U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4128 March 2010

Washington, DC 20436

Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy

Investigation No. AA1921-167 (Third Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman 

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman 

Deanna Tanner Okun 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert A. Rogowsky

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Director of Operations

Edward Petronzio, Investigator 

Robert Randall, Industry Analyst 

Clark Workman, Economist 

Justin Jee, Accountant 

Steven Hudgens, Statistician 

Patrick Gallagher, Attorney 

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator 
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4128 March 2010

Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy

Investigation No. AA1921-167 (Third Review)
 
CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Dissenting views of Chairman Aranoff, Vice Chairman Pearson, and Commissioner Okun . . 25

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

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

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

Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Commerce’s reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Changed circumstances reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Scope inquiry reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Results of five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Distribution of continued dumping and subsidy offset act funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

U.S. purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

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

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

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

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

Supply of PSP tape from Italy to the U.S. market .................................. II-3

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

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-5

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-6

Comparisons of domestic product and subject imports and nonsubject imports ........... II-7

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

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

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-11

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-11

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

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

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

Changed experiences in operations ............................................. III-1

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

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

Constraints on capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-3

U.S. producers’ shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-5

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases ............................................. III-6

U.S. producers’ employment, wages, and productivity ................................ III-7

Financial condition of U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-8

Background ............................................................... III-8

Operations on PSP tape ...................................................... III-8

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses ........................ III-12

Assets and return on investment ............................................... III-12

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

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

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

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

The industry in Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

PSP tape operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

Global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

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

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

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

Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

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

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

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

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

Appendixes

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

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

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

D. Responses of U.S. producers, U.S. importers, foreign producers, and U.S. purchasers concerning 

the significance of the antidumping duty finding and the likely effects of revocation . . . . . . . D-1

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

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

ii
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. AA1921-167 (Third Review)

PRESSURE SENSITIVE PLASTIC TAPE FROM ITALY

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 finding on pressure sensitive plastic

tape from Italy would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in

the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.2

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this review on May 1, 2009 (74 F.R. 20340) and determined on

August 4, 2009, that it would conduct a full review (74 F.R. 40845, August 13, 2009). Notice of the

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

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

Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on August 26, 2009 (74 F.R.

43155). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on January 14, 2010, and all persons who requested

the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

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

 2

 Chairman Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson, and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun

dissenting.

1
 
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 finding on pressure sensitive

plastic tape (“PSP tape”) from Italy would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.1

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Original Determination

In August 1977, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was being or

was likely to be injured by reason of imports of PSP tape from Italy sold at less than fair value pursuant to

Section 201 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (“1921 Act”).2 3

 Subsequently, the U.S. Department of the

Treasury issued an antidumping finding covering such imports.4

 

B. The Commission’s Five-Year Reviews

In February 1999, in an expedited first five-year review, the Commission determined that

revocation of the finding on PSP tape from Italy would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.5

 As a result of

the affirmative determinations in the five-year reviews by the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) and the Commission, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty finding.6

In June 2004, in an expedited second five-year review, the Commission again determined that

revocation of the finding on PSP tape from Italy would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

 1 Chairman Aranoff, Vice Chairman Pearson, and Commissioner Okun determine that revocation of the finding in

this review would not be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United

States. See their dissenting views. They join in Sections I-III, and IV. A and B of these views.

 2 This provision directed the Commission to determine “whether an industry in the United States is being or is

likely to be injured, or is prevented from being established by reason of the importation of . . . merchandise into the

United States” that the Secretary of the Treasury had determined is being or is likely to be sold in the United States

at less than fair value. 19 U.S.C. § 160(a) (1977). 

 3 Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Inv. No. AA1921-167, USITC Pub. 830 (Aug. 1977) (“Original

Determination”). Of the three Commissioners voting in the affirmative, two found present injury and one found a

likelihood of injury to the domestic industry. Shortly after issuing its determination in the Italian case, the

Commission made a negative injury determination in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Germany, Inv. No.

AA1921-168, USITC Pub. 831 (September 1977). The staff report for both investigations is included in USITC

Pub. 831. References to the Original Determination Staff Report are to USITC Pub. 831.

 4 42 Fed. Reg. 56110 (October 21, 1977).

 5 Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Inv. No. AA1921-167 (Review), USITC Pub. 3157 (February 1999)

(“First Five-Year Review”). Chairman Bragg and Commissioners Crawford and Askey dissented and made negative

determinations.

 6 Continuation of Antidumping Finding: Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, 64 Fed. Reg. 51515

(September 23, 1999).

3
material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.7

 Commerce again

issued a continuation of the antidumping duty finding on imports of PSP tape from Italy.8

C. The Current Review

The Commission instituted this five-year review on May 1, 2009.9

 The Commission received a

joint response to the notice of institution from domestic producers 3M Company (“3M”), Intertape

Polymer Group, Inc. (“Intertape”), and Shurtape Technologies, LLC (“Shurtape”) (collectively “Domestic

Producers”). Although the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response was

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

that other circumstances warranted conducting a full review in light of information regarding possible

changes in the conditions of competition.10

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

determination on August 13, 2009.11

In this review, the Domestic Producers submitted briefs and, along with representatives from the

Pressure Sensitive Tape Council,12 appeared at the Commission’s hearing. The Commission did not

receive a brief from any subject foreign producer or importer, nor did any respondent interested party

appear at the Commission’s hearing.

