide and chloropicrin in the production of their crops, reportedly participate in the critical use

exemption process.22 The United States was granted an internationally approved methyl bromide use

allowance of 17.8 million pounds for 2006 (31.5 percent of the 1991 baseline volume). Exemption

allowances are decided on a yearly basis, taking into account the availability of technically and

 16 Generally soil fumigants are injected by machine into the soil shortly before planting to decrease harmful pests,

which in turn may lead to increased plant yields. Plastic tarps are secured to the soil immediately after injection to

ensure that the chemicals are not lost to the air by evaporation. Original Investigation Staff Report of February 27,

1984, p. A-5. This both increases the efficiency of the procedure and reduces harm to the environment. Currently,

as chemical regulations become increasingly stringent, using thicker plastic tarps and increasing the protective gear

of employees, coupled with reductions in methyl bromide/chloropicrin usage, are noted as options to maintain crop

production and decrease environmental and safety risks. The implications of Banning Methyl Bromide for Fruit and

Vegetable Production: Hearing before the subcommittee on livestock and horticulture of the Committee on

Agriculture, House of Representatives, July 13, 2000:

http://commdocs.hous.gov/committees/ag/hag10657.000/hag10657_Of.htm.

 17 Second Review Staff Report of July 1, 2004, p. I-5, (citing First Review Staff Report of March 4, 1999, p. I-5). 

 18 About $900.00 per acre at the time of the original investigation, of which approximately half is application

costs.

 19 Second Review Staff Report of July 1, 2004, p. I-5, (citing First Review Staff Report of March 4, 1999, p. I-5). 

 20 Ibid., p. I-6.

 21 Ibid., See The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer is an international treaty ratified

by the United States that aims to phase out specific ozone-depleting chemicals (such as methyl bromide) within set

time frames and as technically and economically feasible alternatives become available. See the United Nations

Environment Programme’s Montreal Protocol website:

http://www.unep.ch/ozone/Treaties_and_Ratification/2B_montreal%20protocol.asp.

 22 Ibid., See the EPA’s Methyl Bromide Phase-out website: http://www.epa.gov/spdpublc/mbr/cueqa.html.

Responses to Questions from the Commission, March 1, 2010, p. 8 (Pearson).

I-8
economically feasible alternatives to methyl bromide.23 The amount of methyl bromide reserved for

critical uses in 2010 is 7.0 million pounds (12.5 percent of the 1991 baseline levels).24 Critical use

exemptions are granted by crop, and then allocated geographically once the total amount of methyl

bromide exemption is fixed.25 Currently, no single alternative possesses all the effective fumigation

qualities of methyl bromide.26

With the decreased use of methyl bromide, chloropicrin has been subject to greater regulatory

review through the EPA’s re-registration eligibility decision (“RED”) procedures to determine the

chemical’s usability based upon a reassessment of its effects on human health and the environment. On

July 9, 2008, the EPA released its RED for chloropicrin, along with REDs for other soil fumigant

pesticides (including methyl bromide) and opened a public comment period on the REDs.27 The EPA

issued an amended RED for chloropicrin on May 29, 2009.28 In both the original and amended RED, the

EPA determined that due to chloropicrin’s potential to move off-site, chloropicrin risks to handlers,

workers, and bystanders are of concern given current labels and use practices.29 To reduce inhalation

exposures and to address associated risks of concern for pre-plant soil fumigations, the original and

amended REDs set forth a complex array of mitigation measures, including: buffer zones; buffer zone

posting; respiratory protections; restrictions on the timing of tarp perforation and removal operations;

entry restrictions; mandatory good agricultural practices (GAPs); fumigant management plans (FMPs);

emergency preparedness and response; notice to state-lead agencies; training; and community outreach

and education programs.30

Many elements of these mitigation measures have yet to be finalized; in particular, the

requirements relating to buffer zones;31 however, they are expected to be phased in from 2010 to 2011.32

 23 Ibid., See the Environmental News Service’s Global Methyl Bromide Exemptions over 13,000 tons, March 29,

2004: http://ww.keepmedia.com/ShowITelDetails.do?itemID=454215&exID=10032&oliID=213.

 24 Domestic Interested Parties Responses to Follow Up Questions, March 11, 2010, pp. 3-4.

 25 Ibid., p. 2.

 26 Ibid., See the EPA’s Alternatives to Pre-Plant Uses of Methyl Bromide Index: 

http://www.epa.gov/spdpublc/mbr/preplant/html.

 27 Substantive Response of Domestic Producers to the Notice of Institution of Five-Year Review, July 31, 2009, p.

8, citing Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Chloropicrin, EPA738-R-08-009, July 2008 (Hereafter,

“RED”); Chloropicrin, Dazomet, Metam Sodium/Potassium, and Methyl Bromide Reregistration Eligibility

Decisions: Notice of Availability, 73 FR 40871, July 16, 2008,

http://www.regulations.gov/searchRegs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480661819.

 28 Substantive Response of Domestic Producers to the Notice of Institution of Five-Year Review, July 31, 2009, p.

8, citing Amended Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Chloropicrin, EPA738-R-09-308, May 2009

(“Amended RED”), http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=09000064809b8b7f

 29 Substantive Response of Domestic Producers to the Notice of Institution of Five-Year Review, July 31, 2009, p.

8, citing RED at 17; Amended RED at 22.

 30 Substantive Response of Domestic Producers to the Notice of Institution of Five-Year Review, July 31, 2009, p.

8, citing RED at 9-10; 27-28.

 31 As set forth in the RED, the EPA’s human health risk assessment indicates that when chloropicrin is used as a

pre-planting soil fumigant, bystanders may be exposed to chloropicrin air concentrations that exceed the EPA’s level

of concern. The RED notes that, in general, the risk from inhalation exposures decreases as the distance between

bystanders and the treated field increases. Because of this relationship, the EPA requires that a “buffer zone” be

established around the perimeter of each application block where chloropicrin is applied. As defined in the July

2008 RED, “buffer zone” is an area established around the perimeter of each application block or greenhouse where

a soil fumigant is applied. The buffer zone must extend from the edge of the application block or greenhouse

perimeter equally in all directions. Substantive Response of Domestic Producers to the Notice of Institution of Five-

(continued...)

I-9
The buffer zone requirement will impose greater restrictions on the use of chloropicrin for farms and

greenhouses, particularly for small establishments located in areas with nearby suburban development. 

The requirement for notification of neighbors through Buffer Zone Postings in areas with nearby

suburban development will also inhibit the use of chloropicrin on farms and greenhouses in these areas. 

These mitigation measures will increasingly reduce the utility of chloropicrin as a pre-planting soil

fumigant. Additionally, requirements for community education and outreach may result in public

backlash against the use of chloropicrin.

Chloropicrin is viewed by some as a viable alternative to methyl bromide. However,

chloropicrin ***.33 Chloropicrin is limited in its capabilities when compared to methyl bromide (as all

current alternatives are). The limitation of each alternative creates the need to blend different chemicals

and techniques to act as efficiently as methyl bromide. Chloropicrin lacks the herbicidal properties of

methyl bromide; therefore, *** chloropicrin’s use as an alternative in conjunction with 1,3-

dichloropropene (trade name Telone (***)) and compounds with broader herbicidal properties such as

metam sodium, diazomet, and pebulate.34

Chloropicrin itself is classified as a Restricted Use Pesticide by the EPA and has been subject to

greater regulatory review as the supply of methyl bromide has decreased. Chloropicrin’s re-registration

eligibility decision (“RED”) report (case 00400), issued in 2006, determined the chemical’s future

usability based on a reassessment of chloropicrin’s effects on human health and the environment. Risk

mitigation measures shall be implemented as required and necessary.35 Environmentally, chloropicrin

does not contribute to significant ozone depletion because it breaks down both in soil and sunlight. The

chemical, however, is highly toxic to humans and wildlife.36 In June 2009, the California EPA issued its

Evaluation of Chloropicrin as a Toxic Air Contaminant,37 which is expected to result in increased

restrictions on chloropicrin use in 2011, and could eventually phase out the use of chloropicrin in

California entirely.38 Current regulatory issues relating to chloropicrin and methyl bromide are detailed in

appendix D.

Manufacturing Process

At the time of the original investigation, chloropicrin was produced in the United States by

mixing nitromethane and sodium hypochlorite to form chloropicrin and sodium hydroxide (caustic soda). 

The sodium hydroxide was either wasted or recycled back into the production of sodium hypochlorite

 31 (...continued)

Year Review, July 31, 2009, p. 8. 

 32 Written Testimony, John Paulson, Product Manager, Trinity Manufacturing, Inc., February 18, 2010, p. 3.

 33 Responses to Questions from the Commission, March 1, 2010, p. 8 (Pearson).

 34 Ibid., p. I-7, See the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s online 2003 economic research publication, Amber

Waves: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Amberwaves/April03/Features/MethylBromide.htm. Responses to Questions from

the Commission, March 1, 2010, p. 8 (Pearson).

 35 Ibid., 69 FR 25082, May 5, 2004, for EPA’s re-registration schedule. See also EPA’s website: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/oppref/rereg/status.fcfm?show=rereg.

 36 Ibid., See the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Technical Report: Chloropicrin as a Soil Fumigant, 1996: 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/july96/.

 37 Prehearing Brief of Domestic Interested Parties, February 9, 2010, p. 9, citing Evaluation of Chloropicrin as a

Toxic Air Contaminant, Department of Pesticide Regulation, California EPA (June 2009) (available at:

www.cdpr.ca.gov).

 38 Ibid., citing ***’s producer questionnaire response (section IV-27).

I-10
(formed from chlorine and caustic soda).39 The technology and production methods remain relatively

unchanged. Also, as chloropicrin has become subject to greater regulatory review, the U.S. industry has

invested substantially in studies supporting the continuing use of chloropicrin in the United States and

elsewhere.40

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

In its original determination and its expedited first and second five-year review determinations,

the Commission defined the domestic like product the same as Commerce’s scope, “chloropicrin, also

know as trichloronitromethane. A major use of the product is as a pre-plant soil fumigant (pesticide). 

Such merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) item number

2904.90.5005.”41 The Commission further defined the domestic industry as all producers of

chloropicrin.42 The domestic producers indicated in their response to the Commission’s notice of

institution in this third review that they agreed with the Commission’s definitions of the domestic like

product and domestic industry as set forth in the Commission’s notice.

U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Producers

The domestic chloropicrin producers have experienced a number of changes since the

Commission’s original investigation concerning chloropicrin from China was conducted in 1984. Since

that time, closures, openings, and acquisitions have altered the composition of the domestic industry. 

During the original investigation, two firms were identified as producers of chloropicrin: Niklor, Long

Beach, CA, and LCP, with plants in Orrington, ME, and Ashtabula, OH.43

In the Commission’s first five-year review, Niklor still produced chloropicrin. The LCP plant at

Ashtabula, OH, was acquired by LinChem Inc. in 1989 and has operated as ASHTA since May 1992. 

The LCP plant at Orrington, ME, was operated by Hanlin Group Inc. until it was acquired by HoltraChem

as part of bankruptcy proceedings in 1994. Trinity has produced chloropicrin in Hamlet, NC, since at

least 1990. ASHTA, HoltraChem, Niklor, and Trinity provided a response to the Commission’s notice of

institution in the first review.

