U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4183 September 2010

Washington, DC 20436

Potassium Permanganate from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-125 (Third Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Karen Laney

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Cynthia Trainor, investigator 

Patrick Gallagher, Attorney 

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

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4183 September 2010

Potassium Permanganate from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-125 (Third Review)

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Information obtained in the third review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Introduction and overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

The original investigation and five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

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

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

Distribution of continued dumping and subsidy offset funds to affected domestic

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

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

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

U.S. tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Domestic like product and domestic industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Manufacturing process and production employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Interchangeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

The U.S. market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Trends in U.S. supply and demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

The industry in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

U.S. production, capacity, shipments, and financial data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

U.S. imports and consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

U.S. importers and imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

The industry in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

The World market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

EU and Indian antidumping orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-20

Appendixes

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

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

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

i

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-125 (Third Review)

POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE 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 potassium permanganate

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 May 3, 2010 (75 F.R. 23298) and determined on

August 6, 2010 that it would conduct an expedited review (75 F.R. 51112, August 18, 2010). 

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

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 potassium

permanganate 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 January 1984, the Commission unanimously determined that an industry in the United States

was being materially injured by reason of less than fair value (“LTFV”) imports1

 of potassium

permanganate from China2

 and Spain.3 The U. S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) issued

antidumping duty orders on potassium permanganate from China4

 and Spain.5

B. The Commission’s Five-Year Reviews

On November 2, 1998, the Commission instituted reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders

would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury.6

 On February 4, 1999, the

Commission voted to conduct full reviews.7

 On November 4, 1999, the Commission determined that

revocation of the order on potassium permanganate from China would be likely to lead to a continuation

or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time and that revocation of the order on

potassium permanganate from Spain would not be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of

material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.8

 No party appealed either determination.

On October 1, 2004, the Commission instituted a review pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act to

determine whether revocation of the remaining antidumping duty order on China would likely lead to

 1 The Commission’s original investigations predate the present statutory cumulation provision. 19 U.S.C. § 1677

(7)(G) and (H) (1994). In the original investigations, the Commission did not cumulate subject imports from China

and Spain in making its material injury determinations. See Potassium Permanganate from the People’s Republic of

China and Spain, Inv. Nos.731-TA-125 and -126 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 1369 (April 1983), at 10 (China) and 11

(Spain).

 2 Potassium Permanganate from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-125 (Final), USITC Pub. 1480 (January 1984)

(“Original Investigation (China)”).

 3 Potassium Permanganate from Spain, Inv. No. 731-TA-126 (Final), USITC Pub. 1474 (January 1984)

(“Original Investigation (Spain)”).

 4 49 Fed. Reg. 3897 (January 31, 1984).

 5 49 Fed. Reg. 2277 (January 19, 1984).

 6 63 Fed. Reg. 58765 (November 2, 1998).

 7 See Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy in Potassium Permanganate from China and Spain

(February 18, 1999) (“Adequacy Explanation”). See also 64 Fed. Reg. 9177 (February 24, 1999) (notice of

Commission determination to conduct full five-year reviews).

 8 Potassium Permanganate from China and Spain, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-125-126 (Review) USITC Pub. 3245

(November 1999) (“First Five-Year Review”).

3
continuation or recurrence of material injury.9

 On June 2, 2005, in an expedited review, the Commission

determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from China would

be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.10

C. The Current Review

The Commission instituted this five-year review on April 22, 2010.11 The Commission received a

substantive response to the notice of institution from domestic interested party Carus Corporation

(“Carus”).12 The Commission did not receive any responses from producers or exporters of potassium

permanganate in China or from any U.S. importers of the subject merchandise.

On March 6, 2010, the Commission found the domestic interested party response to the notice of

institution to be adequate and the respondent interested party response to be inadequate.13 The

Commission did not find any circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review and determined

that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.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

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

 9 69 Fed. Reg. 58955 (October 1, 2004).

 10 Potassium Permanganate from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-125 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3778 (June 2005)

(“Second Five-Year Review”).

 11 Institution of a Five-year Review Concerning the Antidumping Duty Order on Potassium Permanganate from

China, 75 Fed. Reg. 23298 (May 3, 2010).

 12 Staff Report, INV-HH-088 (September 2, 2010) (“CR”) at I-3 n.4; PR at I-3 n.4.

 13 See Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy. 

 14 Id.; 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3) (2006).

 15 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 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).

4
A. Product Description

In its expedited sunset determination, Commerce defined the subject merchandise, potassium

permanganate, as “an inorganic chemical produced in free-flowing, technical, and pharmaceutical

grades.”18

 Potassium permanganate, or potassium of potash, is a compound of manganese, potassium, and

oxygen. It exists at room temperature as a dark-purple crystalline solid of rhombic shape with a blue

metallic sheen. All three grades of potassium permanganate are produced domestically at the same

facilities using the same equipment and employees. The free-flowing grade is produced by adding an

anti-caking agent to the technical grade, preventing the particles from sticking together when in contact

with moisture. The pharmaceutical grade must be at least 99 percent potassium permanganate by weight,

usually requires more testing than the other grades, and requires recrystallization to remove impurities or

to meet customer specifications. The three grades of potassium permanganate are generally

interchangeable in their various applications, except for pharmaceutical applications. Potassium

permanganate is used principally as an oxidizing agent in the following applications: municipal water

treatment, wastewater treatment, chemical manufacturing and processing, aquaculture (fish farming),

metal processing, and air and gas purification. In addition, potassium permanganate is used as a

decoloring and bleaching agent in the textile and tanning industries, as an oxidizer in the decontamination

of radioactive wastes, as an aid in the flotation processes used in mining, and in cleaning printed circuit

boards.19

B. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews

In the original investigations, the Commission considered whether there were three like products

defined by grade or one like product defined as all potassium permanganate. The Commission

determined that there was only one like product, potassium permanganate.20 The Commission found that

the three grades possessed the identical chemical formula and were produced, for the most part, using the

same manufacturing process. It also found increasing interchangeability of technical and free-flowing

grade potassium permanganate for many uses and “historically similar pricing” for these two grades.21 At

the time of the original investigation, the U.S. industry produced all three grades of potassium

permanganate.

In the first and second five-year reviews, the Commission defined the domestic like product as all

potassium permanganate, regardless of grade. In so doing, the Commission noted that none of the parties

argued for a different domestic like product. It further noted that the three grades of potassium

 18 Potassium Permanganate from the People’s Republic from China: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 75 Fed. Reg. 52509 (August 26, 2010). 

 19 CR at I-9 to I-11, PR at I-7 to I-9.

 20 Original Investigation (Spain) at 6; Original Investigation (China) at 7. See also Potassium Permanganate

from the People’s Republic of China and Spain, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-125-126 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 1369 at 6

(April, 1983) (“Original Preliminary Investigation”). 

 21 Original Investigation (Spain) at 4-6; Original Investigation (China) at 5-7. In the original investigation, the

Commission found that the processing to qualify technical grade potassium permanganate as pharmaceutical grade

was an added cost. The Commission found that pharmaceutical grade potassium permanganate would not normally

be used in place of free flowing or technical grade. Given that the Chinese technical grade had not undergone the

testing necessary to qualify it as pharmaceutical grade, the Commission found that there were no imports of

pharmaceutical grade potassium permanganate from China during the period of investigation. See Original

Investigation (China) at 6-7 and n.11.

5
permanganate are used for similar applications; that they are produced domestically at the same facilities

using the same equipment and employees; and that the major manufacturing process for all three grades is

similar.22

C. Analysis and Conclusion

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

that is different from that reached in the Commission’s past determinations. Moreover, no party raised

any objections to that definition of the domestic like product.

Therefore, we find that the appropriate definition of the domestic like product in this third fiveyear review is all potassium permanganate, regardless of grade, the same as Commerce’s scope. This

definition is unchanged from the definition in the Commission’s original determination and two

subsequent five-year reviews.23

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.”24 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 potassium permanganate.25 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.26

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.”27 The SAA states that “under the likelihood

 22 First Five-Year Review at 6; Second Five-Year Review at 5.

 23 See Original Investigation (Spain) at 6; Original Investigation (China) at 7; First Five-Year Review at 6; and

Second Five-Year Review at 5.

 24 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.

 25 See Original Investigation (China) at 7; First Five-Year Review at 6; and Second Five-Year Review at 6.

 26 Carus was the only commercial producer of potassium permanganate in the United States in 2009. CR at I-3

n.4, PR at I-3 n.4.

 27 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.”28 Thus, the

likelihood standard is prospective in nature.29 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.30 31 32

The Act 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.”33 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.”34

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.”35 It

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

 28 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.

 29 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.

 30 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’”).

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

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

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

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

 32 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.

 33 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 34 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.

 35 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

7
the state of the industry is related to the order or the suspension agreement under review, whether the

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

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

1675(a)(4).36 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.37

As discussed above, no foreign producer of potassium permanganate responded to the

Commission’s notice of institution. Accordingly, when appropriate in this review, we have relied on the

facts otherwise available, 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.38 39

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.”40

1. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews

In the original investigation, the Commission found that potassium permanganate was used in

various industries and municipalities as an oxidizer, primarily for water and wastewater treatment for the

removal of impurities and the reduction of odor.41 The Commission noted that potassium permanganate

was manufactured in three grades (technical, free-flowing, and pharmaceutical). The Commission found

that, although China produced only technical grade potassium permanganate, Chinese producers

 36 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). We note that Commerce made no duty absorption findings.

 37 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily

dispositive. SAA at 886.

 38 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.”).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 40 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 41 Original Investigation (China) at 4.

8
manufactured it to such high purity standards that the Chinese technical grade could be sold in the United

States as pharmaceutical grade, suitable for use in food and pharmaceutical applications.42 Finally, the

Commission found that the use of technical grade potassium permanganate was increasing due to the

availability of significantly lower priced technical grade from China.43

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

were pertinent to its analysis of the U.S. market for potassium permanganate. The Commission found

that the primary end use for potassium permanganate in the U.S. market was as an oxidizing agent in

water and wastewater treatment and that most potassium permanganate sold in the United States was freeflowing grade, while almost all of the remainder was technical grade.44 The Commission also found that

the United States was the largest market for potassium permanganate in the world and that demand for

potassium permanganate had increased steadily from 1982 to 1998.45 Demand for potassium

permanganate in water and wastewater treatment was expected to continue to increase in part because of

stricter federal guidelines for water treatment.46 The Commission found that both domestic production

and capacity had increased since the original investigation, but not at the same rate as demand.47 The

Commission noted that Carus’s production capacity was *** to apparent U.S. consumption during the

period of review. The Commission further found that a substantial percentage of Carus’s production

***.48 Finally, the Commission determined that potassium permanganate continued to be a fungible,

price sensitive product and sales for potassium permanganate were made directly or through distributors.49

It observed that importers and purchasers indicated that there was a moderate to high degree of

substitutability between the domestic like product and subject and nonsubject imports.50

In the second five-year review, the Commission found that the principal markets for potassium

permanganate -- municipal drinking water and wastewater treatment -- were relatively mature. As a

result, the demand for potassium permanganate in water and wastewater treatment was not expected to

grow in the reasonably foreseeable future. Because the opportunities for growth in these mature markets

were expected to be limited, Carus was seeking to increase the use of potassium permanganate in other

applications, such as aquaculture, metal processing, agrochemicals, and hazardous waste treatment.51 The

Commission noted that, since the first five-year review, apparent U.S. consumption had declined,

although the United States continued to be the world’s largest market for potassium permanganate in

2004. The Commission also found that domestic capacity remained fairly steady since the original

investigation, while Carus’s market share fell during the period of review due to an increase in nonsubject

imports of potassium permanganate in 2003.52 Finally, the Commission found that potassium

permanganate continued to be a fungible, price sensitive product and that most potassium permanganate 

 42 Original Investigation (China) at 4-6.

 43 Original Investigation (China) at 6-7.

 44 First Five-Year Review at 18-19.

 45 First Five-Year Review at 19.

 46 First Five-Year Review at 19.

 47 First Five-Year Review at 20.

 48 First Five-Year Review at 20. 

 49 First Five-Year Review at 21. 

 50 First Five-Year Review at 21.

 51 Second Five-Year Review at 8.

 52 Second Five-Year Review at 8.

9
was sold to distributors, who in turn sold to government water authorities through a bidding process in

which the lowest bidder often won.53

2. The Current Review

A number of specific conditions of competition have not changed since the original investigation. 