Five U.S. producers, accounting for approximately 70 percent of U.S. production of PSP tape in

2008, provided complete responses to the Commission’s questionnaire.13 The Commission received

usable questionnaire responses from 19 importers and 10 purchasers of PSP tape that accounted for the

vast majority of total subject imports of PSP tape from Italy during 2008,14 but a smaller share of the

nonsubject imports.15 The Commission also received two responses to foreign producer questionnaires

 7 Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Inv. No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June

2004) (“Second Five-Year Review”). Vice Chairman Okun and Commissioners Lane and Pearson dissented and

made negative determinations.

 8 Continuation of Antidumping Duty Findings: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Japan and Pressure

Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, 69 Fed. Reg. 35548 (June 25, 2004).

 9 74 Fed. Reg. 20340.

 10 Confidential Report (“CR”)/Public Report (“PR”) at Appendix A. Commissioners Pinkert and Williamson

voted to conduct an expedited review. Id.

 11 Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review, 74 Fed. Reg. 40811,

40812 (August 13, 2009).

 12 The Pressure Sensitive Tape Council is a trade association representing 23 tape manufacturers and 12 affiliate

suppliers. CR at I-26 n.67, PR at I-19 n.67. 

 13 CR at I-25 - I-26, PR at I-19. ***. The Commission also received questionnaire responses from domestic

producers Berry Plastics Corporation (“Berry”) and Canadian Technical Tape, Ltd. (“Cantech”). Responses

submitted by ***, which each accounted for a very small portion of the domestic PSP tape industry, contained

incomplete data. The Commission also received information from Tesa Tape, Inc. (“Tesa”) reporting that it was a

*** producer of PSP tape in the United States. Tesa, however, did not subsequently submit a response to the

Commission’s producer questionnaire. CR at I-25, n.66, PR at I-19, n.66.

 14 CR at I-5 and I-30, PR at I-4 and I-21.

 15 Imports, predominantly from nonsubject sources, may account for approximately one-quarter of the U.S.

market, given their presence in the acrylic and natural rubber portions of the market. In contrast, data from

questionnaire responses suggest import market shares of 18.5 percent in 2008 and 20.6 percent in January-September

(continued...)

4
from PSP tape producers in Italy that accounted for *** percent of Italian production of the subject

merchandise in 2008.16

In the 33 years since the U.S. Department of the Treasury issued its 1977 finding, the

Commission has conducted two expedited reviews and now one full review of the finding. In this review,

unlike in the previous expedited reviews, the Commission has available to it quantitative and qualitative

data from questionnaires covering the most recent three full years and the January-June 2009 period,

although it received only limited responses from subject producers and importers of nonsubject imports. 

The Commission was also able to evaluate testimony presented at a public hearing, although only

supporters of continuing the finding appeared and filed briefs. Thus, the record in this review, while

limited, is more detailed than in the prior two reviews.

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.”17 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.”18 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.19

 15 (...continued)

2009. CR/PR at Table IV-8.

 16 CR at I-11, PR at I-10; CR at IV-7, PR at IV-4; and CR/PR at Table IV-3. The Commission received usable

data from subject Italian producers 3M Italia, an Italian subsidiary of 3M, and Sicad, S.p.A. (“Sicad”), as well as

from one firm, Plasturopa-SIPA S.a.S. (“Plasturopa”), that has never been subject to the antidumping duty finding. 

Another Italian firm, ***, submitted a questionnaire response, but did not provide usable data. ***. CR at IV-7 and

n.15, PR at IV-4 and n.15

 17 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 18 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).

 19 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).

5
A. Product Description

In its third five-year review, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as “PSP tape measuring

over one and three-eighths inches in width and not exceeding four mi[ls] in thickness.”20

PSP tape is a plastic film-backed tape with an adhesive on one side that remains permanently

tacky at room temperatures. The product adheres to a variety of surfaces (including paper, film, wood,

and metal) upon contact with minimal application of pressure, and it requires no activation by water,

solvent, or heat to generate its adhesive holding force. PSP tape consists of at least two layers, a plastic

film backing and a layer of pressure sensitive adhesive.21

The pressure sensitive adhesive types used include hot melt, vinyl, and synthetic or natural rubber

adhesives. Hot melt adhesives are used in high-speed sealing lines that apply heat to the tape to quickly

make a strong seal, as well as in cold application machines or in hand sealing applications. Vinyl