In their response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the second review, the domestic

producers indicated that ASHTA, Niklor, and Trinity accounted for all domestic production of

chloropicrin during 2003. The domestic producers reported that HoltraChem ceased production of

chloropicrin following the Commission’s first review and that its chloropicrin production facilities were

 39 Ibid., citing (Staff Report of February 27, 1984, p. A-6).

 40 Ibid., citing (Domestic Substantive Response for the Second Review, p. 7).

 41 Chloropicrin from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-130 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3712, March

2004, p. 4.

 42 Ibid., p. 5.

 43 Original Investigation Staff Report at A-8. Two other firms produced chloropicrin in the United States during

the period of the original investigation; Dow Chemical Co. had produced chloropicrin for about 20 years when it

ceased production at its aging plant in 1980 and began relying exclusively on purchases for its blended fumigants,

and International Mineral & Chemical Corp. (“IMC”) produced chloropicrin until 1982 when it sold its Orrington,

ME, and Ashtabula, OH, plants to LCP. First Review Staff Report, p. I-6.

I-11
purchased by Arvesta Corp. (“Arvesta”) in 2000.44 Arvesta indicated that it had the capability to produce

chloropicrin, but it did not produce the product during the period of the second review.

In response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the present review, the domestic

producers indicated that ASHTA and Trinity are the only currently operating producers of the domestic

like product. ***. Although economic conditions during the period since the second review have not

warranted Niklor manufacturing at its new facility, Niklor is working on resuming production.

The Commission issued producers’ questionnaires to three firms, all confirmed producers of

chloropicrin in the United States. Of these firms, two provided the Commission with useable information

on their chloropicrin operations.45 These two firms are believed to have accounted for virtually all of U.S.

production of chloropicrin in 2008. Presented in table I-5 is a list of domestic producers of chloropicrin,

each company’s position on continuation of the order, production location(s), related and/or affiliated

firms, and share of reported production of chloropicrin in 2008.

Table I-5

Chloropicrin: U.S. producers, positions on the orders, U.S. production locations, related and/or

affiliated firms, and shares of 2008 reported U.S. production

Firm

Position on

continuation

of the orders

Production

location(s)

Related and/or affiliated

firms

Share of

production

(percent)

ASHTA Support Ashtabula, OH Baxter Associates Inc.,

Palatine, IL ***

Niklor Support Mojave, CA None ***

Trinity Support Hamlet, NC None ***

Note.–Because of rounding, shares may not total to 100.0 percent.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. Importers

The Commission issued three questionnaires to potential U.S. importers of chloropicrin identified

through independent staff research. Of these, the Commission received useable data from one U.S.

importing firm on its operations involving the importation of chloropicrin. The remaining two firms

provided certification that they had not imported chloropicrin during the period for which data were

gathered. Staff believes that the data reported by the responding U.S. importer accounts for the vast

majority of U.S. imports of subject chloropicrin from China. There were no nonsubject imports believed

to be entering the United States during the period for which data were gathered. Table I-6 lists the

responding U.S. importer of chloropicrin from China, its location, and shares of U.S. imports in 2008.

Table I-6

Chloropicrin: U.S. importers, U.S. headquarters, and shares of reported imports in 2008

* * * * * * *

 44 Arvesta changed its name to Arysta LifeSciences North America (“Arysta”) on August 10, 2005, concurrent

with an announcement of its headquarters moving from San Francisco, CA, to Research Triangle Park, NC. 

“Arvesta Corp. Changes Name and Plans Headquarters Move,” LM Week in Review,

http://www.landscapemanagement.net/landscape/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=174574, retrieved January 26, 2010. 

 45 The two U.S. producers that supplied the Commission with usable questionnaire information are: ASHTA and 

Trinity. The Commission also received a questionnaire response from U.S. chloropicrin producer Niklor, ***. 

I-12
U. S. Purchasers

The Commission received nine usable purchaser questionnaires from firms that bought

chloropicrin during 2006-08. Table I-7 presents the purchaser names, location, type of firm, and type of

customers for the responding purchasers. Each firm may provide more than one type of service to its

customers: ***. 

Table I-7

Chloropicrin: Purchaser names, location, type of firm, and end products produced

* * * * * * *

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND MARKET SHARES

Table I-8 presents apparent U.S. consumption for 2006-08, January-September 2008, and

January-September 2009, while table I-9 presents U.S. market shares for the same period. Apparent U.S.

consumption of chloropicrin, as shown in tables I-8 and I-9, is based on U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments

of chloropicrin and U.S. shipments of imports of chloropicrin as compiled from questionnaire responses

submitted by U.S. importers. 

Table I-8

Chloropicrin: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. shipments of imports, and apparent U.S.

consumption, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and January-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Apparent U.S. consumption of chloropicrin has ***. A significant portion of the ***. The

industry moved from a mix of 98.0 percent methyl bromide and 2.0 percent chloropicrin in the past, to a

50/50 blend in 2008. A small amount of the ***; however, reportedly, 2008 demand was ***.46

Table I-9

Chloropicrin: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and

January-September 2009

* * * * * * *

The U.S. industry reported that it expects the market for chloropicrin ***.47 

 46 Responses to Questions from the Commission, March 1, 2010, pp. 6-7 (Pearson).

 47 Ibid., p. 7 (Pearson).

I-13

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION AND U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

The two responding U.S. producers, ASHTA and Trinity, reported shipping their chloropicrin

primarily to U.S. *** during January 2006-September 2009, while the lone U.S. importer of chloropicrin

from China, ***, reported shipping all of its product to U.S. *** during this period (table II-1).1 2

Table II-1

Chloropicrin: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ shares of reported U.S. shipments, by sources

and channels of distribution, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and January-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Based on usable responses from nine U.S. purchasers, eight of whom are believed to account for

all the direct purchases of chloropicrin from U.S. producers,3

 the distributors are usually both blenders

and distributors4

 and the end users are soil fumigation providers, who also perform blending operations.

Of the nine responding active U.S. purchasers of chloropicrin, four reported they were soil fumigation

service providers, four reported they were both blenders and distributors,5

 and one purchaser reported that

it was solely a distributor. Purchases of chloropicrin by type of purchaser for the eight firms that

purchased directly from U.S. producers are shown in the following tabulation as a share of total purchases

for each of the years requested, during 2006-08, and for the full period.

Type of purchaser

Purchase shares of U.S.-produced chloropicrin

(Percentage)

2006 2007 2008 2006-08

Soil fumigator providers 69.7 73.4 79.5 74.5

Blenders/distributors 30.3 26.6 20.5 25.5

Distributor 0.0 0.0 (1) (1)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1

 Less that 0.05 percent.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 1 As discussed earlier in this report, only a very small volume of Chinese chloropicrin has been imported into the

United States since 1984, and during January 2006-September 2009 ***.

 2

 U.S. producer *** (see CR at I-18). ***’s questionnaire answers are included in sections II and V if the question

refers to periods since 1984. If the questions refer to periods since January 2006, its answers have been excluded.

 3

 There were no reported purchases of chloropicrin from China or from nonsubject countries since 1984. U.S.

purchaser questionnaire responses, section II-3a-c.

 4

 In addition, ***, was also considered a blender/distributor. The firm reported that ***. *** purchaser

questionnaire response, sections II-2 and III-3.

 5

 One of the blenders/distributors, ***, purchased all of its chloropicrin from ***, another blender/distributor that

purchases its U.S.-produced chloropicrin from a U.S. producer.

II-1
The principal market for chloropicrin in the United States consists of a limited number of

companies that blend chloropicrin with other chemicals, principally methyl bromide or 1,3-

dichloropropene, to produce blends for crop fumigation.6

 The blended products are ultimately applied by

soil fumigator providers or sold to farmers who apply the products. 

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS7

U.S. Supply

Domestic Industry8

Based on available information, U.S. producers have the ability to respond to changes in demand

with at least moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced chloropicrin to the U.S.

market. The main factors contributing to this responsiveness of supply are discussed below.

Industry capacity

Capacity utilization for U.S. producers of chloropicrin *** from *** percent in 2006 to ***

percent in 2008,9 and was *** percent in January-September 2009 compared with *** percent in JanuarySeptember 2008. The reported levels of capacity utilization indicate that U.S. producers have the ability

to increase shipments, however capacity utilization data indicate that this ability may be lower than it was

in the earlier part of the period. 

Alternative markets

Exports of U.S. produced chloropicrin *** from *** percent of U.S. producers’ total shipments in

2006 to *** percent in 2008; exports accounted for *** percent of total shipments in January-September

2009 compared with *** percent in January-September 2008. Reported exports suggest that U.S.

producers may have had an ability to shift shipments between exports and the U.S. market in response to

price changes.

Inventory levels

U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories (as a ratio of their total chloropicrin shipments)

fluctuated between 2006 and 2008, increasing irregularly from *** percent of total shipments in 2006 to

*** percent in 2008. U.S. producers’ inventories were equivalent to *** percent of total annualized

shipments in September 2009, compared with *** percent in September 2008. Reported inventory data

suggests that U.S. producers may have had an ability to use inventories to increase shipments.

 6 ***.

 7

 Short-run effects discussed in the supply and demand sections refer to changes that could occur within 12

months, unless otherwise indicated.

 8

 Data on U.S. chloropicrin production capacity, capacity utilization, exports, inventories, and production

alternatives are shown in detail in Part III.

 9

 ***.” Responses to Questions from the Commission, March 1, 2010, p. 1 (Aranoff).

II-2
Production alternatives

The three responding U.S. producers reported that they are unable to produce other products

using the same equipment and machinery used to produce chloropicrin. However, U.S. producers

produce chlorine bleach or potassium bleach as inputs to produce chloropicrin in their facilities, which are

also sold separately as end products. Their ability to shift production between just the bleach products

and chloropicrin enhances the producers’ ability to increase supplies of chloropicrin to the U.S. market. 

Supply of Subject Imports from China

The Commission received no questionnaire responses from Chinese producers in this review. 

The lone responding U.S. importer, ***, reported that it does not anticipate any changes in term of the

availability of chloropicrin imported from China in the U.S. market.10 11

Factors affecting supply

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if there have been any changes in factors

affecting supply (such as changes in availability or prices of energy or labor; transportation conditions;

production capacity and/or methods of production; technology; export markets; or alternative production

opportunities) that affected the availability of U.S.-produced chloropicrin in the U.S. market since 1984.12

U.S. producers Trinity, ASHTA, and Niklor, reported changes in factors affecting supply. A

change in production capacity was reported by all three producers due to domestic producers leaving the

market;13 ASHTA also reported ***.14 ASHTA and Trinity reported ***.15 All three producers reported

no changes in regulations that affected the availability of U.S. produced chloropicrin in the U.S. market

since 1984. Niklor reported that the availability of U.S.-produced chloropicrin in the U.S. market will

*** in the future,16 and ASHTA and Trinity reported *** in future supply.17 The one responding

importer, ***, reported *** in factors that affected the availability of U.S.-produced chloropicrin in the

U.S. market since 1984. 

Five of nine responding purchasers reported changes in factors affecting supply, and the

remaining four reported no such changes. The majority of purchasers reported that raw material shortages

and subsequent price increases in nitromethane affected supply. One purchaser reported that changes

 10 U.S. importer questionnaire response, section III-21.

 11 In addition, U.S. importer, ***, and all three U.S. producers reported that the availability of nonsubject

chloropicrin has not changed since 1984. U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, section IV-22 and III22, respectively.

 12 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, section IV-19, III-19, and III-15, respectively. 

 13 The two current U.S. producers ASHTA and Trinity reported a reduction in capacity in the last 10 years when

*** exited the market. U.S. producer Niklor reported that ***.” U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section

IV-19.