 Municipal drinking water and wastewater treatment remain the primary domestic uses for potassium

permanganate and still account for the majority of current U.S. demand.54 Potassium permanganate is a

fungible chemical commodity, and U.S. municipalities continue to award potassium permanganate supply

contracts to the lowest bidder through a transparent and competitive bidding process in which contracts

may be won on price differences as low as pennies per pound.55 The domestic market for potassium

permanganate is mature, with *** apparent U.S. consumption ***.56

A number of changes in the conditions of competition have occurred since the order was

imposed. China has further increased production capacity and excess capacity, with annual production

capacity estimated to be approximately 134 million pounds, compared to 77 million pounds in the second

five-year review.57 Since the second five-year review, Chongqing Jialing, the largest Chinese potassium

permanganate producer, has significantly expanded production and, along with a number of other Chinese

producers, reportedly produces the full range of potassium permanganate grades.58 Apparent U.S.

consumption also has declined since the second five-year review. However, the United States was the

world’s *** in 2009 (***), and it continues to be an attractive market due to its size and price levels.59 

 53 Second Five-Year Review at 9.

 54 CR at I-11, PR at I-8 to I-9; and Carus Response at 19. In 1999 and 2005, wastewater and drinking water

treatment accounted for approximately *** percent of domestic consumption. CR at I-12, PR at I-10. It accounted

for approximately *** percent of consumption in 2009. Carus Response at 19. Information gathered during the

second five-year review indicated that Carus considered gradually phasing out its U.S. production of potassium

permanganate in favor of sodium permanganate. CR at I-16, PR at I-12. Sodium permanganate can be used in the

same applications as potassium permanganate, but it is substantially more expensive, on a dry basis, than potassium

permanganate. Sodium permanganate is more soluble than potassium permanganate and, therefore, can be used

more readily in liquid form (a 40 percent solution in water is the most common form imported or exported). 

Consequently, sodium permanganate use tends to be limited to those applications in which a customer is willing to

pay a premium. CR at I-12 n.28, PR at I-9 n.28. In the second five-year review, Carus reported that the volume of

sodium permanganate produced and traded had increased significantly and that the firm had increased its annual

production capacity several fold. CR at I-16 to I-17, PR at I-12 to I-13. The use of sodium permanganate as a

substitute appeared to be corroborated by bids reported on the Internet for which both sodium permanganate and

potassium permanganate were used in wastewater treatment. CR at I-17, PR at I-12 to I-13. No new information

regarding the use of sodium permanganate as a substitute for potassium permanganate has been developed in this

five-year review.

 55 Carus Response at 19 and Attachments 8 and 9.

 56 CR at I-16, PR at I-12; Carus Response at 8-9.

 57 CR at I-17, PR at I-13; and Carus Response at 9 and Attachment 13. Based on current capacity and estimated

2009 production in China, Chinese producers’ excess capacity in 2009 was estimated to have been 61.1 million

pounds, more than double the level of excess capacity in the second five-year review. Carus Response at 9 and

Attachment 13.

 58 CR at I-17 and I-18, PR at I-13; Carus Response at 9.

 59 Second Five-Year Review at 9 and Table I-5; CR at I-15 and I-29, PR at I-11 and I-19; Carus Response at

Attachment 13.

10
Also, potassium permanganate producers worldwide experienced significant price increases for raw

materials in 2008 and 2009.60

Nonsubject imports were present in the U.S. market throughout the period examined, although

their market share remained relatively flat over the period.61

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

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

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

significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.62 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.63

1. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews

In the original investigation, the Commission found that, following a drop in volume between

1980 and 1981, subject imports increased from 281,000 pounds to 588,000 pounds in 1982 and that 1.4

million pounds were imported from China in January-August 1983 compared to 407,000 pounds in

January-August 1982.64 The Commission also found that the ratio of subject imports to apparent

domestic consumption, excluding purchases from Chemagro,65 rose from 1980 to 1981, declined from

1981 to 1982, and then more than doubled during the first eight months of 1983 relative to the same

period in 1982.66

In the first five-year review, the Commission found that subject imports from China increased

dramatically from 1986 to 1990 to 2.5 million pounds, but decreased to 300,000 pounds in 1992

following an increase in antidumping duty margins after an administrative review by Commerce. It

further noted that Chinese imports increased significantly between 1992 and 1993. The Commission

noted that, in 1994, Commerce found that subject Chinese potassium permanganate was being

transshipped through Hong Kong resellers that were previously assigned a margin of 39.53 percent and,

as a result, Commerce assigned a country-wide margin of 128.4 percent to all subject imports. Subject

 60 CR at I-17 and I-18, PR at I-13; Carus Response at 9.

 61 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 62 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 63 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

 64 Original Investigation (China) at 9-10.

 65 In the original investigation, the Commission found that Carus imported a substantial amount of potassium

permanganate from China in 1980 to meet its contractual obligations. In 1981, Carus lost Chemagro, its largest

customer, because Chemagro switched to a manufacturing process that did not require the use of potassium

permanganate. The Commission found that the drop in subject imports from 1980 to 1981 was due, in large part, to

Carus’s loss of Chemagro as a customer and the consequent drop in Carus’s purchases of potassium permanganate

from China. Original Investigation (China) at 9 and n.28. 

 66 Original Investigation (China) at 9-10 and Table 18. The Commission also made an affirmative critical

circumstances finding with respect to subject imports from China. Original Investigation (China) at 12-14.

11
imports from China then declined steeply and were virtually non-existent by the end of the period covered

by the first five-year review.67

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

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

revoked. The Commission found that the Chinese producers had greatly expanded their capacity and

would continue do so in the future through the construction of additional plants.68 It further concluded

that the Chinese producers had the ability to ship substantial volumes of potassium permanganate to the

United States if the order were revoked, finding that Chinese producers had significant unused production

capacity and were highly export-oriented.

The Commission found that, although China produced only technical and pharmaceutical grades

during the original investigation, Chinese producers were increasingly able to provide free-flowing

potassium permanganate for export. The Commission found that Chinese producers’ ability to supply

free-flowing grade to the U.S. market enhanced their ability to compete in the United States.69 Moreover,

the Commission found that other factors created incentives for Chinese producers to shift exports to the

U.S. market if the order were revoked. The U.S. market commanded higher prices for potassium

permanganate than other export markets, and the record demonstrated that subject producers continued to

view the United States as an attractive market.70 Finally, the Commission found that the European Union

and India had imposed antidumping measures on potassium permanganate from China and that these

measures provided a further incentive for Chinese producers to resume shipping potassium permanganate

to the U.S. market if the order were revoked.71

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, Chinese producers have considerable production capacity and

unused capacity. Carus estimates that Chinese producers have the ability to produce at least *** pounds

of potassium permanganate annually, corresponding to about *** of world production in 2009. Carus

also estimates that annual potassium permanganate consumption in China in 2009 was *** million

pounds. Thus, if the Chinese industry supplied the entire Chinese market, Chinese producers would still

have the capacity to produce *** million pounds of potassium permanganate for export.72 Carus also

estimates that Chinese producers’ excess production capacity is *** pounds, more than double the 28.4

million pounds of excess capacity estimated for 2004.73

 67 Second Five-Year Review at 11.

 68 Second Five-Year Review at 11-12.

 69 Second Five-Year Review at 12.

 70 Second Five-Year Review at 12.

 71 Second Five-Year Review at 12.

 72 Carus Response at 27-28.

 73 Carus Response at 9. We note that 61.1 million pounds would be equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption in 2009. See CR/PR at Table C-1. Carus estimates that Chinese producers have about *** million

pounds of additional potassium permanganate in inventory. CR at I-28, PR at I-19; and Carus Response at 26-27

and Attachment 13.

12
Second, the Chinese industry remains highly export-oriented. Carus reports that approximately

*** percent of China’s production was exported in 2009.74 Information from the original investigation

also shows that the Chinese industry was highly export-oriented.75 The record further shows that

potassium permanganate is used primarily for industrial applications in China, such as dyestuffs, textile

bleaching, pharmaceutical intermediaries, farming, and metallurgy, not water treatment. Several of these

Chinese industrial markets are reported to have contracted due to the recession, thus creating an incentive

to devote additional volume to exports.76 We also note that exports of Chinese product to the EU market

more than tripled in one year after the EU terminated its antidumping measure on imports from China in

2006 indicating likely similar behavior if the U.S. order were revoked.77

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

United States was the world’s *** consumer of potassium permanganate in 2009, accounting for more

than *** of global consumption.78 Despite projected slow growth in demand, the United States is likely

to remain one of the top potassium permanganate markets. The record also includes evidence that prices

for potassium permanganate in the United States are higher than prices in other markets, indicating that

the U.S. market would be attractive for Chinese producers.79

Finally, the Chinese industry faces a barrier to entry in the Indian market.80 India has had 

antidumping measures on imports of potassium permanganate from China since 1995.81

Accordingly, based on the demonstrated ability of Chinese potassium permanganate producers to

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

their export orientation, the attractiveness of the U.S. market, and the antidumping measures on Chinese

potassium permanganate in India, 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.

 74 Carus Response at 28. China’s 2009 production is estimated to have been *** pounds in 2009. CR at I-28,

PR at I-19; and Carus Response at Attachment 13. Official export statistics show that China exported 19.7 million

pounds of potassium permanganate in 2009. Carus Response at Attachment 5.

 75 Original Determination at 9-10. In the original investigation, the Commission found that the volume of

Chinese subject imports increased from 281,000 pounds in 1981 to 588,000 pounds in 1982. Subject imports were

1.4 million pounds in January-August 1983 and 407,000 pounds in the same period in 1982. Id.

 76 Carus Response at 28-29. The record in this review also shows that the increased use of the Internet for

potassium permanganate sales may facilitate increased exports to the United States by Chinese subject producers. 

Carus Response at 32-34 and Attachments 28 and 29.

 77 Carus Response at 29-30 and Attachment 24. From 2006 to 2007, Chinese exports of potassium permanganate

to the EU reportedly increased from 1 million to 3.7 million pounds, with an average export price that decreased 13

percent. Id.

 78 Global potassium permanganate consumption was estimated at *** million pounds in 2009. *** was

estimated to be the largest global consumer of potassium permanganate in 2009 (*** percent or *** million pounds),

followed by *** (*** percent or *** million pounds) and the *** (*** percent or *** million pounds). CR/PR

Table at I-7.

 79 Carus Response at 24-27 and Attachments 16, 18, and 19.

 80 CR/PR at Table I-7. India is the world’s fourth largest market for potassium permanganate after China, the

United States, and the European Union. Id.

 81 CR at I-30, PR at I-20.

13
D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the order under review were revoked,

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

imports in relation 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.82

1. Original Investigation and Prior Reviews

In the original investigation, the Commission found significant underselling and price

suppression caused by dumped imports from China. The Commission also found that the domestic

producer had lost sales and revenues due to low-priced imports from China.83

In the first five-year review, the Commission noted its findings of significant underselling, price

suppression, and lost sales and revenues due to subject imports in the original investigation.84 The

Commission determined that subject imports from China would likely enter the United States at prices

that would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on U.S. prices if the order were revoked.85

The Commission also found that potassium permanganate was a commodity product that was sold in a

price sensitive market.86 Given that prices were substantially higher in the United States than in other

markets, the Commission found that Chinese producers would have an incentive to price their product

substantially below the U.S. price to induce U.S. purchasers to switch from the domestic to the Chinese

product. The Commission emphasized that this behavior had actually occurred during the period of the

original investigation.87 

In the second five-year review, the Commission noted that there was limited pricing information,

but observed that the average unit values for subject potassium permanganate had been consistently lower

than average unit values for the domestic like product. The Commission also found once again that

potassium permanganate was a commodity product sold in a price sensitive market and that U.S. prices

were substantially higher than those in other markets.88 Thus, the Commission found that Chinese

producers would have an incentive to price their product significantly below the prevailing U.S. price to

induce U.S. purchasers to switch from domestic potassium permanganate to subject imports.89 The

Commission based its finding on the Chinese producers’ behavior during the original investigation, the

limited information concerning prices for Chinese potassium permanganate in non-U.S. markets, and the

fact that antidumping measures had been imposed on imports from China in other countries. The 

 82 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.