(acrylic) adhesives are used in lesser quality box sealing tapes. The rubber-based adhesives are favored

for sealing where the sealing surfaces may be dusty, dirty, greasy, or irregular. The holding power (i.e.,

adhesion, tack, and shear strength) of hot melt adhesives is superior to acrylic, and the hot melt tapes can

be applied more quickly.22 The manufacturing cost of PSP tape depends on the cost of the plastic film

backing, the cost of the adhesive applied, the converting cost, and the capital intensity and productivity of

the manufacturing equipment employed. Solution (natural rubber) is generally the most costly adhesive,

followed by (in descending order) hot melt and acrylic.23

The principal application of PSP tape is to seal corrugated paper shipping cartons. Although PSP

tape is used for hand-sealing cartons, most higher volume applications involve highly automated sealing

lines. In addition, converter rolls can be slit and rewound as narrower tapes in varying length for various

consumer and office tape applications. Finally, PSP tape is used in certain lower-volume or more

specialized applications such as labels, label protection, color coding, and tabbing.24

B. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews

The definition of the subject merchandise has not changed since the original Treasury finding.25

The Antidumping Act of 1921 did not contain a “like product” provision, and thus the Commission did

not make a like product finding per se in its original determination.26 In its first and second five-year

 20 CR/PR at I-3 n.8. In the notice announcing the final results, Commerce incorrectly described the subject

merchandise as PSP tape “not exceeding four millimeters in thickness.” 74 Fed. Reg. at 40812 (“Scope of Review”)

(emphasis added). Commerce subsequently filed a memorandum acknowledging the error in the scope language and

stating that all future actions regarding the antidumping finding on PSP tape from Italy would include the correct

description. See Commerce Memorandum re: Corrections to Scope Language, dated October 26, 2009.

 21 CR at I-18, PR at I-15.

 22 Hearing Transcript at 23 (Helton) and at 21 (Anderson).

 23 CR at I-19, PR at I-15.

 24 CR at I-20, PR at I-16. Examples of such applications range from diaper tabs - an application that reportedly is

diminishing in favor of clipping devices - to 3M’s Post It ® flags. CR at I-20 n.40, PR at I-16 n.40.

 25 See 42 Fed. Reg. 56110 (October 21, 1977).

 26 Original Determination at 4. The staff report accompanying the Original Determination notes that domestic

producers took the position that the relevant industry consisted of the facilities in the United States producing carton

sealing tape, while respondents argued that the relevant industry consisted of U.S. facilities manufacturing all

pressure sensitive tape products. USITC Pub. 831 at A-11.

6
reviews, the Commission defined the domestic like product consistently with Commerce’s scope, that is,

all PSP tape measuring over one and three-eighths inches in width and not exceeding four mils in

thickness.27

C. Analysis and Conclusion

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

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

the Commission’s proposed definition of the domestic like product.28

Therefore, we define the domestic like product to be PSP tape measuring over one and threeeighths inches in width and not exceeding four mils in thickness, coextensive with the scope of

Commerce’s review.

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.”29 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, the Commission defined the domestic industry as “the facilities in

the United States devoted to the production of PSP tape.”30 In its first and second five-year reviews, the

Commission defined the domestic industry as all U.S. producers of PSP tape.31

No new facts have been presented to warrant a different domestic industry definition than the one

used in the original determination and the first and second five-year reviews.32 Therefore, based on our

 27 First Five-Year Review at 4 and Second Five-Year Review at 6.

 28 See Domestic Producers Response and Supplemental Response to Notice of Institution; and Prehearing and

Posthearing briefs.

 29 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.

 30 Original Determination at 4.

 31 First Five-Year Review at 5; Second Five-Year Review at 7. In the first five-year review, the Commission

noted that 3M imported the subject merchandise from Italy, but found that appropriate circumstances did not exist to

exclude 3M as a related party. First Five-Year Review at 5. In the second five-year review, the Commission noted

that 3M reported that a domestic producer, Tyco Adhesives (“Tyco”), may have been a related party because Tyco

owned an Italian producer of PSP tape, Tyco Adhesives Italia S.p.A. The Commission did not find appropriate

circumstances to exclude Tyco due to a lack of information regarding the company on the record. Second Five-Year

Review Confidential Views at 7 n.17. 

 32 Section 771(4)(B) of the Act allows the Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the

domestic industry producers that are related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise, or which are

themselves importers. The primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate

circumstances exist to exclude a related party are as follows:

(1) the percentage of domestic production attributable to the importing producer;

(continued...)

7
definition of the domestic like product, we define the domestic industry to include all producers of the

domestic like product.

IV. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY FINDING IS REVOKED

A. Legal Standards

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.”33 The SAA states that “under the likelihood

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

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

proceeding and the elimination of its restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”34 Thus, the

likelihood standard is prospective in nature.35 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that

 32 (...continued)

(2) the reason the U.S. producer has decided to import the product subject to investigation, i.e., whether the

firm benefits from the LTFV sales or subsidies or whether the firm must import in order to enable it to continue

production and compete in the U.S. market; and

(3) the position of the related producer vis-à-vis the rest of the industry, i.e., whether inclusion or exclusion

of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry.