 14 U.S. producer ASHTA reported ***.” ASHTA’s producer questionnaire response, section IV-19.

 15 U.S. producer ASHTA reported that ***.” ASHTA’s producer questionnaire response, section IV-19.

 16 Niklor reported that ***. Niklor’s producer questionnaire response, sections II-3 and IV-21.

 17 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section IV-21.

II-3
have occurred in regulations that affected the availability of U.S. produced chloropicrin in the U.S.

market since 1984.18

U.S. Demand

Based on available information it is likely that changes in the price level of chloropicrin will

result in a small change in the quantity of chloropicrin demanded. The main contributing factor to the

small degree of responsiveness of demand is the limited degree of substitutability of other products for

chloropicrin. However, the high cost share of chloropicrin to the overall costs of blended products may

also affect the responsiveness of demand.

 

Demand Characteristics

U.S. overall chloropicrin demand depends upon the demand for a few end-use applications. U.S.

producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to list the end uses of chloropicrin.19 The most

commonly reported uses included pre-plant soil fumigation and fumigation applications to buildings and

sheds. Purchasers were asked if demand for their firms’ final products incorporating chloropicrin has

changed since 1984.20 Four purchasers reported that the downstream demand fluctuated, two purchasers

reported increased demand, and one reported decreased demand. All seven responding purchasers

reported that the changed demand for their firms’ final products of chloropicrin increased the firms’

demand for chloropicrin due to an increase in downstream demand for chloropicrin and blended

chloropicrin products. The apparent discrepancy in responses shown in the last two sentences may have

resulted from the difficulty in providing information for a 25-year period.

When asked if there has been any changes in the end uses of chloropicrin since 1984, U.S.

producer Niklor and U.S. purchaser *** reported that ***.21 U.S. producers ASHTA and Trinity, U.S.

importer, ***, and eight purchasers reported that there were no changes in the end uses of chloropicrin.

When asked if they anticipate any changes in end uses, former producer, Niklor, reported that

new ***.22 All six responding purchasers reported that they anticipate changes in end uses due to the

EPA’s recently issued Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for chloropicrin and the ongoing review

in California.23

Business Cycles

Demand for chloropicrin reportedly is not subject to business cycles or conditions of competition

distinctive to chloropicrin.24 All ten responding purchasers reported that there was no specific business

 18 U.S. purchaser *** reported that ***.” *** purchaser questionnaire response, section III-16.

 19 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections IV-12, III-12, and III-5, respectively.

 20 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-12.

 21 Niklor’s U.S. producer questionnaire response, section IV-13, and *** U.S. purchaser questionnaire response,

section III-7. 

 22 U.S. producer Niklor reported ***.” Niklor’s U.S. producers questionnaire response, section IV-14.

 23 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-8.

 24 Domestic interested parties reported that “seasonality has not had a significant impact on the U.S. industry’s

production because producers are able to produce to customer forecasts and manage mostly consistent quarterly

production volumes throughout the year based on our customer mix.” Responses to Questions from the Commission,

March 1, 2010, pp. 10-11 (Pearson).

II-4
cycle to the chloropicrin industry, nor have new markets emerged since 1984 that have affected

conditions of competition distinctive to chloropicrin.25

Consumption

Demand, as measured by apparent U.S. consumption, increased irregularly from *** million

pounds in 2006 to *** million pounds in 2008. U.S. consumption was *** million pounds in JanuarySeptember 2009 compared with *** million pounds in January-September 2008.

Demand Trends

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked how demand has changed within the

United States since 1984.26 All three U.S. producers reported that demand fluctuated, which was due to

changes in acreage planted for specialty crops, as well the availability of other soil fumigants such as

methyl bromide and 1,3-dichloropropene in blended chloropicrin products. Importer *** reported no

change in demand. 

Six of nine responding purchasers reported that demand for chloropicrin increased and three

purchasers reported that demand fluctuated. Of the purchasers that reported that demand increased, most

of these firms indicated that the phase out of methyl bromide has led to increased demand for

chloropicrin.27 Changes in farming practices and the increased number of fumigations also reportedly

contributed to an increase in demand for chloropicrin. Of the purchasers that reported that demand

fluctuated, most of these firms cited fluctuation in crop diseases as a reason.

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were also asked how demand outside the United States

changed since 1984.28 Producers ASHTA and Trinity reported that demand for chloropicrin increased

outside the United States: ASHTA noted “***;”29 Trinity also noted that it “***.”30 Importer ***

reported no change. Two of three responding purchasers reported that demand increased outside the

United States, while the other reported that it fluctuated.31 

U.S. purchasers were asked whether their purchasing patterns for chloropicrin from domestic,

subject, and nonsubject sources changed since 1984.32 Three of seven responding purchasers reported

that their total purchases of chloropicrin from domestic sources increased, three purchasers reported that

their domestic purchases have fluctuated, and one stated that it decreased. Purchasers that reported

increased purchases of domestic chloropicrin attributed the increase to an introduction of new products in

the market that incorporate chloropicrin, and an increase in farming in Florida. Other purchasers reported

that their purchases of domestic chloropicrin fluctuated due to growers’ needs. One purchaser reported a

decrease in purchasing domestic chloropicrin due to a decreased demand in products that contain

chloropicrin.

 25 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-19.

 26 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections IV-26a, III-26a, and III-12a,

respectively.

 27 Domestic interested parties reported that “a significant portion of the ***. A small amount of the ***.” 

Responses to Questions from the Commission, March 1, 2010, p. 7 (Pearson).

 28 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections IV-26b, III-26b, and III-12b,

respectively.

 29 ASHTA’s producer questionnaire response, section IV-26b.

 30 Trinity’s producer questionnaire response, section IV-26b.

 31 U.S. purchaser *** reported that ***.

 32 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section II-4.

II-5
Anticipated Demand

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if demand for chloropicrin is likely to

change within the United States in the future. U.S. producers ASHTA and Trinity reported “yes,” stating

that environmental regulations, as well as the phase out of methyl bromide will likely change the demand

for chloropicrin in the United States.33 34 Importer *** reported no anticipated change in the future

demand for chloropicrin within the United States.

Four of nine responding purchasers reported that demand will increase, four reported that demand

will fluctuate, and one purchaser reported that demand will decrease in the future. Firms reporting

increased future demand stated that methyl bromide will be replaced with higher concentrations of

chloropicrin due to the Montreal Protocol phase out of methyl bromide over the next several years.35

Purchasers reporting fluctuating demand attributed it to EPA’s regulatory restrictions.

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if they anticipate any change in demand for

chloropicrin outside the United States.36 U.S. producer Trinity expects that “***.”37 Importer *** does

not anticipate any changes. One of two responding purchasers anticipates fluctuating future demand; the

other firm reported no change in future demand for chloropicrin. 

Substitute Products

 Six of seven responding U.S. purchasers reported no substitute products for chloropicrin;

whereas the *** U.S. producer, ***, and one purchaser reported that there were substitutes.38 For some

types of fungi, chloropicrin is the only known fungicide. However, for other types of fungi, there are

chemicals such as 1,3-dichloropropene that may be used to some extent in place of chloropicrin.39

Substitute products mentioned were methyl bromide, 1,3-dichloropropene, metam sodium, metam

potassium, and iodomethane. When asked if there have been any changes in the number or types of

products that can be substituted for chloropicrin since 1984, U.S. producers ASHTA and Trinity, importer

***, and eight of ten responding purchasers reported no changes.40 Two purchasers reported that metam

potassium has been developed since 1984 and can be used as a substitute for chloropicrin. Purchaser ***

anticipates changes in substitutes for chloropicrin in the future, and reported that ***.”41 Due to the

reduced access to methyl bromide, domestic interested parties reported no economical replacement to

combine with chloropicrin. Domestic interested parties stated that “***.”42

 33 Trinity reported that the ***. Trinity’s producer questionnaire response, section IV-27a. 

 34 Petitioners reported that “***.” Responses to Questions from the Commission, March 1, 2010, p. 8 (Pearson).

 35 Formed in 1989, the Montreal Protocol is an international treaty developed to stop ozone depletion. Due to

methyl bromide’s ozone depleting properties, its use has been phased out during recent years. ***.

 36 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections IV-27b, III-27b, and III-13b,

respectively.

 37 Trinity’s producer questionnaire response, section IV-27b.

 38 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections IV-15a, III-15a, and III-9,

respectively. 

 39 Staff Report of February 27, 1984, p. A-7.

 40 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections IV-16, III-16, and III-10, respectively.

 41 *** purchaser questionnaire response, section III-11.

 42 Responses to Questions from the Commission, March 1, 2010, p. 7-8 (Pearson).

II-6
Cost Share

Depending on the final end use, the total cost share of chloropicrin in the final products in which

it is used as an input varies widely. U.S. producers, the importer, and purchasers reported the following

shares of several end products accounted for by chloropicrin: 40 percent for Telone C-17, 68-100 percent

for Chlor-O-Pic, 57 percent for Terr-O-Gas, and 13 percent for MIDAS 50:50.43 These costs shares are

likely lower if the substantial costs of applying fumigants are considered.44

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestically produced and imported chloropicrin depends

upon such factors as relative prices, quality (e.g., grade standards, reliability of supply, etc.), and

conditions of sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, lead times between order and delivery dates, payment

terms, product services, etc.). Based on the available information, staff believes that there may be a high 

degree of substitutability between domestically produced chloropicrin and chloropicrin produced in

China.45

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Table II-2 summarizes the nine responding purchasers’ responses concerning the top three factors

that affect their purchasing decisions for chloropicrin.46 As indicated in the table, price was cited most

frequently as the primary factor in buying decisions. Factors other than availability, price and quantity

were most frequently cited as second in importance, and quality was the most frequently cited third factor.

Table II-2

Chloropicrin: Ranking factors used in purchasing decisions by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Number one factor Number two factor Number three factor

Availability 2 2 2

Price 4 2 1

Quality 1 2 4

Other1 2 3 2

 1 Other factors include reliability of supply and traditional supplier for first factor; reliability, current availability and

lead time for second factor; ability to transport in rail cars, and minimum requirements for third factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were asked how often domestically-produced or imported chloropicrin meets

minimum quality specifications for their own or their customers’ uses. All nine responding purchasers

reported that domestically-produced chloropicrin “always” meets minimum quality specifications.47 

They also reported that they had no knowledge of the quality of imported chloropicrin.

 43 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections IV-12, III-12, and III-5, respectively. 

 44 Confidential Staff Report: Chloropicrin from the People’s Republic of China, Inv. No. 731-TA-130 (Final), p.

A-38, February 27, 1984.

 45 Chloropicrin from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-130 (Second Review), USITC Pub. No. 3712 (August 2004), p. 8.

 46 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-31.

 47 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section IV-7.

II-7
Purchasers were asked to rate the importance of 16 factors in their purchasing decisions (table

II-3).48 All nine responding purchasers rated “availability,” “lack of contamination,” “delivery time,”

“quality meeting industry standards,” and “reliability of supply” as very important. In contrast, five firms

reported that “product range” was not an important factor and four firms reported that “technical support”

was not an important factor. 