 83 Original Investigation (China) at 10-11.

 84 First Five-Year Review at 37.

 85 First Five-Year Review at 38.

 86 First Five-Year Review at 37.

 87 First Five-Year Review at 37-38.

 88 Second Five-Year Review at 13.

 89 Second Five-Year Review at 13-14.

14
Commission found that the Chinese producers’ aggressive pricing indicated that they would be likely to

significantly undersell the domestic like product in the U.S. market if the order were revoked.90

3. The Current Review

Because there have been no subject imports since 2002, there are no new pricing comparisons for

subject and domestic potassium permanganate on the record of this review.91 As discussed above,

potassium permanganate is a commodity product sold in a price sensitive market, and U.S. prices are

substantially higher than those found in other markets.92 Therefore, Chinese producers would have an

incentive to price significantly below the prevailing U.S. price to induce U.S. purchasers to switch to

Chinese potassium permanganate, as in the original investigation.93 We base our finding on the Chinese

industry’s behavior in the original investigation, the available record information regarding prices for

Chinese potassium permanganate in third country markets,94 and the imposition of antidumping measures

in India on imports from China.

As discussed above, if the order were revoked, the United States would be an attractive export

market for Chinese producers, given their substantial unused capacity, their export orientation, and the

current prices in the U.S. market. Because of the high degree of interchangeability between subject and

domestic potassium permanganate, the importance of price in purchasing decisions, and the ability of

Chinese producers to export and thus compete for U.S. sales of all three grades of the subject

merchandise, underselling is likely to result in significant adverse price effects, similar to those found in

the original investigation.95

Accordingly, given the likely significant volume of subject imports, we conclude that 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 if the antidumping duty order were revoked.

 90 Second Five-Year Review at 14.

 91 CR at I- 25, PR at I-17.

 92 Carus Response at 24-26 and 38 (Carus price levels in the United States are over $*** per pound higher than

Chinese prices in non-U.S. export markets).

 93 Original Determination (China) at 11.

 94 Carus Response at 24-27 and Attachments 16, 18, and 19.

 95 Original Determination at 10-11 and Table 19.

15
E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports96

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the order under review were

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

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

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

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

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

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

like product.97 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.98

1. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews

In the original investigation, the Commission found that substantially lower prices for the subject

potassium permanganate in a price sensitive market allowed subject imports to gain market share and

resulted in price suppression, lost sales and revenues, and declines in employment. Consequently, the

 96 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 potassium permanganate

from China, Commerce found likely antidumping duty margins of 128.94 percent for the PRC-wide entity. 75 Fed.

Reg. at 52509. In the original LTFV investigation, Commerce calculated a 39.53 percent margin for China National

Chemicals Import and Export Company and for all other Chinese manufacturers and exporters. See Antidumping

Duty Order: Potassium Permanganate from the People’s Republic from China, 49 Fed. Reg. 3897 (January 31,

1984). In 1994, Commerce found that Chinese-produced potassium permanganate was being transshipped through

Hong Kong resellers that had previously been assigned a dumping margin of 39.53 percent and, as a result,

Commerce assigned a country-wide dumping margin of 128.94 percent to all subject imports from China. Potassium

Permanganate from the People’s Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 59

Fed. Reg. 26625, 26629 (May 23, 1994). The last administrative review conducted in 2002 did not result in the

assignment of a new antidumping duty margin to any Chinese producer or exporter. Potassium Permanganate from

the People’s Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 Fed. Reg. 51765,

51766-67 (August 28, 2003). There have been no imports of potassium permanganate from China since that time. 

Therefore, the 128.94 percent dumping margin remains in effect for all Chinese producers and exporters of

potassium permanganate. CR at I-4 to I-6; PR at I-4 to I-5.

 97 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 98 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.

16
Commission concluded that the domestic industry was materially injured by reason of imports of

potassium permanganate from China.99

In the first five-year review, the Commission determined that subject imports from China would

likely have had a significant adverse impact if the order were revoked. The Commission noted its finding

in the original determination that substantially lower prices for the Chinese product in a price sensitive

market allowed imports from China to gain market share and resulted in price suppression, lost sales, and

revenues and declines in employment.100 The Commission also found that the condition of the domestic

industry had improved substantially since the imposition of the order. Although the Commission did not

find that the domestic industry was vulnerable, given its strong gross profits, operating income, and

operating income margins, it did find that the likely significant volume of low-priced subject imports

would likely have a significant adverse impact on the production, shipments, sales, and revenue levels of

the domestic industry if the order were revoked.101

 In the second five-year review, the Commission found that the information available with respect

to the condition of the industry was limited due to the expedited nature of the review and that the

information that was available presented a mixed picture. The Commission found that the domestic

industry was not vulnerable to material injury if the order were revoked because Carus continued to

command a substantial market share, had increased its production, and reported strong gross profits,

operating income, and operating income margins in 2003. Although its domestic shipments were lower in

both quantity and value than during the first five-year review period, they were higher than in the original

investigation. The Commission also found, however, that the antidumping duty order had a restraining

effect on the volume and market share of subject imports and that revocation would lead to a significant

increase in low-priced subject imports that would undersell the domestic like product and significantly

suppress or depress U.S. prices. These subject imports would be likely to have a significant adverse

impact on the domestic industry. Consequently, the Commission concluded that revocation of the

antidumping duty order would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry

within a reasonably foreseeable time.102

3. The Current Review

The condition of the domestic industry, after improving from 2004 to 2007, declined in 2008. It

declined more sharply in 2009, when the industry was experiencing the effects of the recession and

increased raw material costs.103 U.S. production of potassium permanganate fluctuated over the period,

but decreased from *** pounds in 2004 to *** pounds in 2009.104 The domestic industry’s production

 99 Original Investigation (China) at 8-11.

 100 First Five-Year Review at 24.

 101 First Five-Year Review at 24.

 102 Second Five-Year Review at 14-15.

 103 Carus claims that raw material costs increased in 2008-2009 and, as a consequence, it experienced a ***. 

Carus Response at 8-9. Carus claims that it and other potassium permanganate producers worldwide experienced

significant cost increases in 2008 and 2009 for raw materials, specifically manganese ore or manganese dioxide and

potassium hydroxide. Based on its financial data for potassium permanganate operations, Carus claims that raw

material costs, on a dollar per pound of potassium permanganate output basis, increased ***. Carus Response at

n.12 and Attachment 3. Carus further claims that Chinese producers should also have experienced increases in raw

material costs beginning in late 2008, but that Chinese export prices for potassium permanganate nevertheless

decreased in 2009 and 2010. Carus Response at 9.

 104 CR/PR at Table C-1. U.S. production was *** pounds in 2005, *** pounds in 2006, and *** pounds in 2007

and 2008. Id.

17
capacity remained constant at *** pounds over the entire period. Capacity utilization decreased

irregularly from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2008, before decreasing significantly to ***

percent in 2009.105

U.S. shipments decreased from *** pounds in 2004 to *** pounds in 2009. Net sales also

decreased from *** pounds in 2004 to *** pounds in 2009.106 The domestic industry’s inventory

fluctuated significantly over the period, decreasing from *** pounds in 2004 to *** pounds in 2005, then

increasing to *** pounds in 2006, before decreasing to *** pounds in 2007, *** pounds in 2008, and ***

pounds in 2009.107 The domestic industry’s production and related workers increased from *** in 2004 to

*** in 2009. The number of hours worked decreased over the period from *** in 2004 to *** in 2009.108

The domestic industry’s financial performance improved from 2004 to 2007, decreased in 2008,

and then decreased sharply in 2009.109 Gross profits increased steadily from $*** million in 2004 to $***

million in 2008, before decreasing to $*** million in 2009.110 The industry’s operating income increased

from $*** in 2004 to $*** in 2007, then decreased to $*** in 2008 and $*** in 2009.111 The industry’s

operating income margin increased steadily from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2007, then

decreased to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009.112

We acknowledge that the industry indicators trend downward toward the end of the period

examined, but the domestic industry’s financial indicators, such as operating income, operating income

margin, and gross profits, remained strong throughout the period.113 Therefore, we do not find that the

domestic industry is in a weakened state and thus vulnerable to the continuation or recurrence of material

injury in the event of revocation of the order.

As discussed above, the antidumping duty order has had a restraining effect on the volume of

subject imports. Revocation of the order would likely lead to a significant increase in subject imports that

would undersell the domestic like product and significantly depress or suppress U.S. prices. Decreased

prices for potassium permanganate would not significantly stimulate additional demand, but likely would

cause purchasers to switch to lower-priced subject imports. Thus, we find that the volume and price

 105 CR/PR at Table C-1. The domestic industry’s capacity utilization was *** percent in 2005, *** percent in

2006, and *** percent in 2007. Id.

 106 CR/PR at Table C-1. U.S. shipments were *** pounds in 2005 and 2006, *** pounds in 2007, and ***

pounds in 2008. Id. Net sales were *** pounds in 2005, *** pounds in 2006, *** pounds in 2007, and *** pounds

in 2008. Id.

 107 CR/PR at Table C-1. The ratio of the domestic producer’s inventory to U.S. shipments decreased from ***

percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2005, before increasing to *** percent in 2006. It then decreased to *** percent in

2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009. Id.

 108 CR/PR at Table C-1. The number of hours worked was *** in 2005, *** in 2006, *** in 2007, and *** in

2008. Id. Productivity (pounds/hour) increased from *** in 2004 to *** in 2006. It then decreased to *** in 2007,

*** in 2008, and *** in 2009. Id.

 109 From 2004 to 2009, the domestic industry’s SG&A expenses per unit *** percent, and the unit COGS ***

percent. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 110 CR/PR at Table C-1. Gross profits were $*** million in 2005, $*** million in 2006, and $*** million in

2007. Id.

 111 CR/PR at C-1. The domestic industry’s operating income was $*** in 2005 and $*** in 2006. Id. The

domestic industry’s capital expenditures were $*** in 2004, $*** in 2005, $*** in 2006, $*** in 2007, $*** in

2008, and $*** in 2009. Id.

 112 CR/PR at C-1. The domestic industry’s operating income margin was *** percent in 2005 and *** percent in

2006. Id.

 113 CR/PR at Table C-1.

18
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, to make and maintain capital investments, and to fund research and

development into new applications for potassium permanganate.

We have also considered the role of nonsubject imports. The share of the U.S. market held by

nonsubject imports has remained relatively flat over the period examined.114 In light of nonsubject

imports’ relatively limited presence in the U.S. market and lack of growth in U.S. market share over the

period examined, any future increase in market share by low-priced subject imports would likely come at

the expense of the domestic industry. Therefore, consideration of factors other than the subject imports

does not detract from our finding that the subject imports would likely have a material adverse impact on

the domestic industry if the order were revoked.

Accordingly, 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 potassium

permanganate 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.

 114 The U.S. market share of nonsubject imports was *** percent in 2004, *** percent in 2005, *** percent in

2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009. CR/PR at C-1.

19

INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE THIRD REVIEW

I-1

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Background

On May 3, 2010, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the

Act”),1

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

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

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

a reasonably foreseeable time.2 3

 On August 6, 2010, the Commission determined that the domestic

interested party response to the notice of institution was adequate;4 the Commission also determined that

the respondent interested party response was inadequate. The Commission found no other circumstances

that would warrant conducting a full review.5

 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would

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

 The Commission is scheduled to

vote on this review on September 20, 2010, and will notify Commerce of its determination on September

30, 2010. Selected information relating to the schedule of the current review is presented in the following

tabulation:8

Effective date Action Federal Register citation

January 31, 1984 Commerce’s antidumping duty order 49 FR 3897

November 24, 1999 Commerce’s continuation of antidumping duty order

after first five-year review

64 FR 66166

June 24, 2005 Commerce’s continuation of antidumping duty order

after second five-year review

70 FR 36561

May 3, 2010 Commerce’s initiation and Commission’s institution of

third five-year review

75 FR 23240 and 

75 FR 23298

August 6, 2010 Commission’s determination to conduct expedited third

five-year review and scheduling of expedited review

75 FR 51112

August 26, 2010 Commerce’s final results of expedited review 75 FR 52509

September 20, 2010 Commission’s vote NA

September 30, 2010 Commission’s determination transmitted to Commerce NA

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

 2

 75 FR 23298, May 3, 2010. All interested parties were requested to respond to this notice by submitting the

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

 3

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

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

notice of institution. 75 FR 23240, May 3, 2010.