See, e.g., Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d without opinion, 991 F.2d

809 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

In this review, *** of the domestic producers, ***, reported either owning a subject producer or importing

subject merchandise during the period of review. Although each of these producers qualifies as a related party under

the statute, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to warrant excluding any of these producers from the

definition of the domestic industry. The record indicates that the ratio of imports to U.S. production for each was

***. In 2008, ***. CR/PR at Table I-5. The ratio of subject imports to domestic production for these producers

ranged from *** percent to *** percent during the period examined in this review. CR/PR at Table III-6. ***. 

CR/PR at Table III-6 nn. 1, 4-6. *** of these producers has stated that it supports revocation of the finding. CR/PR

at Table I-5. *** expressed support for continuation of the finding; *** on the continuation of the finding. CR/PR

at Table I-5.

 33 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 34 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.

 35 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.

8
“likely,” as used in the five-year review provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission

applies that standard in five-year reviews.36 37 38

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

may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”39 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.”40

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.”41 It

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

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

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

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

§ 1675(a)(4).42 The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the 

 36 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’”).

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

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

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

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

 38 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. 

 39 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 40 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.

 41 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 42 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). We note that no duty absorption findings have been made by Commerce. 

9
Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the

Commission’s determination.43

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

revoked and the suspended investigations are terminated, the Commission is directed to consider whether

the likely volume of imports would be significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or

consumption in the United States.44 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.45

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the orders and finding under review

were revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling

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

likely to enter the United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or

suppressing effect on the price of the domestic like product.46

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

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

have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including but not limited to the following: 

(1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and

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

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

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

the domestic like product.47 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the

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

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

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

revoked.48

As discussed above, the Commission received a limited number of foreign producer questionnaire

responses. Accordingly, when appropriate in this review, we have relied on the facts 

 43 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily

dispositive. SAA at 886.

 44 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 45 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

 46 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.

 47 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 48 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.

10
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.49 50

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.”51

1. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews

The Commission did not discuss conditions of competition in its original injury determination,52 

but the staff report in that investigation observed that both the number of manufacturers producing PSP

tape and the demand for PSP tape products had grown dramatically since the early 1970s. The report

attributed this growth to changing market conditions that had caused consumers to shift from traditional

methods of sealing cartons and boxes (i.e., gummed paper tape and staples) to PSP tape.53

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

to its analysis of the PSP tape market. The Commission observed that the domestic industry had become

*** since the time of the original investigation. At the time of the original investigation, four producers

accounted for at least 80 percent of domestic production, and 3M was by far the largest producer. By the

time of the first five-year review, 3M’s share of domestic production had ***.54

The Commission also found that the U.S. market for PSP tape had grown significantly since the

original finding in 1977. Apparent U.S. consumption had increased from *** square yards in 1976 to ***

square yards in 1997. At the same time, the market share of imports had declined from *** percent 

 49 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.”).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 51 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 52 See Original Determination at 3-8.

 53 USITC Pub. 831 at A-12.

 54 First Five-Year Review Confidential Views at 9-10.

11
in 1976 to *** percent in 1997. The Commission noted that the demand for PSP tape was derived from

demand for cartons and boxes and that demand for PSP tape appeared to be inelastic. The Commission

further observed that PSP tape appeared to be a commodity-like product, with a high degree of

substitutability between imported and domestic PSP tape.55

In the second five-year review, the Commission found that there was no new information

indicating that the conditions of competition had changed since the first five-year review, with one

exception. The Commission noted that, according to 3M, there had been substantial consolidation due to

acquisitions in both the U.S. and worldwide PSP tape industries since the Commission’s first five-year

review. In addition, the Commission noted 3M’s argument that this consolidation gave the acquiring

firms, including PSP tape producers in Italy, an enhanced distribution system and allowed them to source

their products from multiple countries, depending on cost and availability.56

2. The Current Review

There were substantial changes in the conditions of competition after the Commission’s original

antidumping duty finding in 1977. Those changed conditions have remained in place, and some

additional changes have occurred since the Commission’s last five-year review in 2004. We find the

following conditions of competition relevant to our determination.

a. Demand

Demand for PSP tape is derived from the demand for boxes and other products on which its use is

required. Because there are no good commercial substitutes for PSP tape in these applications and

because PSP tape accounts for a small share of total costs of the products and applications in which it is

used, demand for PSP tape is not elastic.57 Market participants provided mixed responses when asked

whether demand had increased, decreased, fluctuated, or remained the same, but frequently cited the U.S.

economy as a factor affecting demand.58 The demand for PSP tape as measured by apparent U.S.

consumption59 declined slightly from 2.65 billion square yards in 2006 to 2.55 billion square yards in

2008. Apparent U.S. consumption was 1.96 billion square yards in January-September 2008 and 1.68 

 55 First Five-Year Review Confidential Views at 10.

 56 Second Five-Year Review Confidential Views at 10.

 57 CR at II-6, II-7, and II-14, PR at II-5 and II-11.

 58 CR at II-6, PR at II-5.

 59 The data on apparent U.S. consumption are believed to be understated due to the incomplete information

available for nonsubject imports. CR at II-6 n.7, PR at II-4 n.7. In this review, we have relied on importer

questionnaires for import data because PSP tape, as defined by Commerce, falls into a broad “basket category” of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) of the United States that includes products that do not conform to the

characteristics (e.g., adhesive on one side) or dimensional specifications (e.g., greater than 1 3/8 inches in width and

no greater than 4 mils in thickness) included in the scope language. As a result, Commerce’s official statistics likely

overstate imports of PSP tape. Our coverage of imports, however, is incomplete, and the data likely understate the

volume of nonsubject imports. CR at I-5 and n.17, PR at I-4 and n.17. In the prior expedited five-year reviews, the

Commission relied upon estimates based on extrapolation or acknowledged the absence of meaningful data in

discussing import volumes. See First Five-Year Review at 8 and Second Five-Year Review at 9 and n.38.