Table II-3

Chloropicrin: Importance of purchase factors, reported by U.S. purchasers 

Factor

Very important Somewhat Not important

Number of firms responding

Availability 9 0 0

Contamination (lack of) 9 0 0

Delivery terms 2 7 0

Delivery time 900

Discounts offered 3 5 0

Extension of credit 2 7 0

Minimum quantity requirements 2 7 0

Packaging 5 1 3

Price 6 1 0

Product consistency 8 1 0

Product range 2 2 5

Quality exceeds industry standards 3 3 3

Quality meets industry standards 9 0 0

Reliability of supply 9 0 0

Technical support/service 3 2 4

U.S. transportation costs 4 5 0

Note.--Not all purchasers responded for each factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were asked for a country-by-country comparison based on the same 16 factors (table

II-4).49 For U.S.-produced product compared to Chinese product, all three responding purchasers reported

that the U.S. product was superior with regard to product availability, delivery time, packaging, reliability

of supply, technical support, and transport costs. Two responding firms reported that the Chinese product

was comparable with regard to price and product range. Three purchasers stated that they have only

bought domestically-produced chloropicrin and had no knowledge to compare the domestic product with

 48 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-30.

 49 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section IV-6.

II-8
Chinese product.50 None of the purchasers responded to domestic and nonsubject country comparisons or

Chinese and nonsubject country comparisons.

Table II-4

Chloropicrin: Comparisons between U.S.-produced and imported chloropicrin reported by U.S.

purchasers

Factor U.S. vs China

SC I

Availability 3 0 0

Contamination (lack of) 2 0 0

Delivery terms 0 0 0

Delivery time 3 0 0

Discounts offered 0 0 0

Extension of credit 2 0 0

Minimum quantity requirements 2 0 0

Packaging 3 0 0

Price1 020

Product consistency 2 0 0

Product range 0 2 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 2 0 0

Quality meets industry standards 2 0 0

Reliability of supply 3 0 0

Technical support/service 3 0 0

U.S. transportation costs1

 300

 1 A rating of superior means that price/U.S. transportation cost is generally lower. For example, if a firm reported

“U.S. superior”, it meant that the price of the U.S. product was generally lower than the price of the imported product.

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed country’s

product is inferior. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

When asked if certain grades/purity levels of chloropicrin were available from only a single

source, seven of eight responding purchasers reported that they are available from more than one source. 

The other purchaser reported that the size of shipping containers, including truckloads, railcars, and

canisters, limited the availability of chloropicrin to a single source.51

 50 None of the purchasers reported buying Chinese chloropicrin during January 2006-September 2009, the period

for which responses were requested.

 51 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section IV-5.

II-9
U.S. purchasers were also asked if they or their customers ever specifically requested product

from one country over other possible sources.52 Seven of nine responding purchasers reported that they

do not request product from specific countries. Two purchasers reported that they always order product

from the United States.53

U.S. purchasers were also asked if they or their customers make purchasing decisions based on

the country of origin of chloropicrin.54 Two of nine responding purchasers indicated that their firm

“always,” made purchasing decision based on country of origin, and seven indicated “never.” All nine

responding purchasers indicated that their customers “never” made purchasing decisions based on the

country of origin.

U.S. purchasers were asked if they have changed suppliers since 1984.55 Seven of ten responding

purchasers reported “yes,” indicating the reason for the change was the exiting of two producers from the

market. Five of ten responding purchasers are aware of one new supplier, ***, while the remaining five

purchasers are not aware of any new suppliers. 

U.S. purchasers discussed whether or not they required their suppliers to become certified or prequalified with respect to the quality, chemistry, strength, or other performance characteristics of the

chloropicrin they purchase.56 Four of nine responding purchasers reported that they did, and the

remaining five purchasers reported no such supplier certification. Some purchasers requiring supplier

qualification noted factors such as purity levels, low water and acid content, and ability to meet federal

pesticide registration requirements. 

When qualifying a new supplier, purchasers reported that the quality of the product is the most

important factor.57 Three purchasers reported sending batch samples for lab qualifications, and one

purchaser required 99 percent purity, with a low water and acid content. Other factors taken into

consideration included reliability, price, lead time, ability to ship via rail, regulatory compliance, and

safety.58

Five purchasers provided information on the time necessary to qualify a supplier, which ranged

from several weeks to 3-6 months.59 When asked if any new suppliers had failed to obtain certification,

*** reported that the *** U.S. producer, ***, was unable to meet government production requirements. 

When purchasers were asked what characteristics they consider when determining the quality of

chloropicrin, seven purchasers reported characteristics that included meeting specific technical

specifications, low water and acid content, and color.60

 52 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section IV-4.

 53 U.S. purchaser *** reported that they only purchase chloropicrin that is transported by railcars, and U.S.

purchaser *** reported high prices of chloropicrin from Chinese sources due to the antidumping duty. 

 54 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-21.

 55 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-25.

 56 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-27.

 57 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-27.

 58 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-28.

 59 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-27.

 60 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-32.

II-10
Comparisons of Domestic Products and Subject Imports

In order to determine whether U.S.-produced chloropicrin can generally be used in the same

applications as imports from China, U.S. producers, importers and purchasers were asked whether the

products can “always,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “never” be used interchangeably (table II-5).61

Table II-5

Chloropicrin: Perceived interchangeability of products produced in the United States and in other

countries by country pairs 1

* * * * * * *

When comparing U.S.-produced product with Chinese product, the only responding producer,

***, and importer, ***, reported that U.S.-produced chloropicrin can “always” be used interchangeably

with subject product. The two responding purchasers reported that U.S.-produced chloropicrin can

“always” be used interchangeably with Chinese product. 

U.S. producers and importers were also asked to compare U.S.-produced products with imports

from China in terms of product differences other than price such as quality, availability, product range,

and technical support.62 Again, firms were asked whether these product differences are “always”,

“frequently”, “sometimes”, or “never” significant (table II-6). 

Table II-6

Chloropicrin: Perceived significance of differences other than price between products produced

 in the United States and in other countries, by country pairs1

* * * * * * *

The responding *** producer, ***, reported that differences other than price between

chloropicrin produced in the United States and subject countries were “always” a significant factor in

their firm’s sales of the products. The only responding importer, ***, reported that differences were

“always” a significant factor in their firm’s shipments of the products. *** reported that ***.63

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES64

U.S. Supply Elasticity

The domestic supply elasticity for chloropicrin measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied

by U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price for chloropicrin. The elasticity of domestic supply

depends on several factors, including the level of excess capacity, the existence of inventories, and the

availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced chloropicrin. Previous analysis of these factors

suggests that the U.S. industry may have at least a moderate ability to increase or decrease shipments to

 61 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections IV-31, III-31, and IV-3, respectively.

 62 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-32 and III-32, respectively.

 63 *** producer questionnaire response, section IV-32.

 64 The suggested ranges for the various elasticities were presented in the prehearing report for purposes of

discussion in the prehearing briefs, and/or post hearing briefs. The elasticity responses in this section refer to

changes that could occur within 12 months, unless otherwise indicated.

II-11
the U.S. market based principally on inventories and export markets. An estimate in the range of 3 to 8 is

suggested.

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for chloropicrin measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity

demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of chloropicrin. 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 chloropicrin in the final cost of end-use products in which it is used. Staff

suggests that the aggregate demand for chloropicrin is inelastic, with values ranging from -0.2 to -0.6. 

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported chloropicrin. Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality

and condition of sale (availability, delivery, etc.). U.S. imports of chloropicrin from China have been

very limited since 1984. As a result, information on U.S. competition between the U.S.-produced and

imported Chinese chloropicrin is based almost exclusively on such information developed in the 

final investigation in 1984. As in the original determination, the available evidence from the second

review suggests that chloropicrin is a commodity product and that there is a relatively high degree of

substitutability between imported and domestic chloropicrin.65 Therefore, a review of this information

suggests that the substitution elasticity between the domestic and subject imported chloropicrin may have

ranged from 3 to 5.66

 65 Second Review Views of the Commission, Chloropicrin from China, Inv. 731-TA-130, July 2004, p. 11.

 66 Chloropicrin from the Republic of China, Inv. No. 731-TA-130 (Final), USITC Pub. No. 1505, March 1984.

II-12
PART III: CONDITION OF THE U.S. INDUSTRY

OVERVIEW

Background

Since the Commission’s original 1984 investigation concerning chloropicrin from China, the U.S.

industry reported a number of changes, marked by ***. In the original investigation, the two petitioning

firms, LCP Chemicals & Plastics, Inc. (“LCP”) and Niklor Chemical Co., Inc. (“Niklor”) accounted for

all U.S. production of chloropicrin during 1983. As detailed in Part I of this report, these firms have been

acquired or exited the chloropicrin market.

In the current review, the Commission issued three U.S. producer questionnaires to firms

identified in the domestic interested parties’ response to the Commission’s notice of institution or

identified by independent staff research as possible chloropicrin producers in the United States. Three

firms confirmed that they are producers of chloropicrin in the United States. Of these three firms, two

provided the Commission with useable data on their chloropicrin operations.1

 These two firms, ASHTA

and Trinity, are believed to account for 100 percent of production of chloropicrin in 2008.

Changes Experienced in Operations

U.S. chloropicrin producers were asked to indicate whether their firm had experienced any plant

openings, relocations, expansions, acquisitions, consolidations, closures, prolonged shutdowns, or

curtailment of production because of these or other reasons including revision of labor agreements or any

other change in the character of their operations or organization relating to the production of chloropicrin

since January 1, 1984. The domestic producers’ responses to this question are presented in table III-1. 

Table III-1

Chloropicrin: Changes in the character of U.S. operations since January 1, 1984

* * * * * * *

***.2

Anticipated Changes to Existing Operations

The Commission requested that domestic producers provide details as to the nature and

significance of anticipated changes in the character of U.S. operations or organization. Table III-2

presents U.S. producer ***’s anticipated changes to its U.S. operations.

Table III-2

Chloropicrin: Anticipated changes in U.S. operations

* * * * * * *

 1 ***. ***’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, section II-2.

 2 Responses to Questions from the Commission, March 1, 2010, p. 10 (Pearson).

III-1
U.S. PRODUCERS’ CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

The Commission requested information on chloropicrin capacity and production from

chloropicrin producers. U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization data for

chloropicrin are presented in table III-3. Total reported U.S. chloropicrin capacity remained the same for

the period for which data were gathered.

Table III-3

Chloropicrin: U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2006-08, JanuarySeptember 2008, and January-September 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. production of chloropicrin fluctuated upward by *** percent between 2006 and 2008 and

was *** percent lower in January-September 2009 than in January-September 2008. Capacity utilization

fluctuated upward by *** percentage points between 2006 and 2008 and was *** percentage points lower

in January-September 2009 than in January-September 2008. 

Constraints on Capacity

The Commission asked domestic chloropicrin producers to report constraints on their capacity to

produce chloropicrin. ASHTA reported that ***. Niklor reported that ***. Trinity reported that ***.3

All U.S. chloropicrin producers reported that they are *** to produce products other than

chloropicrin utilizing the same equipment or labor.4

U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS

As detailed in table III-4, the quantity of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of chloropicrin

fluctuated upward by *** percent between 2006 and 2008 and was *** percent higher in JanuarySeptember 2009 than in January-September 2008. The value of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of

chloropicrin increased by *** percent between 2006 and 2008 and was *** percent higher in JanuarySeptember 2009 than in January-September 2008. U.S. commercial shipments accounted for the

majority of total shipments, with exports accounting for no more than *** percent in any full year during

the period for which data were gathered. *** reported exporting chloropicrin to ***.

Table III-4

Chloropicrin: U.S. producers’ shipments, by type, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and JanuarySeptember 2009 

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Table III-5, which presents end-of-period inventories for chloropicrin, shows that inventories

increased irregularly by *** percent between 2006 and 2008 and were *** percent higher in January-

 3 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section II-6.