 4

 The domestic producer, Carus Corp. (“Carus”), submitted the only response to the Commission’s notice of

institution for the subject review. Carus is represented by the law firm of Haynes and Boone, LLP. Carus indicated

in its response that it is the only commercial producer of potassium permanganate in the United States in 2009, and,

for purposes of the antidumping law, constitute the “Domestic Industry.” Response of Carus to the notice of

institution (“Response,” May 28, 2010), p. 3. 

 5

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

 6

 10 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3).

 7

 75 FR 51112, August 18, 2010. The Commission’s notice of scheduling of the expedited review appears in 

app. A.

 8

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

presented in app. A.

I-3
The Original Investigation and Five-year Reviews

The Commission completed its original investigation in January 1984, determining that an

industry in the United States was being, or likely to be, injured by reason of imports from China and

Spain of potassium permanganate found by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold at less

than fair value (“LTFV”).9

 After receipt of the Commission’s affirmative determination, Commerce

issued antidumping duty orders on potassium permanganate from Spain and China on January 19 and 31,

1984, respectively.10 On November 2, 1998, the Commission instituted five-year full reviews on

potassium permanganate from China and Spain. On November 4, 1999, the Commission determined that

revocation of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from China would be likely to lead

to a continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.11 After receipt of

the Commission’s affirmative determination, Commerce continued the antidumping duty order on

potassium permanganate from China on November 24, 1999.12 On October 1, 2004, the Commission

instituted a five-year expedited review on potassium permanganate from China.13 On May 18, 2005, the

Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from

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

foreseeable time.14 After receipt of the Commission’s affirmative determination, Commerce continued the

antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from China on June 21, 2005.15 

Commerce’s Original Determinations and Subsequent Review Determinations

The original antidumping duty margin in 1984 for potassium permanganate from China was 

39.53 percent for the China National Chemicals Import and Export Corp. (“SINOCHEM”) and all other

manufacturers, producers, and exporters. Since the antidumping duty order was issued in 1984,

Commerce has conducted four administrative reviews on potassium permanganate from China. In 1990,

Commerce found that potassium permanganate was being transhipped through Hong Kong resellers

previously assigned the 39.53 margin. As a result, a country-wide margin of 128.94 percent was assigned

to China. There have been no imports of potassium permanganate from China since 2002; therefore, even

though the opportunity for annual administrative reviews has been published, no reviews were requested

or initiated since the review covering calendar year 2001. The order remains in effect for all

manufacturers, producers, and exporters of potassium permanganate from China. Information on

Commerce’s final AD determinations, orders, and administrative reviews is presented in table I-1.

 9 The investigations resulted from a petition filed on February 22, 1983, on behalf of the Carus Chemical Co.,

alleging that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports from China and Spain of

potassium permanganate. 

 10 49 FR 2277, 3897.

 11 Potassium Permanganate from China and Spain, Determinations, 64 FR 60225, November 4, 1999. The

Commission determined in the first full five-year review that revocation of the antidumping duty order on potassium

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

in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. Therefore, Commerce revoked the antidumping duty

order concerning potassium permanganate from Spain, effective January 1, 2000 (64 FR 66167, November 24,

1999).

 12 64 FR 66166.

 13 69 FR 58955, October 1, 2004.

 14 70 FR 32372, June 2, 2005.

 15 70 FR 35630, June 21, 2005.

I-4
Table I-1

Potassium permanganate: Commerce’s final determination, antidumping duty order,

administrative and new shipper reviews, and results of sunset reviews1

Period 

Type of proceeding and date results

published

Weighted-average margin 

(percent ad valorem)

4/1/82-

12/31/82

Final determination 

(49 FR 3148, January 25, 1984) 

AD order 

(49 FR 3897, January 31, 1984)

China National Chemicals Import and export

Corp. (SINOCHEM).............................. 39.63

All others .............................................. 39.63

1/1/89-

12/31/89

Administrative Review Final Result

(56 FR 19640, April 29, 1991)

Far Ocean Trading........................... 128.94

Go Up Co........................................... 39.53

Hip Fung Trading Co......................... 39.53

KL & Co.............................................. 128.94

Landyet Co......................................... 128.94 

Sam Wing International...................... 128.94

Sinochem............................................ 128.94

Tin Sing Chemical Engineers............. 39.53

Yue Pak Co....................................... 128.94

1/1/90-

12/31/90

Administrative Review Final Result

(59 FR 26625, May 23, 1994 )

All PRC manufacturers/producers/

 exporters.........................................128.94

All others..............................................128.94

1/1/98-

12/31/98

Final Results of Sunset Review

(64 FR 16907, April 7, 1999)

Continuation of AD Order

(64 FR 66166, November 24, 1999)

Country-wide rate for China................ 128.94 

1/1/99-

12/31/99

Administrative Review Final Result

(66 FR 46775, September 7, 2001)

Guizhou Provincial Chemicals Import & 

 Export Corp................................... 107.32

1/1/00-

12/31/00

New Shipper Review Recission

(67 FR 38254, June 3, 2002)

No review initiated; rescinded at request of

both the petitioner and respondent 

1/1/01-

12/31/01

Administrative Review Final Result

(68 FR 51765, August 28, 2003)

Country-wide rate for China................ 128.94 

1/1/99-

12/31/04

Final Results of Sunset Review

(70 FR 24502, May 10, 2005)

Continuation of AD Order

(70 FR 35630, June 21, 2005)

Country-wide rate for China................ 128.94 

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Commerce’s Final Results of Expedited Review

Commerce conducted an expedited review with respect to potassium permanganate from China

and issued the final results of its review based on the facts available on August 26, 2010. Commerce

determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from China would

be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the China-wide percentage margin of

128.94.16 Commerce has not issued a duty absorption determination with respect to this order.

 16 75 FR 52509, August 26, 2010.

I-5
Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Funds 

to Affected Domestic Producers 

Since federal fiscal year 2001, qualified U.S. producers of potassium permanganate have been

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

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

Amendment.17 The sole U.S. producer, Carus, received such funds. Table I-2 presents Carus’ CDSOA

claims and Customs’ disbursements for federal fiscal years 2002-09.

Table I-2

Potassium permanganate: CDSOA claims and disbursements, federal fiscal years 2002-091

Year Firm

Amount of claim

filed2 Amount disbursed3

Dollars

2002 Carus Corp. 24,016,404 13,655

2003 Carus Corp. 29,012,496 194,204

2004 Carus Corp. 35,207,493 302,302

2005 Carus Corp. 40,961,311 4,490

2006 Carus Corp. 47,601,092 0

2007 Carus Corp. 54,917,311 58,581

2008 Carus Corp. 54,858,729 0

2009 Carus Corp. 54,858,729 (85,497)

1

 No funds relating to this order were disbursed during FY 2001.

2

 Qualifying expenditures incurred by domestic producers since the issuance of an order, as presented in

Section I of the CDSOA Annual Reports. 3

 As presented in Section I of Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports.

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s CDSOA Annual Reports.

THE PRODUCT

Scope

In its continuation order, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as:

“...potassium permanganate, an inorganic chemical produced in free-flowing, technical,

and pharmaceutical grades. Potassium permanganate is currently classifiable under

item 2841.61.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). The HTS item number is

provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description

remains dispositive.”18

 17 19 CFR 159.64(g). 

 18 70 FR 35630, June 21, 2005. 

I-6
U.S. Tariff Treatment

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

States (“HTS”) subheading 2841.61.00 as set forth in the tabulation below:

HTS provision Article description

General1 Special2 Column 23

Rates (percent ad valorem)

2841

 

 

2841.61.00

Salts of oxometallic or

 peroxometallic acids:

Manganites, manganates and

permanganates:

 Potassium permanganate 

 

 

 

5.0 Free (A, AU,

BH, CA, CL, 

E, IL, J, JO,

MA, MX, OM,

P, PE, SG)

23.0

1

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

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

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

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

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

Free Trade Area Implementation Act); MA (United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act); 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 StatesSingapore Free Trade Agreement). 3

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

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

Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry

In its original 1984 determination and its first full and second expedited five-year review

determinations, the Commission found that there was one domestic like product, potassium

permanganate.19 No domestic like product issues have been raised by domestic interested parties in this

review.

Potassium permanganate, or permanganate of potash, is the compound of manganese, potassium,

and oxygen which has the chemical formula KMnO4. It exists at room temperature as a dark-purple

crystalline solid of rhombic shape with a blue metallic sheen. Potassium permanganate has a sweetish,

astringent taste; is soluble in water, acetone, and methanol; and decomposes in alcohol. It is highly toxic

by ingestion or inhalation, is a strong irritant to tissue, and is a dangerous fire risk when in contact with

organic material because of its strength as an oxidizing agent.

 19 The Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic products that are “like” the subject imported

products is based on a number of factors including (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) common manufacturing

facilities and production employees; (3) interchangeability; (4) customer and producer perceptions; (5) channels of

distribution; and, where appropriate, (6) price.

I-7
Potassium permanganate produced by Carus, the sole U.S. producer, is classifiable into three

grades: free-flowing, technical, and USP or pharmaceutical grade (high-purity).20 China, which at one

time did not produce the free-flowing grade, produced a free-flowing grade, a technical grade, and a USP

grade, as reported in 1999. Each grade has the same chemical formula and is available in a variety of

particle sizes, although particle size is seldom an important determinant of end use. As indicated in the

first five-year review, all three grades of potassium permanganate were produced domestically only by

Carus, at the same facilities and using the same equipment and employees.21

The technical grade product must be at least 97 percent potassium permanganate by weight,

although much of the technical grade has a higher assay of 99 percent. The free-flowing grade is

produced by adding an anticaking agent to the technical grade, preventing the particles from sticking

together when in contact with moisture. As a result of the addition of the anticaking agent, the freeflowing grade is slightly less concentrated than the technical or pharmaceutical grades. The minimum

assay is 95 percent, but the product is usually assayed at 97 or 98 percent. In the United States, as of

1999, 85 percent to 90 percent of the permanganate sold was the free-flowing grade because it is easier to

put into a feeder.22 ***.23

The pharmaceutical grade product must be at least 99 percent potassium permanganate by weight

in order to conform with the requirements specified in the United States Pharmacopeia (“U.S.P.”) and the

British Pharmacopeia (“B.P.”). It is the only grade approved by the Food and Drug Administration for

use in applications involving contact with food and for pharmaceutical use. The pharmaceutical grade,

typically 99.9 percent pure, usually requires more testing than the other grades and requires

recrystallization to remove additional impurities or to meet customer specifications. Consequently, the

cost of production and the price of the pharmaceutical grade are higher than those of the technical or freeflowing grades. 

The three grades of potassium permanganate are generally interchangeable in their various

applications. One exception involves pharmaceutical applications, which, according to Carus, accounted

for approximately *** percent of domestic consumption in 1999.24 The free-flowing grade cannot be used

in such applications because it does not meet the 99-percent assay requirement. In the important

applications of water and wastewater treatment, which together currently account for about 70-75 percent

of U.S. consumption, all three grades can be used, but the free-flowing grade is preferred by customers

that use a dry chemical feeder to inject the potassium permanganate into the water. 

As reported during the first five-year full review, potassium permanganate is used principally as

an oxidizing agent in the following applications:25

1. Municipal water treatment: Removes iron, manganese, and hydrogen sulfide; eliminates

taste, odor, and color; and controls algae growth. Growing applications for potassium

permanganate are as a substitute for prechlorination to prevent the formation of

trihalomethane (“THM”), a possible carcinogen, and as an inhibitor of zebra mussel

attachment.

 20 In addition, in 1999, Carus produced two other grades. These two grades were not, however, recognized as

standard product grades by consumers. Potassium Permanganate from China and Spain, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-125-

126 (Review), USITC Pub. 3245, October 1999, p. I-7. 

 21 Ibid.

 22 Ibid., p. I-8.

 23 Confidential staff report, INV-W-216, September 20, 1999, p. I-13.

 24 Ibid., p. I-14.

 25 Potassium Permanganate from China and Spain, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-125-126 (Review), USITC Pub. 3245,

October 1999, pp. I-8-I-9.

I-8
2. Wastewater treatment:

(a) Municipal–oxidizes organic and inorganic contaminants, removes toxic and

corrosive hydrogen sulfide from sanitary sludge, deodorizes wastewater streams,

and dewaters sludge; and

(b) Industrial–removes soluble iron and manganese from acid mine wastes, removes

hydrogen sulfide from sludge, and dewaters sludge; controls phenol and other

industrial pollutants.