12
billion square yards in January-September 2009.60 Although there was significant growth in the PSP tape

market from the time of the original investigation until the late 1990s, current market estimates and

projections indicate that the United States is a large, but relatively slow growing, market.61 The main

factors contributing to the growth in carton sealing pressure sensitive tapes are ***.62

As noted in the product description, PSP tapes are distinguished by the types of adhesives that are

applied to the tape backing, with the three main forms being acrylic, hot melt (synthetic rubber), and

natural rubber.63 Hot melt PSP tapes account for the largest portion of the carton sealing tape market in

the United States, approximately *** percent.64 Hot melt tapes have better adhesion than acrylic tapes

and are more suitable for automated closing and bundling systems.65 Acrylic tapes tend to be used in the

less sophisticated hand application process and are believed to account for approximately 20 percent of

the U.S. market for carton sealing tape.66 Natural rubber PSP tapes account for only a small percentage of

the U.S. market.67

b. Supply

The U.S. industry has focused increasingly on the production of hot melt PSP tape, while

nonsubject suppliers, primarily acrylic PSP tape producers in China, Taiwan, and Indonesia, have made

inroads in the U.S. market.68 Significant increases in imports of acrylic PSP tape from Asian producers

have resulted in declines in the U.S. production of acrylic PSP tape.69

The domestic industry’s capacity decreased slightly from 2.98 billion square yards in 2006 to

2.96 billion square yards in 2008. Its capacity was 2.22 billion square yards in January-September 2008

and 2.95 billion square yards in 2009.70 There are currently eight domestic producers of PSP tape.71

Subject imports from Italy declined to vastly reduced levels in the U.S. market after imposition of

the antidumping duty finding in 1977 and have maintained those reduced levels during the period for

which data were collected. Nonsubject imports of PSP tape, particularly from producers in China,

 60 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 61 CR at IV-16, PR at IV-7.

 62 CR at IV-16, PR at IV-7; and World Pressure Sensitive Tapes, Industry Study 2451, The Freedonia Group, Inc.

(February 2009) (“Freedonia Study”) at 43.

 63 CR at III-5, PR at III-3; Hearing Transcript at 10 (Anderson).

 64 CR at III-5 and n.8, PR at III-3 and n.8.

 65 Hearing Transcript at 22 (Helton). 

 66 Domestic Producers Posthearing Brief at 4; Hearing Transcript at 70 (Anderson).

 67 Based on estimates from ***, natural rubber adhesive tapes account for between *** percent of the U.S.

market. CR at III-5 and n.9, PR at III-3 and n.9.

 68 CR/PR at IV-1.

 69 CR at II-3, PR at II-3. In response to the increasing demand for acrylic PSP tapes, both 3M and Intertape have

increased their production of these tapes in the United States, which they had historically imported from Asian

suppliers. CR at III-6, PR at III-3; Hearing transcript at 30 (Martin).

 70 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 71 CR/PR at Table I-5. The eight confirmed producers are 3M, Avery Dennison, Berry, Cantech, Intertape,

Shurtape, STA, and Tesa.

13
Taiwan, and Indonesia, however, have increased over the period.72 By 2008, nonsubject imports of PSP

tape accounted for 17.6 percent of apparent U.S. consumption.73

c. Other Conditions

U.S. and Italian PSP tape are highly interchangeable with each other, and price is an important

consideration in purchasing decisions. Purchasers listed availability, reliability of supply, quality, price,

and product consistency as the most important factors affecting their PSP tape purchasing decisions.74

Raw material costs account for a substantial share of the cost of goods sold (“COGS”) for PSP

tape. Raw material costs ranged from 61.1 percent of COGS in 2006 to 61.6 percent in 2008. During

January-September 2009, raw material costs accounted for 55.1 percent of COGS. Major raw materials

are (1) the plastic polymer films used as mechanical backing for PSP tape and (2) adhesives.75 Costs of

oil and natural gas feedstocks used in the production of plastics and adhesives have a major influence on

raw material costs.76 Monthly prices of both oil and natural gas increased irregularly from January 2006

through June 2008, and then generally declined during the remainder of 2008. The price of oil recovered

somewhat in 2009, while the price of natural gas generally continued to decrease.77 78

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

1. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews

In its original determination, the Commission found that the volume of U.S. imports of PSP tape

from Italy more than tripled in 1976 and that the subject Italian producers doubled their share of the U.S.

market that year compared to 1975. The Commission found that the Italian producers had obtained about 

 72 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 73 CR/PR at Table C-1. As discussed earlier, the data on the record likely understate the volume of nonsubject

imports. According to the available data, nonsubject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption increased from

15.3 percent in 2006 to 18.2 percent in 2007 and then decreased to 17.6 percent in 2008. Nonsubject imports’ share

of apparent U.S. consumption was 18.2 percent in January-September 2008 and 20.1 percent in January-September

2009.