 4

 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section II-5.

III-2
September 2009 than in January-September 2008. In the original investigation, the ratio of inventories to

total shipments *** those reported for the period for which data were gathered.5

 

Table III-5

Chloropicrin: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and

January-September 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

***. ***.6

U.S. PRODUCERS’ EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Data provided by U.S. producers on the number of production and related workers (PRWs”)

engaged in the production of chloropicrin, the total hours worked by such workers, and wages paid to

such PRWs during the period for which data were collected in this review are presented in table III-6. 

Employment, in terms of boths PRWs and hours worked, increased between 2006 and 2008 by ***

percent and *** percent, respectively. The number of PRWs employed in the production of chloropicrin

in January-September 2009 was *** percent higher than in January-September 2008, while the number of

hours worked was *** percent higher over the interim period.

Table III-6

Chloropicrin: Average number of production and related workers, hours worked, wages paid to

such workers, hourly wages, productivity, and unit labor costs, 2006-08, January-September 2008,

and January-September 2009 

* * * * * * *

The *** increase in the total number of hours worked during the period under examination

reportedly resulted from ***.7

 Hourly wages and total wages paid increased between both 2006 and 2008

and over the interim January-September periods. PRW productivity declined irregularly by *** percent

between 2006 and 2008, and declined by *** percent over the interim January-September periods. Lower

productivity, combined with the moderate increases in hourly wage rates discussed above, resulted in an

increase in unit labor costs of *** percent between 2006 and 2008, and *** percent higher unit labor

costs in January-September 2009 relative to January-September 2008.

 5 The ratio of inventories to total shipments in the original investigation were: *** percent in 1980; *** percent in

1981; *** percent in 1982; and *** percent in 1983. Original staff report, p. A-16. 

 6

 ***’s purchaser questionnaire response, section III-3.

 7 Responses to Questions from the Commission, March 1, 2010, p. 18 (Okun).

III-3
FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF THE U.S. PRODUCERS

Background

The financial results presented in this section of the report reflect the operations of ASHTA and

Trinity which accounted for ***, respectively, of the period’s cumulative sales volume.8

 A third U.S.

company, Niklor, reportedly could ***.9

 Because it reportedly had ***. 

While ASHTA and Trinity both produce and sell chloropicrin, the *** of ASHTA’s sales. In

contrast, chloropicrin represented *** of Trinity’s corresponding sales. As noted below, the extent to

which chloropicrin ***.10 

Operations on Chloropicrin

Income-and-loss data for operations on chloropicrin are presented in table III-7 and on an average

per-pound basis in table III-8. Table III-9 presents selected company-specific financial information. A

variance analysis of the overall financial results on chloropicrin is presented in table III-10.11 

Table III-7

Chloropicrin: Results of operations, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and January-September

2009

* * * * * * *

Table III-8

Chloropicrin: Results of operations (per pound), 2006-08, January-September 2008, and JanuarySeptember 2009

* * * * * * *

Revenue

As shown in table III-9, while ASHTA and Trinity exhibited different patterns of sales volume,

changes in average per-pound chloropicrin sales value were generally similar. The revenue section of the

variance analysis (see table III-10), shows that the importance of changes in sales volume and average

sales value alternated in terms of explaining the overall increase in total chloropicrin sales revenue during

the period examined. 

 8 ***. 

 9

 ***. USITC auditor prehearing notes. ***. Responses to Questions from the Commission, March 1, 2010 p. 10

(Pearson). 

 10 ***. USITC auditor prehearing notes.

 11 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 table III-10, 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 lines under price and cost/expense variance. 

 ***. USITC auditor prehearing notes. ***. E-mail with attachments from Kalik Lewin on behalf of Trinity,

January 15, 2010.

III-4
In part, ASHTA attributed *** in its sales volume after 2006 (see table III-9) to the fact that 2006

was ***.12 In contrast with ASHTA, Trinity reported ***.13 Corresponding with higher average cost of

goods sold (COGS), both companies reported ***.14

Table III-9

Chloropicrin: Results of operations, by firm, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and JanuarySeptember 2009

* * * * * * *

Cost of Goods Sold

Nitromethane is an important component of chloropicrin COGS representing *** of total raw

materials cost on a cumulative basis. As shown in table III-9, Trinity recognized the ***.15 ***.16 

Table III-10

Chloropicrin: Variance analysis of finalcial results, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and January

September 2009

* * * * * * *

***. Unlike nitromethane, period-to-period changes in the average other raw materials

component of chloropicrin COGS were more pronounced (see table III-8 and table III-9). ***.17 As

shown in table III-9, ***.18 ***.19 As shown in table III-9, ***20 ***.21 As indicated previously, other

factory costs related to upstream processing/electrolysis are reflected in the cost of other raw materials.

Profitability

***, the U.S. industry’s chloropicrin financial results were positive throughout the period. As

noted above, the overall COGS-to-sales ratio was ***. The combination of these two factors largely

explains the U.S. industry’s overall *** shown in table III-7. When asked to explain the ***.22 

 12 ***. E-mail with attachment from ASHTA, December 23, 2009.

 13 E-mail with attachments from Kalik Lewin on behalf of Trinity, January 15, 2010.

 14 ***. E-mail with attachment from ASHTA, December 23, 2009. ***. Responses to Questions from the

Commission, March 1, 2010 pp. 11-12 (Pearson).

 15 E-mail with attachments from Kalik Lewin on behalf of Trinity, January 15, 2010.

 16 E-mail with attachment from ASHTA, December 23, 2009. 

 17 USITC auditor prehearing notes. 

 18 ***. E-mail with attachment from ASHTA, December 23, 2009. ***. USITC auditor prehearing notes. 

 19 E-mail with attachments from Kalik Lewin on behalf of Trinity, January 15, 2010.

 20 Ibid. 

 21 USITC auditor prehearing notes. 

 22 E-mail with attachments from Kalik Lewin on behalf of Trinity, January 15, 2010

III-5
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES, 

ASSETS, AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Table III-11 presents data on capital expenditures, research and development (“R&D”) expenses,

total assets, and return on investment related to the industry’s chloropicrin operations.23 As shown in

table III-11, ***.24 With regard to the ***.25 ***.26 ***.27

Table III-11

Chloropicrin: Capital expenditures, R&D expenses, total assets, and retun on investment, by firms,

2006-08, January-September 208, and January-September 2009

* * * * * * *

 23 ***. USITC auditor prehearing notes. ***. 

 24 As described by ASHTA, ***. E-mail with attachment from ASHTA, December 23, 2009.

 25 E-mail with attachments from Kalik Lewin on behalf of Trinity, January 15, 2010. 

 26 Trinity U.S. Producer Questionnaire response, II-16.

 27 E-mail with attachments from Kalik Lewin on behalf of Trinity, January 15, 2010.

III-6
PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS AND THE FOREIGN INDUSTRY

U.S. IMPORTS

Overview

The Commission sent questionnaires to three firms believed to have imported chloropicrin

between 2006 and 2009. All three firms provided information in response to the questionnaires; two of

the firms provided certification that they had not imported chloropicrin during the period for which data

were collected. Staff believes that data reported by the sole responding U.S. subject importer comprises 

virtually all subject imports of chloropicrin from China. There were no nonsubject imports believed to be

entering the United States during the period for which data were gathered.

***, the sole importer of chloropicrin reported entering or withdrawing chloropicrin from a

foreign trade zone, but not from a bonded warehouse.1

 *** did not import chloropicrin under the

temporary importation under bond program.2

 ***.3 4

Imports from Subject and Nonsubject Countries

Imports of chloropicrin enter the United States under HTS statistical reporting number

2904.90.5005, an eo nomine category for chloropicrin. Data regarding U.S. imports of chloropicrin are

presented in table IV-1 and are based on questionnaire responses.5

Table IV-1

Chloropicrin: U.S. imports, by sources, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and January-September

2009

* * * * * * *

Imports of chloropicrin from China were ***. ***.6

 ***.7 There were no reported imports of

chloropicrin from all other sources combined during the period for which data were gathered.

The unit values of chloropicrin imports were *** lower than U.S. commercial shipments unit

values in 2006 and *** lower in 2008; whereas, import unit values were *** percent higher than export

shipment unit values in 2006 and *** percent higher in 2008.

 

U.S. IMPORTER’S IMPORTS SUBSEQUENT TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2009

The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the

importation of chloropicrin from China after September 30, 2009. ***.

 1 ***’s importer questionniare response, section I-9.

 2

 ***’s importer questionniare response, section I-10.

 3

 ***, retrieved November 2, 2009.

 4

 ***’s importer questionniare response, section II-2.

 5

 ***. 

 6

 USITC staff telephone interview with ***, December 29, 2009.

 7

 Ibid.

IV-1
U.S. IMPORTER’S INVENTORIES

Table IV-2 presents data for inventories of U.S. imports of chloropicrin from China and all other

sources held in the United States. As detailed earlier in this section, *** accounted for all the U.S.

imports of chloropicrin from China for the period for which data were gathered and is thus the firm that

holds subject chloropicrin inventory. 

Table IV-2

Chloropicrin: U.S. importer’s end-of-period inventories from China and other countries, 2006-08,

January-September 2008, and January-September 2009

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

At the time of the Commission’s original investigation, China’s chloropicrin production *** of

chloropicrin imported into the United States and SINOCHEM accounted for all of China’s known exports

of chloropicrin to the United States.8

 During the time of the original investigation, SINOCHEM reported

that the capacity to produce chloropicrin in China was *** pounds per year, exports of chloropicrin from

China accounted for between *** and *** percent of Chinese production, and exports to the United States

increased from *** percent of exports in 1980 to *** percent in 1983.9

In the first five-year review, no foreign producers responded to the Commission’s notice of

institution. There are no known public data concerning chloropicrin operations at the Dalian plant;

however, U.S. producers at the time of the first review believed that the plant continued to produce

chloropicrin and that it exported significant quantities of chloropicrin to ***.10 Further, in the first

review, U.S. producers cited the availability of nitromethane in China, noting that this important raw

material for making chloropicrin is not only produced in China but also exported to the United States.11

In the second five-year review, no foreign producer of chloropicrin in China responded to the

Commision’s notice of institution. The domestic interested parties that responded to the Commission’s

notice of the institution of its second five-year review claimed that the capacity of Dalian Dye-Chemicals

Group to produce chloropicrin in China has expanded by *** percent since 1998, and was estimated to

total *** pounds. They also reported that China exports substantial quantities of chloropicrin to third

countries, particularly to Japan and Europe, at prices that are 20 percent to 40 percent below U.S. prices.12

In the current review, no foreign producer of chloropicrin in China responded to the Commision’s

notice of institution. Three potential producers of chloropicrin in China were identified from the response

of the domestic interested parties to the Commission’s notice of institution and through independent staff

research. Foreign producer/exporter questionnaires were sent to all three potential chloropicrin producers

in China;13 however, no producer of chloropicrin in China responded to 

 8 See 49 FR 5982, February 16, 1984, and Original Staff Report of February 27, 1984, p. A-10.

 9

 Ibid., p. A-29.

 10 First Review Staff Report of March 4, 1999, p. I-10.

 11 Ibid., p. I-11. See also, Nitromethane from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-650 (Final), USITC Pub. 2773, May 1994.

 12 Domestic Substantive Response to the Notice of Institution (Second Review), p. 4.

 13 The Commission faxed and emailed the questionnaires to Dalian Dyechem International Corp. (“Dalian”);

Jiangsu Luye Agrochemicals Co., Ltd. (“Jiangsu”); and Jinan Haohua Industry Co., Ltd. (“Jinan”).