3. Chemical manufacture and processing: Aids in synthesis of organic products for the

chemical process and pharmaceutical industries.

4. Aquaculture (fish farming): Controls fish diseases and parasites, and detoxifies poisons

while relieving oxygen depletion in fish ponds.

5. Metal processing: Removes oxides, mill scale, and carbon residues on steel.

6. Air and gas purification: Removes pollutants from air and impurities from industrial

gases, and quenches slag from foundry operations.

In addition to the above, potassium permanganate is used as a decoloring and bleaching agent in

the textile and tanning industries, as an oxidizer in the decontamination of radioactive wastes, as an aid in

flotation processes used in mining, in cleaning printed circuit boards, and in numerous other applications. 

In general, use of potassium permanganate in some industrial applications and in some applications not

related to water purification has tended to be fairly erratic.26 Alternative technologies have, at times,

replaced potassium permanganate, in part, because potassium permanganate is a fairly difficult chemical

to handle and use because it is dusty and the material has relatively limited solubility.27 On the other

hand, potassium permanganate is an excellent and rapid-acting oxidant and when used properly is stable

and safe. Because potassium permanganate is used in the purification of cocaine, sales of the chemical

are monitored by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

As reported during the first five-year review, there were no products that competed with

potassium permanganate over the complete range of applications in which it is used.28 However, there are

competing products or alternative processes for specific end uses. Substitutes for potassium

permanganate in drinking water and wastewater treatment include aeration, activated carbon, hydrogen

 26 Applications for potassium permanganate that saw a spurt of growth but have all but disappeared today include

use of the chemical in the production of saccharin and washed jeans. Carus’ response to the Commission’s notice of

institution, November 22, 2004, p. 38.

 27 Potassium Permanganate from China and Spain, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-125-126 (Review), USITC Pub. 3245,

October 1999, p. I-9. 

 28 Sodium permanganate can be used in any application where potassium permanganate is used but, because

sodium permanganate, on a dry basis, is substantially more expensive than potassium permanganate, its uses are

limited to those applications for which the customer is willing to pay a premium for sodium permanganate because

of its advantages. For example, when compared to potassium permanganate, sodium permanganate is more soluble

and can, therefore, be used more readily in liquid form (a 40 percent solution in water is the most common form

imported or exported), thereby avoiding handling problems such as dusting. Memorandum from Acting Chief,

Energy, Chemicals, and Textiles Division to Director, Office of Tariff Affairs and Trade Agreements, February 25,

2004, 

p. 1 (based in part on staff telephone interviews in February 2004 with Chithambarathanu Pillai, Environmental

Manager, of Carus Chemical Co).

I-9
peroxide, ozone, chlorine, iron salts, and nitrates. For example, growth of use of potassium permanganate

in potable water was significantly curtailed because of competition from other oxidants, especially ozone

and hydrogen peroxide. On the other hand, increasingly stringent regulations related to environmental

and safety issues resulted in increased consumption of potassium permanganate for certain applications. 

Estimated end uses of potassium permanganate in 1998, in terms of percentages of consumption,

were as follows: waste water treatment (*** percent), drinking water treatment (*** percent), chemical

management and processing (*** percent), air and gas purification (*** percent), aquaculture (***

percent), metal processing (*** percent), and other uses (*** percent).29

According to most of the questionnaire responses during the 1999 reviews, the potassium

permanganate produced domestically and imports of potassium permanganate from China and other

countries were generally found to be interchangeable. Some users, however, reported that there were

quality problems associated with imported potassium permanganate.

Manufacturing Process and Production Employees

Potassium permanganate is manufactured by the oxidation of potassium manganate (K2MnO4), 

which is prepared by the fusion of pyrolusite (black manganese dioxide) and potassium hydroxide. The

manganese ion in potassium manganate is oxidized to potassium permanganate (KMnO4). The oxidation

may be accomplished by one of two methods. The first is by treating a hot solution of potassium

manganate with carbon dioxide, which forms crystals when cooled. This method is very old and is not

currently used to manufacture commercial quantities of potassium permanganate anywhere in the world,

with the possible exception of China. It is, however, a method sometimes used to make laboratory

quantities of this material.

No changes to the commercial manufacturing process used in the United States have been

reported since 1999. The process is as follows:30

C oxidation at high temperatures of potassium hydroxide (KOH) and manganese dioxide (MnO2 or

manganese ore) to produce potassium manganate (K2MnO4).

C continuous electrolysis of a solution of potassium manganate with continuous crystallization,

resulting in the production of potassium permanganate and the byproducts potassium hydroxide

and hydrogen gas, according to the reaction--

2K2MnO4 + 2H2Oÿ 2KMnO4 + 2KOH + H2.

C Crystallization of the potassium permanganate out of the solution.

The production process used by Carus ***.31 

Because of the large number of producers of potassium permanganate in China, the

manufacturing process for potassium permanganate and its precursor, potassium manganate, has received

a lot of attention by Chinese scientists. For example, a new method for producing potassium manganate

was invented that facilitates large-scale production of potassium permanganate. Despite these advances,

 29 Confidential staff report, INV-W-216, September 20, 1999, p. I-17.

 30 Potassium Permanganate from China and Spain, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-125-126 (Review), USITC Pub. 3245,

October 1999, pp. I-10-I-11. 

 31 Confidential staff report, INV-W-216, September 20, 1999, p. I-18.

I-10
less efficient production methods continue to be used in China and the equipment and processes used to

produce potassium permanganate are not of uniform quality and efficiency.32

Interchangeability

As indicated in the first five-year review, domestic and imported product competed in the United

States and purchasers, importers, and producers reported that these products were interchangeable. Little

mention was made by purchasers, importers, and producers of the interchangeability of U.S. and Chinese

product because little Chinese product was sold in the U.S. market. Nonsubject imported product was

reported to be interchangeable with domestic and subject product. In the original 1984 investigation,

free-flowing potassium permanganate, the most common form of potassium permanganate in the United

States, was not imported from China. The lack of free-flowing grade potassium permanganate limited the

interchangeability of Chinese product. In 1999, at least one producer in China produced the free-flowing

grade. To the extent that the Chinese can produce free-flowing potassium permanganate, its product

would be more interchangeable with products from other countries.

THE U.S. MARKET

Carus has described the U.S. potassium permanganate market as the world’s ***, accounting for

an estimated *** percent of world consumption during 2009.33

Channels of Distribution

Three channels of distribution exist: sales to distributors, sales to end users, and internal

consumption. Most product is sold to distributors, who typically sell a complete range of water

purification chemicals to both water purifiers (who produce tap water) and wastewater treatment facilities. 

Both public and industrial wastewater treatment can use potassium permanganate. 

Carus sells potassium permanganate in 25-, 50-, or 100-kg plastic containers, 150- and 1,500-kg

stainless steel recycle bins, and in bulk by the truck load. Both distributors and end users that purchase

directly from Carus purchase in the same range of containers. Distributors sell predominantly through

contracts, *** when selling directly to end users. The largest purchasers, agencies that purify drinking

water and clean wastewater, typically buy through annual requests for proposals or requests for bids. In

any local area there tend to be a number of distributors selling potassium permanganate, most of whom

sell domestic product. However, distributors report that in most major requests for bids, at least one

distributor of imported product will bid. The successful bid is made public. As a result, other buyers and

sellers can find out the price and conditions of the successful sale. Smaller municipalities tend to have

less formal bidding processes or may purchase on the spot market. Other types of large purchasers may

also have contracts. 

 32 Potassium Permanganate from China and Spain, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-125-126 (Review), USITC Pub. 3245,

October 1999, p. I-11. 

 33 Carus’ response to the Commission’s notice of institution, May 28, 2010, attachment 13.

I-11
U.S. Demand

Carus has asserted that there have been no material changes in certain key U.S. demand market

conditions for potassium permanganate since the previous reviews.34 The firm has reported that municipal

consumption for drinking and wastewater treatment remains the primary domestic use for potassium

permanganate and still accounts for the majority of current U.S. demand and that today the municipal

drinking and wastewater markets are relatively mature.35 In the 2004-09 period, Carus’ sales into the

drinking water market remained ***.36

The main uses for potassium permanganate in water treatment are to improve the taste and smell,

or to remove iron and manganese. It is also useful to eliminate organic matter, kill microbes, reduce the

problems from clams and mussels (these tend to collect on and clog water intake lines), and deal with

pollution (when pollution of the source water occurs). Potassium permanganate is typically used because

it can address a number of these problems more cost effectively than other types of treatment.37

Trends in U.S. Supply and Demand

Information gathered during the second five-year expedited review indicated that Carus may 

gradually phase out its U.S. production of potassium permanganate in favor of sodium permanganate.38

Carus did not mention this purported development in its response to the Commission’s notice of

institution in the current five-year review, nor did Commission staff find any articles in the chemical trade

literature that reported on this matter.

As previously mentioned, applications for sodium permanganate mirror those of potassium

permanganate.39 Carus reported that the “volume of sodium permanganate produced and traded has

increased significantly as the use and application of sodium permanganate has increased” and the firm

had “increased our annual production capacity by several folds.”40 While information gathered during the

first five-year review did not mention sodium permanganate as a substitute product, the growing use of

sodium permanganate during the second review appeared to be corroborated by bids reported on the

Internet in which sodium permanganate together with potassium permanganate was used in wastewater

treatment, a large-scale application.41

 34 Ibid., p. 8.

 35 Ibid. 

 36 Ibid.

 37 Potassium Permanganate from China and Spain, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-125-126 (Review), USITC Pub. 3245,

October 1999, p. II-6. 

 38 DEA petition for the establishment of a separate harmonized code for sodium permanganate, August 17, 2004,

p. 1; and staff telephone interview with Chithambarathanu Pillai, Environmental Manager, Carus, September 8,

2004. DEA cited the “direct substitutability of sodium permanganate” for potassium permanganate in the processing

of cocaine and sought a separate tariff classification of sodium permanganate in order to “identify diversion of this

product.” Id, DEA petition. Effective January 1, 2005, sodium permanganate is provided for in statistical

subheading 2841.69.0010 of the HTS.

 39 Memorandum from Acting Chief, Energy, Chemicals, and Textiles Division to Director, Office of Tariff

Affairs and Trade Agreements, February 25, 2004, p. 1 (based in part on staff telephone interviews in February 2004

with Chithambarathanu Pillai, Environmental Manager, of Carus Chemical Co).

 40 Carus’ petition for a statistical break out and classification of sodium permanganate with a specific harmonized

code, February 2, 2004.

 41 See, e.g., City of Reading, PA bid for “sodium permanganate, potassium permanganate and extruded

potassium permanganate” for its wastewater treatment plant, retrieved at 

I-12
In its response to the Commission’s notice of initiation of this current review, Carus listed market

conditions that have not changed and market conditions that have changed since the order was imposed in

1984. Specific conditions that have not changed are the primary use of potassium permanganate as an

oxidizing agent in water and wastewater treatment; the mature nature of the market, with *** apparent

consumption ***; the fungibility and price sensitivity of potassium permanganate, with a large share of

sales to local municipal water authorities through a transparent bidding process; imports from China

continue to be constrained by the order; China continues to have a significant level of excess capacity,

with growth in both total potassium permanganate capacity and excess capacity since the prior sunset

review; and the United States continues to be an attractive market for Chinese producers due to it size and

price levels.42

Carus further reported that there have been significant changes in market conditions since the

order was imposed. Carus reported that China has exhibited increases in capacity and excess capacity

such that its annual production capacity is estimated to be approximately 134 million pounds, compared

to 77 million pounds in the prior sunset review. Based on current capacity in China, and estimated 2009

production, excess capacity in China in 2009 was estimated to have been 61.1 million pounds, more than

double the level of excess capacity in the prior sunset review. Since the last sunset review, Chongqing

Jialing, the largest Chinese potassium permanganate producer, has significantly expanded production and

is able to produce the full range of potassium permanganate grades. Groupstars, the second largest

potassium permanganate producer in China, also offers the full range of potassium permanganate grades

as do several other Chinese producers.43

Worldwide potassium permanganate producers experienced significant price increases in raw

materials during 2008 and 2009; specifically, for manganese ore or manganese dioxide, and potassium

hydroxide. Consequently, ***. China was not immune to these raw material price increases, as reflected

in trade import and export unit values.44

In 2007, Carus had intended to form a joint venture in China with Zunyi Shuangyuan Chemical

Group, with planned construction of a 44 million pound (20,000 metric ton) potassium permanganate

plant in China. The purpose of this joint venture was to allow Carus to have an Asian manufacturing

platform to serve the Chinese market as well as other non-U.S. markets. However, plans for this plant

were cancelled due to an unacceptable return-on-investment.45

In 2008-09, the worldwide economic recession resulted in a significant decrease in demand for

Chinese exports of potassium permanganate, a resultant reduction in Chinese production and an increase

in Chinese excess capacity and inventories. However, China has significantly increased its export

volumes to non-U.S. export markets during 2009 and 2010.46 

 41 (...continued)

http://www.cityofreadingpa.com/finance/lib/finance/results/1013-04.pdf

 42 Carus’ response to the Commission’s notice of institution, May 28, 2010, pp. 8-9.

 43 Ibid., p. 9.

 44 Ibid., p. 10.

 45 Ibid.

 46 Ibid.

I-13
 Prices

In its original determination, the Commission found significant underselling and price

suppression caused by LTFV imports of potassium permanganate from China and that such imports

undersold the domestic product in every quarter for which data were available.47 During the first five-year

review, limited pricing data were available because of extremely low import volumes in 1997 and 1998. 