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

 75 Based on questionnaire responses, the vast majority of U.S. producers reported that polypropylene was the

most commonly used tape backing material, representing 96.6 percent of U.S. shipments of PSP tape in 2008 and

97.0 percent in January-September 2009. *** Producer Questionnaire Responses at Question II-5. This shift is

noteworthy because during the original investigation in 1977, polyester PSP tape constituted by far the largest share

of domestic PSP tape production and shipments. The shift away from polyester PSP tape and toward polypropylene

PSP tape began in 1974. CR at III-7, PR at III-4. Polypropylene-backed tape is cost-efficient and possesses a

number of positive properties that make it the most popular type of tape backing. Hearing Transcript at 84

(Anderson).

 76 CR/PR at V-1 and n.1.

 77 CR/PR at V-1 and Figure V-1.

 78 Chairman Aranoff, Vice Chairman Pearson, and Commissioner Okun do not join the remainder of these views.

14
one quarter of the total U.S. market for PSP tape and had increased their market share by approximately

two-thirds in January-May 1977 compared to the corresponding period in 1976.79

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

increase significantly and be significant if the finding were revoked. That conclusion was based on the

limited facts available, largely on the record from the original investigation and information submitted by

the domestic industry. The Commission recognized that subject imports were then at relatively low

levels, but it attributed that to the restraining effects of the antidumping finding. Nevertheless, it noted

that the record from the original investigation indicated that Italian producers had the ability and

willingness to establish a significant presence in the United States. The Commission also relied on the

Italian industry’s substantial excess capacity and the fact that PSP tape is a commodity product that

competes on the basis of price.80

In the second five-year review, the Commission concluded, again from the limited facts available,

that subject import volume was likely to increase significantly and would be significant if the finding is

revoked. The Commission again attributed the low market share of subject imports, in part, to the

restraining effects of the Treasury finding, rather than to the Italian producers’ inability or unwillingness

to ship significant volumes to the U.S. market given the demonstrated ability of these producers to

increase shipments and gain market share in the original investigation. In addition, the Commission

found that the Italian producers had substantial unused production capacity (***) and only a *** percent

capacity utilization rate in 2003. The Commission concluded, given the commodity nature of PSP tape,

the substantial growth of demand for PSP tape in the U.S. market, the substantial excess capacity in Italy,

and the high degree of substitutability between domestic and Italian PSP tape, and in the absence of

evidence to the contrary, that the likely volume of subject imports would be significant if the finding were

revoked.81

2. The Current Review

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

the event of revocation.

First, there is considerable production capacity in Italy, and a significant portion of this capacity

is unused.82 Italy has the second largest PSP tape industry in the world.83 There are approximately 30

pressure sensitive adhesive (“PSA”) tape producers in Italy; of these, the nine leading producers are 

 79 Original Determination at 5 (Vice Chairman Parker and Commissioner Moore) and 7 (Commissioner Ablondi).

 80 First Five-Year Review at 11-14.

 81 Second Five-Year Review at 12-13.

 82 Although the record contains only limited data coverage for the Italian PSP tape industry because of the failure

of many subject producers to respond to the Commission’s questionnaires in this review, the record contains a

number of industry studies on the PSP tape industries in both Italy and globally. We find that the data and analysis

contained in the studies that reference the Italian PSP industry are corroborated by the data provided by the Italian

producers. Therefore, in making our determination in this review, the Commission has relied on the questionnaire

responses from the Italian producers that have participated in this review, as well as the studies of the Italian and

global tape industries provided by the domestic industry, in addition to information from the original investigation,

the prior five-year reviews, and data collected by the staff.

 83 CR at IV-12, PR at IV-5; Freedonia Study at 110.

15
NAR, Sicad, Evotape, Vibac, Syrom, MAGRI, FABO, IRPLAST and TESA.84 These firms are estimated

to have a combined production capacity of about 5 billion square meters.85 Because of the failure of

many subject producers to respond to the Commission’s questionnaires, we are unable to quantify

precisely the unused production capacity of the subject producers. The Italian industry’s capacity

utilization rate, however, is estimated to be between 55 and 60 percent, leaving at least two billion square

meters of excess capacity available for export to the United States.86 Although the capacity utilization

rates for the two responding Italian producers ranged from *** percent from 2006 to 2008, there was ***

percent in January-September 2009.87 This same trend appears in the case of the nonsubject Italian

producer, which had a capacity utilization rate ranging from *** percent from 2006 to 2008 that

subsequently *** percent in January-September 2009.88 We find that the capacity utilization rates for

these Italian producers during January-September 2009 generally corroborate the capacity utilization rate

of 55 to 60 percent estimated for the Italian PSP tape industry.