IV-2
the Commission’s questionnaire. Subsequent research indicated that there continues to be only one

producer of chloropicrin in China, Dalian.14

On its web site, Dalian states that it developed chloropicrin in 1955, has a long history of

chloropicrin production, and that it is the sole manufacturer of chloropicrin in China. The company

further states that it exports chloropicrin to many countries in the world and that its export output

increases every year.15 Dalian also indicates that it constantly continues to work to improve chloropicrin

quality and production technology in order to meet different consumer demands both domestically and

abroad.16 

The total Chinese domestic market for all fumigants is estimated at about *** annually.17

Domestic interested parties estimate that China has the capacity to produce at least *** pounds of

chloropicrin annually and believe that there are plans in place to increase chloropicrin production capacity

to *** pounds within the next year. China reportedly exports substantial quantities of chloropicrin to

third countries, particularly Japan and Europe at prices that are 20-40 percent below U.S. prices.18

GLOBAL MARKET

As a practical matter, there is limited information available with respect to chloropicrin. Global

Trade Atlas statistics that include chloropicrin are presented at a “basket” six-digit heading level for

sulfonated, nitrated, or nitrosated derivatives of hydrocarbons, whether or not halogenated, whereas

chloropicrin is classified eo nomine as a ten-digit statistical reporting number in the U.S. HTS. However,

*** which includes information on chloropicrin.19 The information on the global chloropicrin market

presented in this section is largely excerpted from this report.

Supply and Demand

Table IV-3 list the world producers of chloropicrin in 2008 by company and plant location. The

global chloropicrin market is supplied from *** plants in *** countries: ***. 

Table IV-3

Chloropicrin: World producers and plant locations, 2008

* * * * * * *

 14 Email correspondence from ***, October 29 and November 12, 2009, and staff telephone interview with ***,

January 21, 2010. ***. 

 15 In its Responses to Questions From The Commission, March 1, 2010, domestic interested parties stated that

***; and also stated that ***, p. 2. In its Responses to Commission Staff’s Further Information Request, March 11,

2010, domestic interested parties stated that as a matter of law, Chinese chloropicrin may not be imported into the

EU. However, ***, p. 1. 

 16 Dalian Dyechem International Corp. web site, http://daliandc.com/2proe.htm, retrieved October 27, 2009.

 17 ***.

 18 Substantive Response of Domestic Producers to Notice of Initiation of Third Review, p. 2.

 19 ***.

IV-3
Table IV-4 presents global chloropicrin producers’ production capacity, production and

consumption. Global chloropicrin consumption was estimated at *** pounds *** in 2008 and is expected

to grow to *** pounds *** in 2013.20 ***.21

Table IV-4

Chloropicrin: Global producers’ production capacity, production, and consumption, 2006-08

* * * * * * *

 20 Ibid., p. ***.

 21 ***.

IV-4
PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

 Raw Material Costs

Raw materials as a share of the cost of goods sold for domestic producers of chloropicrin

increased slightly from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007, and then deceased to *** percent in

2008. Raw materials were *** percent of goods sold during January-September 2008, and *** percent

during January-September 2009. The key costs in producing chloropicrin are raw materials such as

nitromethane ***, chlorine bleach for *** and potassium bleach for ***. 

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

U.S. producers of chloropicrin, ASHTA and Trinity, and the lone U.S. importer of chloropicrin

from China, ***, indicated that their firms generally *** to the customers’ locations.1

 U.S. producers

estimated that their U.S. inland transportation costs were between *** and *** percent of the delivered

price.2

 U.S. producers’ and importers’ reported shipment shares of domestic and imported chloropicrin

during January 2006-September 2009, by distance categories from their U.S. shipping locations, are

shown in the following tabulation.

* * * * * * *

U.S. producers and the sole U.S. importer of chloropicrin from China reported the U.S.

geographical market area(s) during 2008 to which they shipped their domestic and imported chloropicrin.3

4

 The weighted-average U.S. shipment shares by each of the specified geographic areas for chloropicrin

produced domestically and imported from China are shown in the following tabulation.

* * * * * * *

 1 As indicated earlier in the report, the importer of chloropicrin from China, ***.

 2

 U.S. producers were requested to report shipping costs from their U.S. production facilities and U.S. importers

were requested to report shipping costs from their U.S. ports-of-entry. The firms were also requested to include any

freight to their U.S. warehouses if they sold their chloropicrin from such facilities. U.S. producer and importer

questionnaire responses, section IV-10a and III-10a, respectively. 

 3

 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-11 and III-11, respectively.

 4

 Domestic interested parties reported that “***.” Response to Questions from the Commission, March 1, 2010, p.

16 (Okun).

V-1
PRICING PRACTICES5

Pricing Methods

U.S. producers of chloropicrin, ASHTA and Trinity, reported their 2008 U.S. commercial

shipments by type of sale;6

 their shipment shares, based on quantity, are shown in the tabulation below.7

As the tabulation shows, chloropicrin is most commonly sold on a ***. 

* * * * * * *

Trinity reported that its contracts can be ***; ASHTA reported that its contracts ***. ASHTA

indicated that it uses ***, and Trinity reported that it ***.8

 Trinity and U.S. importer, ***, usually quote

prices on *** basis, while ASHTA quotes prices on *** basis, but ***.9 ASHTA and Trinity reported

***.10

PRICE DATA

U.S. producers of chloropicrin and importers of chloropicrin from China were asked to provide

quarterly sales data for the total quantity and f.o.b. (U.S. point of shipment) value of two specified

products that were shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S. market during January 2006-September

2009. The products for which pricing data were requested were as follows:

Product 1.-- Chloropicrin (100 to 96 percent pure) sold in a 180,000 pound rail car container

(base quantities on 100 percent equivalent).

Product 2.-- Chloropicrin (100 to 96 percent pure) sold in a 50,000 pound ISO container

(base quantities on 100 percent equivalent).

Two U.S. producers (Trinity and ASHTA) provided price data. The lone U.S. importer of

chloropicrin from China, ***, did not report any selling price data.11 By quantity, pricing data provided

by responding U.S. producers accounted for approximately *** percent of reported commercial shipments

during January 2006-September 2009. Price data are presented in table V-1 and figures V-1 and V-2.

 5 Information on pricing practices discussed in this section was based on questionnaire responses of the two

current U.S. chloropicrin producers.

 6

 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section IV-6. 

 7

 Spot sales are usually one-time delivery; short-term sales are for multiple deliveries for up to 12 months after

the purchase agreement; and long-term sales are for multiple deliveries for more than 12 months after the purchase

agreement. Short-term and long-term sales may be arranged by contracts or oral agreements.

 8

 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section IV-3.

 9

 ***. ASHTA’s producer questionnaire response, section IV-5.

 10 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section IV-4.

 11 However, the importer reportedly shipped a total of *** during January 2006-September 2009. As indicated in

Part I, the Chinese chloropicrin was ***. 

V-2
Table V-1

Chloropicrin: U.S. weighted-average quarterly f.o.b. selling prices and quantities for U.S.-produced

products 1 and 2, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-1

Chloropicrin: U.S. weighted-average quarterly f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic

product 1, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-2

Chloropicrin: U.S. weighted-average quarterly f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic

product 2, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Price Trends

Overall, prices for U.S.-produced chloropicrin generally fluctuated upward during January 2006-

September 2009. However, there was one major increase during mid-2008. Table V-3 presents a

summary of U.S. producer price trends.

Table V-3

Chloropicrin: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices for U.S. produced products 1-2

* * * * * * *

U.S. purchasers were asked if there has been a change in the price of domestically produced and

Chinese-produced chloropicrin since 1984.12 Three of four responding purchasers reported that they are

not able to comment because they have not purchased chloropicrin from China. One responding

purchaser, ***, reported that U.S.-produced chloropicrin has increased relative to the price of chloropicrin

from China. U.S. purchasers most frequently identified U.S. producers *** and *** as price leaders.13

When asked how frequently prices change, five U.S. purchasers reported annual changes, one

purchaser reported quarterly changes, and one purchaser reported that it depends on raw materials.14 U.S.

purchaser, ***, reported that changes occur usually on an annual basis, and also specified that 

sometimes it occurs when raw materials become “tight.”15 Another purchaser, ***, reported that “price

change from both suppliers - at least once each year. The change in price has historically always been an

increase.”16

Purchasers were also asked how often their firms purchase the chloropicrin that is offered at the

lowest price. Seven purchasers reported that they either “always” or “usually” purchase chloropicrin at

 12 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section IV-8.

 13 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-35.

 14 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-36.

 15 *** purchaser questionnaire response, section III-36.

 16 *** purchaser questionnaire response, section III-36.

V-3
the lowest price, while two purchasers reported that they purchase chloropicrin “sometimes” at the lowest

price offered and one purchaser reported “never.”17

 17 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-34.

V-4
APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES AND THE

COMMISSION’S STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

A-1

31760 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 09–5–196, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

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

20436. 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–130 (Third 

Review)] 

Chloropicrin From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on chloropicrin from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted a review 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

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

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on chloropicrin 

from China would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of 

the Act, interested parties are requested 

to respond to this notice by submitting 

the information specified below to the 

Commission;1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is July 31, 2009. Comments 

on the adequacy of responses may be 

filed with the Commission by 

September 15, 2009. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

this review and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

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

F (19 CFR part 207), as most recently 

amended at 74 FR 2847 (January 16, 

2009). 

DATES: Effective Date: July 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On March 22, 1984, the 

Department of Commerce issued an 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

chloropicrin from China (49 FR 10691). 

Following first five-year reviews by 

Commerce and the Commission, 

effective April 14, 1999, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

chloropicrin from China (64 FR 42655, 

August 15, 1999). Following second 

five-year reviews by Commerce and the 

Commission, effective August 23, 2004, 

Commerce issued a continuation of the 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

chloropicrin from China (69 FR 51811). 

The Commission is now conducting a 

third review to determine whether 

revocation of the order would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury to the domestic industry 

within a reasonably foreseeable time. It 

will assess the adequacy of interested 

party responses to this notice of 

institution to determine whether to 

conduct a full review or an expedited 

review. The Commission’s 

determination in any expedited review 

will be based on the facts available, 

which may include information 

provided in response to this notice. 

Definitions. The following definitions 

apply to this review: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year review, as defined 

by the Department of Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Country in this review 

is China. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determination and its expedited first 

and second five-year review 

determinations, the Commission 

defined the Domestic Like Product as 

chloropicrin. 

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

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determination 

and its expedited first and second fiveyear review determinations, the 

Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry as all U.S. producers of 

chloropicrin. 

(5) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 31761 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the review and public 

service list. Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the review as parties must 

file an entry of appearance with the 

Secretary to the Commission, as 

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

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the review. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

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

‘‘same particular matter’’ as the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 

207, the post employment statute for 

Federal employees, and Commission 

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

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are no 

longer required to seek Commission 

approval to appear in a review under 

Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if 

the corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy 

Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205– 

3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list. Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in this review available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the review, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

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

who are parties to the review. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification. Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with this 

review must certify that the information 

is accurate and complete to the best of 

the submitter’s knowledge. In making 

the certification, the submitter will be 

deemed to consent, unless otherwise 

specified, for the Commission, its 

employees, and contract personnel to 

use the information provided in any 

other reviews or investigations of the 

same or comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

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

Written submissions. Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is July 31, 2009. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

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

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct an 

expedited or full review. The deadline 

for filing such comments is September 

15, 2009. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of sections 

201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission’s 

rules and any submissions that contain 

BPI must also conform with the 

requirements of sections 201.6 and 

207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The 

Commission’s rules do not authorize 

filing of submissions with the Secretary 

by facsimile or electronic means, except 

to the extent permitted by section 201.8 

of the Commission’s rules, as amended, 

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

in accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (as identified by 

either the public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the review you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information. Pursuant to section 

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

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determination in the review. 