There have been no imports of potassium permanganate from China since 2002. Average unit values for

periods during the original investigation, the first five-year review, the second five-year review, and the

current review are presented in the following tabulation:

Item 1982 1997/98 2002-03 2008/09

Average unit values (dollars per pound)

U.S.-produced product $0.81 $1.15 $1.27 $2.16

Imports from China 0.55 0.83 0.83 NA

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Producers

The sole U.S. manufacturer of potassium permanganate is Carus Corp., located in Peru, IL, a

small, privately held corporation. Carus is the world’s largest producer of potassium permanganate and a

leader in the chemistry of permanganate and manganese.

Carus has produced potassium permanganate since 1915. During World War I, there were more

than 20 U.S. manufacturers of potassium permanganate. After the war, there was a sharp drop in the price

of potassium permanganate, resulting in the exodus of all U.S. companies except Carus from potassium

permanganate manufacturing. Carus was the sole remaining U.S. potassium permanganate manufacturer

beginning in 1920.

In addition to potassium permanganate, Carus manufactures a wide range of products for

municipal, industrial, and environmental markets (i.e. water treatment and air purification) -- with the

majority used in environmental applications. According to Carus’ web site it also produces sodium

permanganate and a complete line of corrosion control products largely based on a line of specialty

phosphate products. Carus is also the manufacturer of a series of manganese based catalysts used for

breathable air purification, emission air purification, and process air purification. 

U.S. Production, Capacity, Shipments, and Financial Data

Trade and financial data reported by Carus in the Commission’s original investigation and first

five-year review, and in response to the Commission’s second and third five-year review institution

notices, are presented in table I-3. From 1980 to 1982, the period for which data were collected in the

original investigation, the U.S. industry’s production, capacity utilization, shipments, and net sales

declined and operating margins turned negative. During the first five-year review, these indicators

showed improvement. During 2003, Carus’ profitability *** when compared to 1998. During the current

review, production, capacity utilization, and shipment indicators decreased irregularly. Operating

 47 Potassium Permanganate from China and Spain, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-125-126 (Review), USITC Pub. 3245,

October 1999, p. 23; Potassium Permanganate from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-125 (Second Review), USITC Pub.

3778, June 2005; and Response to the Notice of Institution, May 28, 2010, attachment 17. 

I-14
margins increased during 2004-07, then decreased over 2008-09. Net sales quantities decreased

irregularly while net sales values increased during 2004-08, then decreased in 2009.

Table I-3

Potassium permanganate: Trade, employment, and financial data, 1980-82, 1997-98, 2003, and 2004-09

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTS AND CONSUMPTION

U.S. Importers and Imports

In the original 1984 investigation concerning China, the Commission indicated that there were

eight U.S. importers of the subject merchandise from China. In the staff report of the first review, the

Commission indicated that only one importer was responsible for all imports of the Chinese production

during 1998.48 In response to the Commission’s request in its notice of institution in the second review

for 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 1998, Carus listed two U.S. importers, Wego Chemical and

Mineral Corp. and Groupstars Chemicals, LLC. Carus also noted that there is a significant number of

other Chinese exporters that have the interest and ability to export substantial quantities of potassium

permanganate from China.49 In the current review, there have been no imports of subject merchandise

since 2002; however, two companies, F2 Industries LLC and Univar, were reported as currently

importing subject merchandise into Canada. Further, six firms were identified as principal Chinese

producers of potassium permanganate.50 

Official import statistics for potassium permanganate are presented in tables I-4a and I-4b. Data

show that imports of the subject product from China declined from 1.0 million pounds in 1980 to

0.6 million pounds in 1982 (the original investigation). In 1989 such imports were 2.1 million pounds,

rising to 2.5 million pounds in 1990 when Commerce increased the deposit rate from 39.53 percent to a

China-wide rate of 128.94 percent. Imports declined to 256,000 pounds in 1992 before rising to 

2.4 million pounds in 1993 when Chinese producers sold subject product through Hong Kong resellers

using the 39.53 percent rate. Commerce remedied this practice with its May 1994 ruling in the

 48 Potassium Permanganate from China and Spain, Invs. 731-TA-125-126 (Review), USITC Pub. 3245 (Oct.

1999), p. I-21. 

 49 Carus’ response to the Commission’s notice of institution, November 22, 2004, pp. 26-27

 50 Carus’ response to the Commission’s notice of institution, May 28, 2010, attachment 1.

I-15
I-16

Table I-4aPotassium permanganate: U.S. imports, by sources, 1980-82 and 1989-2003

Source

Calendar year

1980 1981 1982 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

China 1,019 281 588 2,075 2,524 824 256 2,403 926 625 2 0 2 0 All other 178 830 1,158 2,321 1,714 1,323 2,045 1,916 2,669 3,553 3,209 3,693 2,721 3,791 3 Total 1,197 1,111 1,746 4,397 4,239 2,147 2,301 4,319 3,595 4,178 3,212 3,693 2,724 3,791 3

Value ($1,000)1

China 695 183 323 1,303 1,383 424 145 1,242 426 228 2 0 2 0 All other 183 849 846 2,435 1,584 1,301 1,963 1,820 2,652 3,073 3,169 3,570 2,521 3,237 3 Total 878 1,032 1,169 3,738 2,968 1,725 2,108 3,062 3,078 3,301 3,170 3,570 2,523 3,237 3

Unit value (per pound)

China $0.68 $0.65 $0.55 $0.63 $0.55 $0.51 $0.57 $0.52 $0.46 $0.37 $0.83 (2) 0.83 (2) $

All other 1.03 1.02 0.73 1.05 0.92 0.98 0.96 0.95 0.99 0.86 0.99 $0.97 0.93 $0.85  Ave. 0.73 1.67 1.28 0.85 0.70 0.80 0.92 0.71 0.86 0.79 0.99 0.97 0.93 0.85 

Share of quantity (percent)

China 85.1 25.3 33.7 47.2 59.6 38.4 11.1 55.6 25.8 15.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 All other 14.9 74.7 66.3 52.8 40.4 61.6 88.9 44.4 74.2 85.0 99.9 100.0 99.9 100.0  Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1

Share of value (percent)

China 79.2 17.7 27.6 34.9 46.6 24.6 6.9 40.6 13.8 6.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 All other 20.8 82.3 72.4 65.1 53.4 75.4 93.1 59.4 86.2 93.1 99.9 100.0 99.9 100.0  Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1

1 Landed, duty-paid.2 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.
Table I-4b

Potassium permanganate: U.S. imports, by sources, 2004-09

Source

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

China 0 0 0 0 0 0

All other 2,461 2,310 2,859 2,465 1,575 2,519

 Total 2,461 2,310 2,859 2,465 1,575 2,519

Value ($1,000)

1

China 0 0 0 0 0 0

All other 2,501 2,496 3,262 2,938 2,166 4,043

 Total 2,501 2,496 3,262 2,938 2,166 4,043

Unit value (per pound)

China (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

All other 1.02 1.08 1.14 1.19 1.38 1.60

 Average 1.02 1.08 1.14 1.19 1.38 1.60

Share of quantity (percent)

China 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

All other 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

China 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

All other 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1

 Landed, duty-paid.

2

 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

administrative review for 1990. Imports declined to zero in 1997 and with the exception of 2,000 pounds

in 1998 there were no imports into the United States until 2000 when 40,000 pounds were imported. 

Such imports rose to 892,000 pounds in 2002, when Groupstar Chemical Company, Ltd., exported

product as a “new shipper” where its imports were secured through the posting of bonds rather than cash

deposits. After an extended investigation, Commerce rescinded Groupstars’ “new shipper” status, thus

ending its ability to import without cash deposits.51 There have been no imports of subject potassium

permanganate since 2002.

 51 Ibid., pp. 13-14

I-17
Apparent U.S. Consumption

U.S. consumption data are presented in table I-5. Between 1980 and 1982, the domestic

industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption of potassium permanganate fell from *** percent in 1980

to *** percent in 1982. In 1997 its share was *** percent, rising to *** percent in 1998 and declining to

*** percent in 2003. The domestic industry’s share of apparent consumption of potassium permanganate

for the current five-year review decreased irregularly from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2009. 

The share of apparent consumption accounted for by imports of potassium permanganate from China

declined from *** percent in 1980 to *** percent in 1981 and rose to *** percent in 1982. During 1997-

98 and 2003 China had no imports or negligible imports of subject merchandise. In the current review,

there were no imports of subject merchandise from China. The share of apparent consumption accounted

for by imports of potassium permanganate from all other sources rose from *** percent in 1980 to

*** percent in 1982, then slipped from *** percent in 1997 to *** percent in 1998 before rising to

*** percent in 2003. The share of apparent consumption accounted for by imports of potassium

permanganate from all other sources rose irregularly from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2009.

Table I-5

Potassium permanganate: U.S. apparent consumption and market shares, 1980-82, 1997-98, 2003, and 

2004-09

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

In the original 1984 investigation concerning China, the Commission found that potassium

permanganate was produced at eight plants in China and that exports of the product were handled

exclusively by the China National Chemicals Import and Export Corp. (SINOCHEM).52 The Commission

also indicated that there were eight U.S. importers of the subject merchandise from China. In the staff

report of the first review, the Commission indicated that only one importer was responsible for all imports

of the Chinese production during 1998.53 The Commission also reported that the number of potassium

permanganate producers in China was unknown.

During the 1999 five-year review, two Chinese producers of potassium permanganate, Chongqing

Jialing Chemical Factory (Chongqing Jialing) and Guizhou Province Zunyi Chemical Plant (Zunyi),

estimated that they produced *** percent of the potassium permanganate in China.54

Potassium permanganate manufacturing technology in China advanced since the original 

1984 investigation. According to information provided during the first five-year review, by Chinese

potassium permanganate producer, ***. During the original 1984 investigation, China did not export

free-flowing grade potassium permanganate to the United States. According to *** “***”.55

In its response to the notice of institution for the second five-year review, Carus indicated that

China accounted for over half of estimated world potassium permanganate production capacity, and

identified two Chinese producers of potassium permanganate, Guizhou Chemicals Import & Export

Corp., and Groupstars Chemical Co. Ltd. (Shandong). It also noted that “there is a significant number of

other Chinese producers . . . that have the interest and ability to ship substantial quantities of potassium

 52 Potassium Permanganate from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-125 (Final), USITC Pub. 1480 (Jan. 1984), p. 15.

 53 Potassium Permanganate from China and Spain, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-125-126 (Review), USITC Pub. 3245

(Oct. 1999), p. I-12. 

 54 Ibid., p. IV-3.

 55 Ibid., p. IV-4.

I-18
permanganate to the United States” and identified through internet searches 11 Chinese producers and 22

Chinese exporters of potassium permanganate and through a market study 10 Chinese producers of

potassium permanganate. 