Second, PSP tape manufacturing is highly capital-intensive.89 The automated adhesive coating

lines, slitters and spoolers, and film-making lines used in the production of PSP tape are all highly

specialized industrial process machines produced by small Italian manufacturers and sold to only a few

buyers in the industry in limited volumes.90 Moreover, producers need to apply innovations designed to

increase productivity, improve quality, or reduce waste, which requires that the production machines be

replaced long before they reach the end of their useful lives if the tape manufacturer is to remain

competitive.91 Therefore, Italian producers have an interest in covering their fixed costs in this capital

intensive industry, and this provides a strong incentive for the Italian producers to increase production

and capacity utilization by directing additional shipments of PSP tape to the United States if the finding

were revoked.92

 84 CR at IV-12, PR at IV-5. The data provided in the Freedonia Study cover all pressure sensitive adhesive tapes,

which is a much larger aggregation than the PSP tape covered in this review. CR at IV-18, PR at IV-7. 

 85 CR at IV-12 and n.18, PR at IV-5 and n.18.

 86 These figures are based on methodologies using three sources of data and analysis. The first methodology is

based on the capacity and production data from an Exxon/Mobil 2007 study. The second methodology estimates

production capacity based on 3M Italia’s production experience and its knowledge of the Italian tape industry. The

third methodology is based on another Exxon/Mobil study (October 2009). CR at IV-12 and n.18, PR at IV-5, and

n.18; see also Domestic Producers Posthearing Brief at 2-3 and Exhibits 1 and 2.

 87 CR/PR at Table IV-3. The capacity utilization rate for *** over the period and was *** percent in 2006, ***

percent in 2007, and *** percent in 2009. It was *** percent in January-September 2008 and *** percent in

January-September 2009. Id.

 88 CR/PR at Table IV-4. The capacity utilization rate *** was in *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, and

*** percent in 2008. It was *** percent in January-September 2008 and *** percent in January-September 2009. 

Id.

 89 Hearing Transcript at 24-25 (Helton); Domestic Producers Posthearing Brief at 10.

 90 Hearing Transcript at 59-60 (Anderson). Prominent Italian manufacturers of PSA tape converting equipment

include Sicad (also a major PSA tape manufacturer, “Eurocel”), Guzzetti, and Bobst. CR at I-23 and n.51, PR at I17 and n.51; Hearing Transcript at 24 (Helton).

 91 Hearing Transcript at 60 (Serra); at 59-60 (Anderson); and at 60 (Serra).

 92 The high capital intensity required at the high end of the hot melt PSP tape market -- a market segment the

domestic producers share with the large Italian PSP tape producers -- appears to be unsustainable for the Italian

producers if production capacity utilization remains in the 55-60 percent range for an extended period. Hearing

Transcript at 55 (Anderson); at 69 (Anderson); and at 63-64 (Helton). 

16
Third, the Italian PSP tape industry is highly export-oriented.93 Exports comprise the vast

majority of Italian PSP tape shipments, accounting for *** percent of total shipments in 2007.94 Italy

possesses the *** largest trade surplus in pressure sensitive tapes in the world.95 Information from the

original investigation also shows that the Italian industry was highly export-oriented.96

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

United States was the world’s second largest consumer of PSP tape in 2007 and, despite slow growth in

demand, is projected to remain one of the top PSP tape markets through 2017.97 Hot melt rubber-based

PSP tape accounts for the vast majority of the U.S. market, and 72 percent of Italian production capacity

is in rubber-based technology, which amounts to 3.3 billion square meters of PSP tape.98 Although the

European Union is currently the main market for Italian PSP tape exports, Italian producers have

substantial excess capacity and face competition in this market from other European PSP tape producers.99

In making our determination, we are mindful that three Italian producers of PSP tape have been

excluded from the antidumping finding.100 These three producers have not shipped significant quantities

of PSP tape to the United States during the period reviewed. This does not indicate, however, that other

Italian producers would not be interested in exporting to the U.S. market if the finding were revoked. 

Each of these three Italian producers has reasons, other than a lack of interest in the U.S. market, for not

exporting significantly to the United States.101 Therefore, we find that the low volume of subject imports

from January 2006 to September 2009 may be attributed to the restraining effects of the finding and that

the small volumes of imports from nonsubject Italian producers do not detract from our finding that the

subject Italian producers will likely perceive the U.S. market to be attractive.102

 93 CR at IV-13, PR at IV-5; and CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 94 CR at IV-13, PR at IV-5.

 95 CR at IV-12, PR at IV-5.

 96 Original Determination at 5 and 7 (Italian imports of PSP tape tripled in 1976, resulting in ***, and Italian

imports were 66 percent higher in interim 1977 than in interim 1976).

 97 CR/PR at Table IV-7. The Freedonia Study also indicates that Latin America, Eastern Europe, and

Africa/Mideast are fast growing markets, but much smaller than the United States. CR at IV-16, PR at IV-7;

Feedonia Study at 43. 