Information To Be Provided in 

Response to this Notice of Institution: 

As used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ includes 

any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address) and name, telephone number, 

fax number, and E-mail address of the 

certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

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

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

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

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in this review by providing information 

requested by the Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on the Domestic Industry in 

general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

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

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of 

subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

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

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in the Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries after 

2003. 

(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in 

the U.S. market for the Domestic Like 

Product and the Subject Merchandise 

(including street address, World Wide 

Web address, and the name, telephone 

31762 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 

number, fax number, and E-mail address 

of a responsible official at each firm). 

(8) A list of known sources of 

information on national or regional 

prices for the Domestic Like Product or 

the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or 

other markets. 

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

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2008, except as noted 

(report quantity data in pounds and 

value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). 

If you are a union/worker group or 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms in which your workers are 

employed/which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., 

the level of production that your 

establishment(s) could reasonably have 

expected to attain during the year, 

assuming normal operating conditions 

(using equipment and machinery in 

place and ready to operate), normal 

operating levels (hours per week/weeks 

per year), time for downtime, 

maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a 

typical or representative product mix); 

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

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(d) The quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

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

(e) The value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of the Domestic Like Product 

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

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

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

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2008 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from the Subject 

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

imports; 

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

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country; and 

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

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from the Subject Country. 

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

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2008 

(report quantity data in pounds and 

value data in U.S. dollars, landed and 

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

including antidumping duties). If you 

are a trade/business association, provide 

the information, on an aggregate basis, 

for the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in the 

Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) The quantity and value of your 

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

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject Country 

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

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country after 2003, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Country, and such merchandise from 

other countries. 

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary. 

Issued: June 29, 2009. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–15642 Filed 7–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 205 / Monday, October 26, 2009 / Notices 55065 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–690] 

In the Matter of: Certain Printing and 

Imaging Devices and Components 

Thereof; Notice of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of investigation 

pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337. 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–130 (Third 

Review)] 

Chloropicrin From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of a full five-year 

review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on chloropicrin from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of a full review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

55066 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 205 / Monday, October 26, 2009 / Notices 

1Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane, Commissioner 

Irving A. Williamson, and Commissioner Dean A. 

Pinkert dissenting. 

(the Act) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on chloropicrin from China would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury 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: October 15, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cynthia Trainor (202–205–3354), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On October 5, 2009, 

the Commission determined that it 

should proceed to a full review in the 

subject five-year review pursuant to 

section 751(c)(5) of the Act. The 

Commission found that the domestic 

interested party group responses to its 

notice of institution (74 FR 31760, July 

2, 2009) were adequate and that the 

respondent interested party group 

responses to its notice of institution 

were inadequate. The Commission also 

found that other circumstances 

warranted conducting a full review.1 A 

record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements are available from the Office 

of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Participation in the review and public 

service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in this review as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11 of the 

Commission’s rules, by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. A party that 

filed a notice of appearance following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the review need not file 

an additional notice of appearance. The 

Secretary will maintain a public service 

list containing the names and addresses 

of all persons, or their representatives, 

who are parties to the review. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in this review available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the review, provided that the 

application is made by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

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

who are parties to the review. A party 

granted access to BPI following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the review need not 

reapply for such access. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO Staff 

report.—The prehearing staff report in 

the review will be placed in the 

nonpublic record on January 29, 2010, 

and a public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 207.64 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing.—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the review 

beginning at 9:30 a.m. on February 18, 

2010, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Requests to 

appear at the hearing should be filed in 

writing with the Secretary to the 

Commission on or before February 10, 

2010. A nonparty who has testimony 

that may aid the Commission’s 

deliberations may request permission to 

present a short statement at the hearing. 

All parties and nonparties desiring to 

appear at the hearing and make oral 

presentations should attend a 

prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 

a.m. on February 12, 2009, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building. Oral testimony and written 

materials to be submitted at the public 

hearing are governed by sections 

201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, and 

207.66 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Written submissions.—Each party to 

the review may submit a prehearing 

brief to the Commission. Prehearing 

briefs must conform with the provisions 

of section 207.65 of the Commission’s 

rules; the deadline for filing is February 

8, 2010. Parties may also file written 

testimony in connection with their 

presentation at the hearing, as provided 

in section 207.24 of the Commission’s 

rules, and posthearing briefs, which 

must conform with the provisions of 

section 207.67 of the Commission’s 

rules. The deadline for filing 

posthearing briefs is March 1, 2010; 

witness testimony must be filed no later 

than three days before the hearing. In 

addition, any person who has not 

entered an appearance as a party to the 

review may submit a written statement 

of information pertinent to the subject of 

the review on or before March 1, 2009. 

On March 24, 2009, 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 March 29, 

2010, but such final comments must not 

contain new factual information and 

must otherwise comply with section 

207.68 of the Commission’s rules. All 

written submissions must conform with 

the provisions of section 201.8 of the 

Commission’s rules; any submissions 

that contain BPI must also conform with 

the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: This review is being 

conducted under authority of title VII of 

the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 205 / Monday, October 26, 2009 / Notices 55067 

published pursuant to section 207.62 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

Issued: October 21, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–25675 Filed 10–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 
57450 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 214 / Friday, November 6, 2009 / Notices 

1 In 2004, a new HTS category was developed and 

identified specifically for imports of chloropicrin 

i.e., 2904.90.50.05. Previously, the HTS category 

that included chloropicrin was 2904.90.50. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–002] 

Chloropicrin From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of the 

Expedited Sunset Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On July 1, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated a sunset review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

chloropicrin from the People’s Republic 

of China (‘‘PRC’’) pursuant to section 

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

amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation of 

Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 74 FR 

31412 (July 1, 2009); see also 

Antidumping Duty Order; Chloropicrin 

from the People’s Republic of China, 49 

FR 10691 (March 22, 1984) (‘‘Order’’). 

Based on the notice of intent to 

participate and adequate response filed 

by the domestic interested parties, and 

the lack of response from any 

respondent interested party, the 

Department conducted an expedited 

sunset review of the Order pursuant to 

section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result 

of this sunset review, the Department 

finds that revocation of the Order would 

likely lead to continuation or recurrence 

of dumping, at the levels indicated in 

the ‘‘Final Results of Sunset Review’’ 

section of this notice, infra. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 6, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Moats, AD/CVD Operations, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5047. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 1, 

2009, the Department initiated a sunset 

review of the order on chloropicrin 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. 

See Sunset Initiation, 74 FR 31412. On 

July 13, 2009, the Department received 

a timely notice of intent to participate 

in the sunset review from Ashta 

Chemicals, Inc. (‘‘Ashta’’), Niklor 

Chemical Company, Inc. (‘‘Niklor’’), and 

Trinity Manufacturing, Inc. (‘‘Trinity’’), 

domestic interested parties, pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). On July 31, 

2009, Ashta, Niklor, and Trinity filed a 

timely substantive response within 30 

days after the date of publication of the 

Sunset Initiation. The Department did 

not receive a substantive response from 

any respondent interested party in the 

sunset review. As a result, pursuant to 

section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the 

Department conducted an expedited 

sunset review of the Order. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to this 

antidumping duty order is chloropicrin, 

also known as trichloronitromethane. A 

major use of the product is as a preplant soil fumigant (pesticide). Such 

merchandise is currently classifiable 

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

(‘‘HTS’’) item number 2904.90.50.05.1

The HTS item number is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes. The 

written description remains dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

A complete discussion of all issues 

raised in this sunset review is addressed 

in the accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. See ‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Results in the Expedited Sunset Review 

of the Antidumping Duty Order on 

Chloropicrin from the People’s Republic 

of China,’’ from John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, to 

Ronald Lorentzen, Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration, dated 

concurrent with this notice (‘‘I&D 

Memo’’). The issues discussed in the 

accompanying I&D Memo include the 

likelihood of continuation or recurrence 

of dumping and the magnitude of the 

dumping margin likely to prevail if the 

Order was revoked. Parties can obtain a 

public copy of the I&D Memo on file in 

the Central Records Unit, room 1117, of 

the main Commerce building. In 

addition, a complete public version of 

the I&D Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the I&D Memo are identical in 

content. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the Order on chloropicrin 

would likely lead to continuation or 

recurrence of dumping at the rates listed 

below: 

Manufacturers/exporters/ 

producers 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

China National Chemicals Import 

and Export Corp. 

(SINOCHEM) .......................... 58.0 

PRC-Wide Entity ......................... 58.0 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective 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 these 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: October 29, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–26859 Filed 11–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES6

24>2008 18:23 Nov 05, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06NON1.SGM 06NON1
1

 Commissioners Lane, Williamson, and Pinkert voted to conduct an expedited review

citing both the lack of adequate respondent participation and their findings that the record in this

adequacy phase did not indicate sufficient changes in the conditions of competition since the

original investigation and the first and second five-year reviews to warrant conducting a full

review.

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Chloropicrin from China

Inv. No. 731-TA-130 (Third Review)

On October 5, 2009, the Commission determined that it should proceed to a full review in

the subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,

19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5). 

The Commission received a single domestic producer response filed by ASHTA

Chemicals, Inc. (“ASHTA”). ASHTA’s response also contains information submitted on behalf

of two other producers of chloropicrin, Niklor Chemical Company, Inc., and Trinity

Manufacturing, Inc. The Commission found that the individual response of each domestic

chloropicrin producer to be individually adequate. The Commission further determined that the

domestic interested party group response was adequate because these producers account for all

of the domestic production of chloropicrin.

The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested party in the

review and, therefore, determined that the respondent interested party group response was

inadequate.

Notwithstanding the Commission’s determination that the respondent interested party

group response was inadequate, the Commission determined to conduct a full review in light of

information regarding possible changes in the conditions of competition.1

 These include

possible changes in market conditions resulting from increasing environmental regulation of

chloropicrin.

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and

the Commission’s web site (http://www.usitc.gov).
APPENDIX B

SUMMARY DATA

B-1

Table B-1

Chloropicrin: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and

January-September 2009

* * * * * * *

B-3

APPENDIX C

COMMENTS ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EXISTING 

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER AND

THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

C-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 chloropicrin in the future

if the antidumping duty order on chloropicrin from China was to be revoked. 

(Question II-4)

ASHTA

“***.”

Niklor

“***.”

Trinity

“***.”

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe the significance of the antidumping

duty order 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-15) 

ASHTA

“***.”

Niklor

“***.”

Trinity

“***.”

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 chloropicrin in the future if the antidumping duty order was to

be revoked. (Question II-16)

ASHTA

“***.”

C-3
Niklor

“***.”

Trinity

“***.”

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 chloropicrin the future if the antidumping

duty order was to be revoked. (Question II-4)

***

“No.”

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe the significance of the existing

antidumping duty order covering imports of chloropicrin in terms of their effect on their firms’

imports, U.S. shipments of imports, and inventories. (Question II-9)

***

“N/A.”

The Commission requested U.S. importers if they would anticipate any changes in their

imports, U.S. shipments of imports, or inventories of chloropicrin in the future if the antidumping

duty order was to be revoked. (Question II-10)

***

“No.”