In its response to the notice of initiation for the current five-year review, Carus identified ***

producers of potassium permanganate in China and estimated that in 2009 China had the capacity to

produce 133.8 million pounds of potassium permanganate and produced *** million pounds for a

capacity utilization of *** percent and excess capacity of 61.1 million pounds (table I-6). China exported

*** percent of its production in 2009, which accounted for over *** percent of world exports of

potassium permanganate that year. Carus estimated that there also exists about *** pounds in inventory

in China amongst various producers, with the largest volume at ***.56

Table I-6

Potassium permanganate: Capacity, production, capacity utilization and share of production in

China, 2009

Producers

Capacity1

(1,000 pounds)

Production1

(1,000 pounds)

Capacity

utilization

(percent)

Share of

production

(percent)

Chonqing 70,547 *** *** ***

Groupstar 26,455 *** *** ***

Zunyi 9,259 *** *** ***

Meixian 7,716 *** *** ***

Jianshui 6,614 *** *** ***

Heng Ye 9,921 *** *** ***

Others 3,307 *** *** ***

Total 133,819 *** *** ***

1

 Capacity and production figures for China are reportedly derived from Carus market intelligence.

Source: Compiled from data provided by Carus’ response to the Commission’s notice of institution, May 28, 2010,

attachment 13.

THE WORLD MARKET

Carus provided estimates of world capacity, production, and consumption for 2009, and the data

are presented in table I-7. As indicated by the data, China and the United States are the predominant

world producers of potassium permanganate. China accounted for an estimated *** of world production

and *** percent of consumption, and the United States accounted for an estimated *** percent of

production and *** percent of consumption.

Table I-7

Potassium permanganate: World capacity, production, and consumption, 2009

* * * * * * *

 56 Carus’ response to the Commission’s notice of institution, May 28, 2010, attachment 13.

I-19
EU and Indian Antidumping Orders

The European Union continues to have an antidumping duty order in effect on imports of

potassium permanganate from India and Ukraine. An EU antidumping duty order on product from China

was issued in 1988, and in November 1994 a more stringent, per-kilogram, duty was imposed in the

amount of 1.26 ECU per kilogram. The EU antidumping orders concerning China were terminated in

2006. 57 Antidumping orders on product from India and Ukraine were issued in 1998.

India also has had an antidumping order, in effect since 1995, on imports of potassium

permanganate from China. The current duty is US$440 per metric ton.

 57 Carus’ response to the Commission’s notice of institution, May 28, 2010, p. 29.

I-20
APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

A-1

23298 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 2010 / Notices 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 10–5–216, 

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, 5000 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Products that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country(ies) 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 Products 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Country(ies), and such merchandise 

from other countries. 

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like 

Products and Domestic Industries; if you 

disagree with either or both of these 

definitions, please explain why and 

provide alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: April 22, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9813 Filed 4–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–125 (Third 

Review)] 

Potassium Permanganate From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on potassium permanganate 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 potassium 

permanganate 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 June 2, 2010. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

July 16, 2010. For further information 

concerning the conduct of 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: May 3, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On January 31, 1984, 

the Department of Commerce issued an 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

potassium permanganate from China (49 

FR 3897). Following first five-year 

reviews by Commerce and the 

Commission, effective November 24, 

1999, Commerce issued a continuation 

of the antidumping duty order on 

imports of potassium permanganate 

from China (64 FR 66166). Following 

second five-year reviews by Commerce 

and the Commission, effective June 21, 

2005, Commerce issued a continuation 

of the antidumping duty order on 

imports of potassium permanganate 

from China (70 FR 35630). 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, its full first five-year 

review determination, and its expedited 

second five-year review determination, 

the Commission defined the Domestic 

Like Product as potassium 

permanganate co-extensive with 

Commerce’s scope. 

(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, 

its full first five-year review 

determination, and its expedited second 

five-year determination, the 

Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry as all domestic producers of 

potassium permanganate. 

(5) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the review and public 

service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the review as parties must 

file an entry of appearance with the 

Secretary to the Commission, as 

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

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 2010 / Notices 23299 

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 has advised that a five-year 

review is not considered the ‘‘same 

particular matter’’ as the corresponding 

underlying original investigation for 

purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post 

employment statute for Federal 

employees, and Commission rule 

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

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are not 

required to seek Commission approval 

to appear in a review under Commission 

rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy 

Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205– 

3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in 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 June 2, 2010. Pursuant 

to section 207.62(b) of the Commission’s 

rules, eligible parties (as specified in 

Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also 

file comments concerning the adequacy 

of responses to the notice of institution 

and whether the Commission should 

conduct an expedited or full review. 

The deadline for filing such comments 

is July 16, 2010. All written submissions 

must conform with the provisions of 

sections 201.8 and 207.3 of the 

Commission’s rules and any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

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

accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each 

document filed by a party to the 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 

number, fax number, and E-mail address 

of a responsible official at each firm). 

(8) A list of known sources of 

information on national or regional 

prices for the Domestic Like Product or 

the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or 

other markets. 

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

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2009, except as noted 

(report quantity data in pounds and 

value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). 

If you are a union/worker group or 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
23300 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 2010 / Notices 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 10–5–214, 

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. 

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 2009 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from 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 2009 

(report quantity data in pounds and 

value data in U.S. dollars, landed and 

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

including antidumping duties). If you 

are a trade/business association, provide 

the information, on an aggregate basis, 

for the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in 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. 

Issued: April 22, 2010. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9814 Filed 4–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–101 (Third 

Review)] 

Greige Polyester/Cotton Printcloth 

From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on greige polyester/cotton printcloth 

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 greige 

polyester/cotton printcloth 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 June 2, 2010. Comments on 

the adequacy of responses may be filed 

with the Commission by July 16, 2010. 

For further information concerning the 

conduct of this review and rules of 

general application, consult the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
23240 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 2010 / Notices 

Administration, we have exercised our 

discretion to toll deadlines for the 

duration of the closure of the Federal 

Government from February 5 through 

February 12, 2010. Thus, all deadlines 

in this review have been extended by 

seven days. The revised deadline for the 

final results of this administrative 

review is currently April 28, 2010. See 

Memorandum to the Record from 

Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import 

Administration, regarding ‘‘Tolling of 

Administrative Deadlines As a Result of 

the Government Closure During the 

Recent Snowstorm,’’ dated February 12, 

2010. 

Extension of Time Limit for Final 

Results 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires 

the Department to make a final 

determination within 120 days after the 

date on which the preliminary 

determination is published. If it is not 

practicable to complete the review 

within this time period, section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 

Department to extend the time limit for 

the final determination to a maximum of 

180 days after the date on which the 

preliminary results are published. See 

also 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). 

We determine that it is not practicable 

to complete the final results of this 

administrative review by the current 

deadline of April 28, 2010, because we 

are continuing to examine the issue 

related to the export–subsidy 

adjustment addressed by the petitioner 

and respondent in briefs submitted in 

response to the Preliminary Results. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(h)(2), we are extending the time 

period for issuing the final results of 

this review by 60 days until June 27, 

2010. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(h)(2). 

Dated: April 26, 2010. 

Edward C. Yang, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10261 Filed 4–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

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

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

automatically initiating a five-year 

review (‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

orders listed below. The International 

Trade Commission (‘‘the Commission’’) 

is publishing concurrently with this 

notice its notice of Institution of FiveYear Review which covers the same 

orders. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 3, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230. For 

information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 

13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 

62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on 

methodological or analytical issues 

relevant to the Department’s conduct of 

Sunset Reviews is set forth in the 

Department’s Policy Bulletin 98.3— 

Policies Regarding the Conduct of FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

and countervailing duty orders: 

DOC case No. ITC case No. Country Product Department contact 

A–570–898 ....... 731–TA–1082 ... PRC .............................................. Chlorinated Isocyanurates ........... Jennifer Moats, (202) 482–5047. 

A–469–814 ....... 731–TA–1083 ... Spain ............................................ Chlorinated Isocyanurates ........... Jennifer Moats, (202) 482–5047. 

A–570–101 ....... 731–TA–101 ..... PRC .............................................. Greige Polyester Cotton Printcloth 

(3nd Review).

Jennifer Moats, (202) 482–5047. 

A–570–001 ....... 731–TA–125 ..... PRC .............................................. Potassium Permanganate (3rd 

Review).

Jennifer Moats, (202) 482–5047. 

A–351–503 ....... 731–TA–262 ..... Brazil ............................................ Iron Construction Castings (3rd 

Review).

Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482– 

1391. 

A–122–503 ....... 731–TA–263 ..... Canada ......................................... Iron Construction Castings (3rd 

Review).

Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482– 

1391. 

A–570–502 ....... 731–TA–265 ..... PRC .............................................. Iron Construction Castings (3rd 

Review).

Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482– 

1391. 

C–351–504 ....... 701–TA–249 ..... Brazil ............................................ Heavy Iron Construction Castings 

(3rd Review).

Brandon Farlander, (202) 482– 

0182. 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statute and Department’s 

regulations, the Department schedule 

for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past 

revocations and continuations, and 

current service lists, available to the 

public on the Department’s Internet 

Web site at the following address: 

‘‘http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.’’ All 

submissions in these Sunset Reviews 

must be filed in accordance with the 

Department’s regulations regarding 

format, translation, service, and 

certification of documents. These rules 

can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 2010 / Notices 23241 

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

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

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

Department will consider individual requests to 

extend that five-day deadline based upon a showing 

of good cause. 

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews 

can be very short, we urge interested 

parties to apply for access to proprietary 

information under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The Department’s regulations on 

submission of proprietary information 

and eligibility to receive access to 

business proprietary information under 

APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304– 

306. 

Information Required From Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties defined in 

section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)) wishing 

to participate in a Sunset Review must 

respond not later than 15 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The 

required contents of the notice of intent 

to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with the 

Department’s regulations, if we do not 

receive a notice of intent to participate 

from at least one domestic interested 

party by the 15-day deadline, the 

Department will automatically revoke 

the order without further review. See 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

If we receive an order-specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the Sunset 

Review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order-specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 

requirements. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please 

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department. 

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218 

(c). 

Dated: April 19, 2010. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10258 Filed 4–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XW11 

Marine Mammals; File No. 14514 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the University of Florida, Aquatic 

Animal Program, College of Veterinary 

Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610 (Ruth 

Francis-Floyd, Responsible Party) has 

applied in due form for a permit to 

receive, import and export marine 

mammal specimens for scientific 

research. 

DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail 

comments must be received on or before 

June 2, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: The application and related 

documents are available for review by 

selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public 

Comment’’ from the Features box on the 

Applications and Permits for Protected 

Species (APPS) home page, https:// 

apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting 

File No. 14514 from the list of available 

applications. 

These documents are also available 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the following office(s): 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 

(301) 713–2289; fax (301) 713–0376; and 

Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th 

Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, Florida 

33701; phone (727) 824–5312; fax (727) 

824–5309. 

Written comments on this application 

should be submitted to the Chief, 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, at the address listed above. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

facsimile to (301) 713–0376, or by email 

to NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov. 

Please include the File No. in the 

subject line of the email comment. 

Those individuals requesting a public 

hearing should submit a written request 

to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and 

Education Division at the address listed 

above. The request should set forth the 

specific reasons why a hearing on this 

application would be appropriate. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Sloan or Kate Swails, (301) 713– 

2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

subject permit is requested under the 

authority of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act of 1972, as amended 

(MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the 

regulations governing the taking and 

importing of marine mammals (50 CFR 

part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.), the regulations governing the 

taking, importing, and exporting of 

endangered and threatened species (50 

CFR 222–226), and the Fur Seal Act of 

1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et 

seq.). 

The objectives of this research are to 

study various aspects of disease 

afflicting marine mammals including 

viral pathogens and brevetoxin studies; 

develop a marine mammal histology 

database and atlas, marine mammal cell 

lines; and conduct comparative 

morphology. Marine mammal parts 

would be obtained from the following 

sources: samples collected as part of 

routine husbandry procedures using 

captive stocks; other permitted 

academic, federal, and state institutions 

involved in marine mammal research; in 

conjunction with legal subsistence 

harvests; from marine mammals caught 

incidental to fisheries; or from animals 

in foreign countries following the host 

countries legal operations. The samples 

would then be received or imported to 

the investigators. Samples may be 

exported for research or archiving. 

Marine mammal parts (hard and soft 

parts) would not exceed 200 animals per 

year from animals within the order 

Cetacea (dolphins, porpoises and 

whales) and 100 animals per year from 

animals within the order Pinnipedia 

(sea lions and seals but excluding 

walruses), with unlimited sampling 

from each animal to maximize use. 

There would not be incidental take or 

take of live animals. The requested 

permit period is five years. 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial 

determination has been made that the 

activity proposed is categorically 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
51112 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 18, 2010 / Notices 

us in your comment to withhold from 

public review your personal identifying 

information, we cannot guarantee that 

we will be able to do so. If you wish to 

withhold your name or address from 

public review or from disclosure under 

the Freedom of Information Act, you 

must state this prominently at the 

beginning of your comments. Such 

requests will be honored to the extent 

allowed by law. All submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organization or businesses, will be made 

available for public inspection in their 

entirety. 