U.S. PURCHASERS COMMENTS

The Commission requested U.S. purchasers to describe the likely effects of any revocation

of the subject antidumping duty order on the future activities of their firm and the entire U.S.

market. (Questions III-38 (1) and III-38 (2)). The following are quotations from the responses of

purchasers:

C-4
(1) Effects on the activities of the firm

***

“Removal of the antidumping duty would likely result in additional competitive sources and would open

up the opportunity for *** to purchase chloropicrin from China, or nonsubject countries and develop

additional dependable alternate sources. *** would likely develop a relationship with an offshore source

to secure a reliable alternate source to the limited domestic options. In particular, *** requires a

competitive source of chloropicrin to incorporate into its *** in order to effectively compete with other

products. The pricing for this key component of *** is not as competitive as it likely would be if the

antidumping order was removed.

***

“Revocation of the order would not have a significant effect on the activities of my firm.”

***

“Don’t know.”

***

“Less profitable for us.”

***

“Traders will make offers to us based on price.”

***

“Importers will make offer decision based on price.”

***

“No change is anticipated since ***.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“Importers will make offer decision based on price.”

***

“Companies/traders from China will offer to sell at significantly lower prices to buy their way into the

market. Would likely not affect our purchases as ***.”

C-5
(2) Effects on the entire U.S. market

***

“Removal of the antidumping duty would likely bring more competitive pricing for chloropicrin products

(both as stand-alone product as well as incorporated into other products) to the U.S. market, ultimately

benefitting farmers who use these products.”

***

“I don’t know what the effect might be on the U.S. market.”

***

“Don’t know.”

***

“Less profitable for U.S. distributors.”

***

“Importers will make offer decision based on price.”

***

“Importers will make offer decision based on price.”

***

“Imports of chloropicrin will occur, weakening the U.S. industry and ***. This will reduce the ability of

the U.S. producers to support the USEPA and California data requirements.”

***

“No answer.”

***

“Importers will make offer decision based on price.”

***

“Companies/traders from China will offer to sell at significantly lower prices to buy their way into the

market. Would likely not effect our purchases as they could not supply us in railcars.”

C-6
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 chloropicrin in the future

if the antidumping duty order was to be revoked, and if yes, to describe those changes. (Question

II-4)

The Commission did not receive any responses to its Foreign Producers/Exporters’ questionnaire.

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

chloropicrin as a result of the antidumping duty order. (Question II-11)

The Commission did not receive any responses to its Foreign Producers/Exporters’ questionnaire.

The Commission requested foreign producers to describe the significance of the existing

antidumping and countervailing duty orders covering imports of chloropicrin 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-12)

The Commission did not receive any responses to its Foreign Producers/Exporters’ questionnaire.

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 order was to be revoked. (Question

II-13)

The Commission did not receive any responses to its Foreign Producers/Exporters’ questionnaire. 

The Commission asked foreign producers to discuss any anticipated changes in terms of the

product range, product mix, or marketing of chloropicrin 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-10)

The Commission did not receive any responses to its Foreign Producers/Exporters’ questionnaire.

C-7

APPENDIX D

REGULATORY ISSUES

D-1

CHLOROPICRIN REGULATORY ISSUES

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) regulates the use of pesticides under the

authority of two federal statutes: the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) and

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FFDCA”).1

 Pesticide registration is the process through

which the EPA examines the ingredients of a pesticide; the site or crop on which it is to be used; the

amount, frequency and timing of its use; and the storage and disposal practices of the potential users. The

EPA evaluation attempts to ensure that pesticides will not have unreasonable adverse effects on humans,

the environment and non-target species. Pesticides must be registered or exempted by EPA's Office of

Pesticide Programs before they may be sold or distributed in the United States. Once registered, a

pesticide may not legally be used unless the use is consistent with the approved directions for use on the

pesticide's label or labeling.2

In 2006, the EPA initiated a registration review program to reevaluate all pesticides on a regular

cycle. The program's goal is to review each pesticide active ingredient every 15 years to verify that all

pesticide products in the marketplace can still be used safely, as the ability to assess risks to human health

and the environment evolves.3

 

Table D-1 presents modifications from 2008 to 2009 to the amended soil fumigant re-registration

eligibility decisions (“REDs”). In May 2009, after consultations with stakeholders and obtaining

extensive public input, the EPA issued new safety measures for soil fumigant pesticides (including

chloropicrin) to increase protections for agricultural workers and bystanders. These measures, which are

in the process of being implemented, are designed to establish a baseline for safe use of soil fumigants

throughout the United States, reducing fumigant exposures, and significantly improving safety.4

 

Many of the measures were announced in July 2008, when EPA issued risk management

Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs) for the soil fumigants. During 2009, EPA solicited and

received public comments related to the implementation of these measures, including having public

meetings and visits with agricultural, farm worker, and public health constituents. In the Amended REDs

published in May 2009, all measures to reduce risks are still required; however, some aspects of these

measures were adjusted based on stakeholder input, on new scientific data that reduces the uncertainties

in the Agency’s assessments, and improved information on certain technological capabilities. These

modifications will achieve the same level of protection for those people with the potential to be exposed

to the fumigants, while resulting in greater compliance among users and fewer negative impacts on use of

soil fumigants.5

 1 Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/laws.htm on January 13, 2010. 

 2

 Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/registering/index.htm on January 13, 2010.

 3

 Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reevaluation/index.htm on January 13, 2010.

 4

 Retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/soil_fumigants/index.htm#ammendedreds on

January 12, 2010.

 5

 Ibid.

D-3
Table D-1

Modifications from 2008 to 2009 of the Amended Soil Fumigant Re-registration Eligibility Decisions

(REDs) 1

Mitigation 2008 REDs 2009 Amended REDs

Buffers1 Buffer zones based on available

data

- New chloropicrin data support smaller buffers and

increased confidence in safety

- New dazomet data support larger buffers

Buffer credits Credits allowed based on

available data

New data support more credits

Rights of way Permission from local authorities

must be granted if buffers extend

onto rights of way

Permission from local authorities is only required when

sidewalk is present

Buffer overlap Buffers may not overlap Buffers may overlap; separate applications by 12

hours

Restrictions for

difficult-toevacuate sites

1⁄4 mile restriction around hard-toevacuate areas including day care

centers, nursing homes, schools

Maintain 1⁄4 mile restriction but allow a reduced

restricted area of 1/8 mile for applications with smaller

buffers (less than 300 feet)

Respiratory

protection

Required monitoring devices to

trigger additional measures

- Allow sensory irritation properties to trigger additional

measures for MITC and chloropicrin

- Device required for methyl bromide formulations with

<20% chloropicrin

Emergency

response and

preparedness

If neighbors are near buffers, they

must be provided with information

or buffer zones must be monitored

every 1-2 hours over 48 hours with

monitoring devices

- Same basic measures

- Monitoring is required only during peak emission

times of the day; irritation acceptable trigger for MITC

and chloropicrin in lieu of devices; methyl bromide

requires devices

 1 A buffer zone provides distance between the application site (i.e., edge of field) and bystanders, allowing airborne

residues to disperse before reaching the bystanders. This buffer will reduce the chances that air concentrations where

bystanders are located will cause acute adverse health effects.

Source: Modifications from 2008 to 2009 Amended Soil Fumigant Reds, retrieved from

ipm.ifas.ufl.edu/pdf/2009_Amended_Soil_Fumigant_Reds.pdf on January 12, 2010.

D-4
According to the EPA, the following are the mitigation measures that will be required for the reregistration of chloropicrin: new good agricultural practices,6

 maximum application rate reductions,7 new

handler protections,8

 tarp cutting and removal restrictions, extended worker reentry requirements,9

training information for handlers,10 fumigant management plans (“FMPs”),11 first responder and

community outreach,12 certified applicator training,13 restrictions on applications around difficult to

evacuate sites (e.g., hospitals, schools), buffer zones, treated area and buffer zone posting,14 and

emergency preparedness measures.15

 6 Current fumigant labels recommend practices that help reduce off-gassing and improve the safety and

effectiveness of applications. The EPA determined that including certain practices on labels as requirements rather

than recommendations will minimize inhalation and other risks from fumigant applications. Examples of good

agricultural practices include proper soil preparation/tilling, ensuring optimal soil moisture and temperature,

appropriate use of sealing techniques, equipment calibration, and weather criteria. 

 7

 EPA restricts certain fumigant application methods and practices for which data are not currently available to

determine appropriate protections, or that lead to risks that are otherwise difficult to address. These risks may

include certain untarped applications for some fumigants. EPA is also lowering maximum application rates to reflect

those rates needed for effective use, thereby reducing the potential for inhalation exposure and risk.

 8

 A clear description of handler activities is required to be placed on the fumigant labels. All persons performing

fumigant-handler activities must be trained and equipped as handlers in accordance with the requirements in the

Agricultural Worker Protection Standard (“WPS”) (40 CFR Part 170). 

 9

 Current labels allow worker reentry into fumigated fields two to five days after applications are complete.

However, there are risks for workers reentering even after 48 hours. Stakeholder comments indicate that reentry for

non-handler tasks is generally not needed for several days after the application is complete. EPA is extending the

time that agricultural workers (i.e., non-handlers) are prohibited from entering the treated area. The entry prohibited

period depends on the method of application, but generally the minimum period for worker reentry will be five days

or until after tarps are perforated and removed. 

 10 EPA is requiring fumigant registrants to develop and implement training programs for applicators in charge of

soil fumigations on the proper use and good agricultural practices, so that these applicators are better prepared to

effectively manage fumigant operations. The registrants also must prepare and disseminate training information and

materials for fumigant handlers (those working under the supervision of the certified applicator in charge of

fumigations). 

 11 EPA is requiring that fumigant users prepare a written, site-specific fumigant management plan (“FMP”)

before fumigations begin. Written plans and procedures for safe and effective applications will help prevent

accidents and misuse and will capture emergency response plans and steps to take in case an accident occurs.

FMPs will be a resource for compliance assurance; fumigators will capture in the FMP how they are complying with

label requirements. 

 12 EPA is requiring fumigant registrants to develop and implement community outreach programs to ensure that

information about fumigants and safety is available within communities where soil fumigation occurs. Outreach and

information will address the risk of bystander exposure by educating community members about fumigants, buffer

zones, how to recognize early signs of fumigant exposure, and how to respond appropriately in case of an incident.

 13 EPA is requiring fumigant registrants to develop and implement training programs for applicators in charge of

soil fumigations on proper use and good agricultural practices so these applicators are better prepared to effectively

manage fumigant operations. The registrants also must prepare and disseminate training information and materials

for fumigant handlers.

 14 For buffer zones to be effective, bystanders need to be informed about the location and timing of the

fumigation. EPA is requiring that buffer zones be posted at usual points of entry and along likely routes of approach

to the buffer unless a physical barrier prevents access to the buffer, or all of the area within 300 feet of the buffer is

under the control of the owner/operator. 

 15 EPA is requiring registrants to provide training information to first responders in high fumigant use areas. 

These measures will ensure that emergency responders are prepared to effectively identify and respond to fumigant

exposure incidents.

D-5
The implementation of the REDs is currently in process, with proposals for revised labels due

back to the EPA during the fall of 2009. The EPA is scheduled to review the proposals for the revised

labels before the growing season in 2010 to institute the improved protections, and particularly to

implement remaining measures relating to buffer zones in 2011. A re-evaluation of these procedures is

also scheduled to begin in 2013.16

 16 Retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/soil_fumigants/index.htm#emergency on

January 12, 2010.

D-6