Notice is hereby given that an 

opportunity for a public meeting is 

afforded in connection with the 

proposed withdrawal extension. All 

interested parties who desire a public 

meeting for the purpose of being heard 

on the proposed withdrawal extension 

must submit a written request to the 

BLM State Director at the address 

indicated above by November 16, 2010. 

Upon determination by the authorized 

officer that a public meeting will be 

held, a notice of the time and place will 

be published in the Federal Register 

and in at least one local newspaper not 

less than 30 days before the scheduled 

date of the meeting. 

The application will be processed in 

accordance with the regulations set 

forth in 43 CFR part 2300. 

(Authority: 43 CFR 2310.3–1) 

Fred O’Ferrall, 

Chief, Branch of Land, Mineral, and Energy 

Resources. 

[FR Doc. 2010–20341 Filed 8–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[OR–66335; LLOR936000; 

L54200000.PE000LVDIH10H0640; HAG–10– 

0306] 

Notice of Realty Action: Application for 

Recordable Disclaimer of Interest; 

Oregon 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Realty Action. 

SUMMARY: The Port of Cascade Locks has 

filed an application with the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) requesting a 

Recordable Disclaimer of Interest from 

the United States for the property the 

Port has acquired from Hood River 

County, Oregon. The nature of the cloud 

on the title the applicant wishes to 

resolve is a recorded Disclaimer issued 

by the Department of the Interior 

General Land Office for the subject land 

in 1920. Issuance of this recordable 

disclaimer of interest would remove a 

cloud on the title to the land. 

DATES: Interested parties may submit 

written comments regarding the 

Recordable Disclaimer of Interest on or 

before November 16, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Mail all written comments 

to Cathie Jensen, Acting Chief, Branch 

of Land, Mineral, and Energy Resources, 

BLM, Oregon State Office, P.O. Box 

2965, Portland, Oregon 97208. Only 

written comments submitted via the 

U.S. Postal Service or other delivery 

service, or hand delivered to the BLM 

State Office, will be considered properly 

filed. Electronic mail, facsimile, or 

telephone comments will not be 

considered properly filed. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jenny Liang, Land Law Examiner, (503) 

808–6299. Additional information 

pertaining to this application can be 

reviewed in case file OR–66335 located 

in the BLM Oregon State Office at the 

above address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to Section 315 of the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 

U.S.C. 1745), and the regulations 

contained in 43 CFR subpart 1864, the 

Port of Cascade Locks filed an 

application for a Recordable Disclaimer 

of Interest for a portion of lands 

described as follows: 

Willamette Meridian 

T. 3 N., R. 8 E., 

sec. 33, SE1⁄4;SE1⁄4;, that portion lying north 

of The Dalles-Sandy Wagon Road. 

The parcel described contains 22.5 acres, 

more or less, in Hood River County, Oregon. 

The subject land was mentioned in a 

1920 recorded Disclaimer issued by the 

Department of the Interior, General 

Land Office. The Disclaimer stated that 

the United States does not claim any 

right, title or interest in or to the subject 

land under the attempted 

reconveyances, or based on the rejection 

of a Forest Lieu Selection. Since the 

1920 Disclaimer did not cite to an 

authority for issuance of said document 

the title company would not recognize 

the Disclaimer. A valid disclaimer, if 

issued, will confirm that the United 

States has no valid interest in the 

subject land. 

The United States Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service is 

anticipating exchanging lands with the 

Port pursuant to Section 1206(b) of the 

Omnibus Public Land Management Act 

of 2009 (123 Stat. 1019), and the subject 

land must be in an insurable condition. 

The United States has no claim to or 

interest in the land described and 

issuance of a Recordable Disclaimer 

would remove a cloud on the title to the 

land and a potential barrier to the 

exchange. 

Comments, including names and 

street addresses of respondents, will be 

available for public review at the BLM 

Oregon State Office at the address 

above, during regular business hours, 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Before including your address, 

phone number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Any adverse comments will be 

reviewed by the BLM Oregon State 

Director. In the absence of any adverse 

comments, a Disclaimer of Interest may 

be approved stating that the United 

States does not have a valid interest in 

the described land. 

Authority: 43 CFR subpart 1864.2(a) 

Cathie Jensen, 

Acting Chief, Branch of Land, Mineral, and 

Energy Resources. 

[FR Doc. 2010–20332 Filed 8–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–33–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–125 (Third 

Review)] 

Potassium Permanganate From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of an expedited fiveyear review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on potassium permanganate 

from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of an expedited 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the antidumping 

duty order on potassium permanganate 

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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 18, 2010 / Notices 51113 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

2The Commission has found the response 

submitted by Carus Corp. to be individually 

adequate. Comments from other interested parties 

will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the

Commission’s Web site. 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: August 6, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cynthia Trainor (202–205–3354), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal at 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On August 6, 2010, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (75 

FR 23298, May 3, 2010) of the subject 

five-year review was adequate and that 

the respondent interested party group 

response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct an expedited review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report. A staff report containing 

information concerning the subject 

matter of the review will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on September 2, 

2010, and made available to persons on 

the Administrative Protective Order 

service list for this review. A public 

version will be issued thereafter, 

pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions. As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the review and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

review may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the review. 

Comments are due on or before 

September 8, 2010 and may not contain 

new factual information. Any person 

that is neither a party to the five-year 

review nor an interested party may 

submit a brief written statement (which 

shall not contain any new factual 

information) pertinent to the review by 

September 8, 2010. However, should the 

Department of Commerce extend the 

time limit for its completion of the final 

results of its review, the deadline for 

comments (which may not contain new 

factual information) on Commerce’s 

final results is three business days after 

the issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the review must be 

served on all other parties to the review 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

Issued: August 11, 2010. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–20355 Filed 8–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of expedited 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the antidumping 

duty orders on chlorinated 

isocyanurates from China and Spain 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of material injury within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. For 

further information concerning the 

conduct of these reviews and rules of 

general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: August 6, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keysha Martinez (202–205–2136), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On August 6, 2010, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (75 

FR 23303, May 3, 2010) of the subject 

five-year reviews was adequate and that 

the respondent interested party group 

response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting full reviews.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct expedited reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report. A staff report containing 

information concerning the subject 

matter of the reviews will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on September 2, 

2010, and made available to persons on 

the Administrative Protective Order 

service list for these reviews. A public 

version will be issued thereafter,


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 165 / Thursday, August 26, 2010 / Notices 52509 

facsimile machine. Companies will be 

asked to respond to the survey within 

30 days of the initial mailing. Letters 

and/or telephone calls encouraging 

participation will be directed to 

respondents that have not responded by 

the designated time. 

Employer companies will be mailed 

one of three forms based on their 

diversity of operations and number of 

industries with payroll. Companies 

operating in only one industry will 

receive an ICT–1(S) form. Companies 

operating in more than one, but less 

than nine industries will receive an 

ICT–1(M) form. And, companies that 

operate in nine or more industries will 

receive an ICT–1(L). 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: 0607–0909. 

Form Number: ICT–1(S), ICT–1(M), 

and ICT–1(L). 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Businesses or other 

for-profit organizations, non-profit 

institutions, small businesses or 

organizations. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

Approximately 47,000 employer 

companies. 

Estimated Time per Response: The 

average for all respondents is 1.80 hours 

with the range from less than 1 hour to 

21 hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 84,610. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $2.5 

million. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. 

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. 

Sections 182, 224, and 225. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: August 20, 2010. 

Glenna Mickelson, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21204 Filed 8–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–001] 

Potassium Permanganate from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Expedited Sunset Review of 

Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 26, 2010. 

SUMMARY: On May 3, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) initiated a sunset review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

potassium permanganate from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). On 

the basis of a timely notice of intent to 

participate and an adequate substantive 

response filed on behalf of a domestic 

interested party, as well as a lack of 

response from respondent interested 

parties, the Department conducted an 

expedited sunset review. As a result of 

the sunset review, the Department finds 

that revocation of the antidumping duty 

order would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping. 

The dumping margins are identified in 

the Final Results of Review section of 

this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexis Polovina, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–3927. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 3, 2010, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

sunset review of the antidumping duty 

order on potassium permanganate from 

the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’). See Initiation of Five-Year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 75 FR 23240 (May 3, 

2010). On May 6, 2010, the Department 

received a notice of intent to participate 

from a domestic producer, Carus 

Corporation (‘‘Carus,’’ ‘‘domestic 

interested party,’’ or ‘‘Petitioner’’). 

Submission of the notice of intent to 

participate filed by Petitioner was 

within the deadline specified in section 

351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department’s 

regulations. The domestic interested 

party claimed interested party status 

under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as 

Carus is a domestic manufacturer of 

potassium permanganate in the United 

States. On May 28, 2010, the 

Department received a substantive 

response from the domestic interested 

party within the deadline specified in 

section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the 

Department’s regulations. We did not 

receive substantive responses from any 

respondent interested parties to this 

proceeding. As a result, pursuant to 

section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 

section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations, the 

Department determined to conduct an 

expedited review of the order. 

Scope of the Order 

Imports covered by the order are 

shipments of potassium permanganate, 

an inorganic chemical produced in freeflowing, technical, and pharmaceutical 

grades. Potassium permanganate is 

currently classifiable under item 

2841.61.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule (HTS). The HTS item number 

is provided for convenience and 

customs purposes. The written 

description remains dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’ (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from Edward C. Yang, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated August 19, 2010, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

The issues discussed in the Decision 

Memorandum include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and the magnitude of the margins likely 

to prevail if the order were revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this review and 

the corresponding recommendations in 

this public memorandum, which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit in room 

1117 of the main Commerce building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the internet at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

Pursuant to sections 752(c)(1) and (3) 

of the Act, we determine that revocation 

of the antidumping duty order on 

potassium permanganate from the PRC 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

52510 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 165 / Thursday, August 26, 2010 / Notices 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of dumping at the 

following percentage margins: 

Manufacturers/producers/exporters Margin 

(percent) 

PRC-Wide ................................. 128.94 

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 section 351.305 of the 

Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: August 19, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21288 Filed 8–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XY43 

Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico and 

South Atlantic; Southeast Data, 

Assessment, and Review for Highly 

Migratory Species Fisheries Sandbar, 

Dusky, and Blacknose Sharks 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Southeast Data, 

Assessment, and Review (SEDAR 21) 

workshops for Highly Migratory Species 

(HMS) of sandbar, dusky, and blacknose 

sharks assessment webinar. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES


APPENDIX B

STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

B-1

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Potassium Permanganate from China

Inv. No. 731-TA-125 (Third Review)

On August 6, 2010, the Commission determined that it should conduct an expedited review in the

subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19

U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B).

The Commission received a single response to its notice of institution filed by the sole domestic

producer of potassium permanganate, Carus Corporation (“Carus”). The Commission found that the

response submitted by Carus was individually adequate. The Commission also found that the domestic

interested party group response to its notice of institution was adequate. 

No responses were received from any respondent interested parties. Consequently, the

Commission determined that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. 

The Commission did not find any circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review of

the order. The Commission, therefore, determined to conduct an expedited review of the order.

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and on the

Commission’s website (http://www.usitc.gov).

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-1

Table C-1

Potassium permanganate: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2004-09

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2004-09 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,461 2,310 2,859 2,465 1,575 2,519 2.4 -6.1 23.7 -13.8 -36.1 60.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,501 2,496 3,262 2,938 2,166 4,043 61.6 -0.2 30.7 -9.9 -26.3 86.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.02 $1.08 $1.14 $1.19 $1.38 $1.60 57.9 6.3 5.6 4.4 15.4 16.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,461 2,310 2,859 2,465 1,575 2,519 2.4 -6.1 23.7 -13.8 -36.1 60.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,501 2,496 3,262 2,938 2,166 4,043 61.6 -0.2 30.7 -9.9 -26.3 86.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.02 $1.08 $1.14 $1.19 $1.38 $1.60 57.9 6.3 5.6 4.4 15.4 16.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s hours) . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (pounds per hour) . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs (dollars per 1,000 pounds). *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not applicable.

 (3) Not available.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding,

figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from Carus Response, Attachment 31 and from official Commerce statistics.

C-3