 98 CR at III-5 and n.8, PR at III-3 and n.8; Hearing Transcript at 68-69 (Serra).

 99 CR at IV-13, PR at IV-7. 

 100 These three Italian producers are Plasturopa, Autoadesivitialia, S.p.A. (“Autoadesivi”), and Boston, S.p.A.

(“Boston”). CR/PR at Table I-2 (tabular note).

 101 CR at IV-2 and n.3., PR at IV-2 and n.3. Autoadesivi was acquired by 3M Italia in 1985 and has concentrated

on different markets and specialty products so as not to compete with 3M’s U.S. production. Domestic Producers

Posthearing Brief, Response to Questions of Chairman Aranoff. Boston and Plasturopa produce specialty PSP tape

that is largely outside the scope of this review. Hearing Transcript at 40-41 (Neeley and Anderson).

 102 We have also considered the other economic factors enumerated in the statute that relate to our analysis of the

likely volume. The evidence in the record with respect to existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely

increases in inventories, is incomplete (due to lack of data from many foreign producers) or inconclusive. See

CR/PR at Tables IV-2, IV-3, and IV-4. There are no reported third country barriers to entry, and the limited

information available about the Italian industry does not permit us to make a finding whether product shifting is

likely.

17
Accordingly, based on the demonstrated ability of Italian PSP tape producers to increase imports

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

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

both in absolute terms and as a share of the U.S. market, would be significant in the event of revocation.

D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

1. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews

In the original investigation, the Commission found that subject imports consistently undersold

the domestic product for most of the period examined, resulting in lost sales and price depression.103 The

Commission found that domestic producers’ prices for PSP tape declined in the last three quarters of 1975

and the first half of 1976 because of continuing price reductions for subject imports. The Commission

found that the underselling by Italian imports of PSP tape had caused price depression, that prices had

remained at depressed levels since mid-1976, and that the price reductions that had taken place since early

1975 occurred despite substantial increases in unit production costs incurred by the domestic producers. 

Finally, the Commission found evidence of significant sales lost by domestic producers due to subject

imports.104

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

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

significant price suppression and depression.105

In the second five-year review, the Commission noted that PSP tape was a commodity product for

which purchasing decisions appeared to be based largely on price. It found that subject imports would

likely be sold at attractively low prices to U.S. purchasers in order to gain market share and that the

substantial excess capacity available to the Italian producers provided a strong incentive to price

aggressively. Consequently, the Commission concluded that prices for domestically produced PSP tape

in the United States would likely decline to a significant degree due to the effects of increased volumes of

highly substitutable subject imports offered at lower prices. As a result, the Commission found that

revocation would lead to significant price effects, including significant underselling by subject imports

and significant price suppression and depression, in the reasonably foreseeable future.106

2. The Current Review

Price remains an important factor in the purchase of PSP tape, with nearly all purchasers

reporting that price is “very important” to their purchasing decisions.107 As noted above, the domestic

like product and the subject imports are highly interchangeable.

The pricing data in this review indicate that, even under the discipline of the Treasury finding,

subject imports have continued to undersell domestically produced PSP tape in the majority of

 103 Original Determination at 6.

 104 Original Determination at 5-6 (Vice Chairman Parker and Commissioner Moore) and 7-8 (Commissioner

Ablondi).

 105 First Five-Year Review at 14-15.

 106 Second Five-Year Review at 14. 

 107 CR/PR at Table II-3.

18
comparisons. The Commission collected pricing data on four products.108 These products accounted for

49.2 percent of U.S. producers’ shipments and *** of U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports from

Italy during January 2008-September 2009.109 The data indicate that the subject imports undersold the

domestic like product in 18 of 31 quarterly comparisons, with margins of underselling ranging from

***.110

Quarterly prices for U.S.-produced PSP tape were fairly stable from January 2006 to September

2009. The limited price data for subject imports from Italy indicate that such prices often fluctuated

wildly over the same period.111

In view of the factors, discussed above, that will likely motivate producers of the subject

merchandise to increase shipments to the United States (i.e., unused subject capacity, export orientation of

the Italian producers, capital intensity of the PSP tape industry, and the size of the U.S. market) and the

degree of substitutability between subject and domestic PSP tape, subject producers in Italy are likely to

aggressively undersell to increase market share in the United States. This underselling is likely to result

in significant price effects in the event of revocation. Thus, given the likely significant volume of subject

imports, the importance of price in the PSP tape market, the interchangeability of subject imports and the

domestic like product, the adverse price effects of low-priced imports evident in the original

investigation,112 and the underselling that occurred during the period of this review even with the finding

in place, we conclude that, if the Treasury finding under review were revoked, significant volumes of

subject imports from Italy 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.

 108 CR at V-5 to V-6, PR at V-4.

 109 CR at at V-6, PR at V-4.

 110 CR at V-15, PR at V-6.

 111 CR at V-6, PR at V-5; and CR/PR at Tables V-1 through V-4 and Figure V-2.

 112 Original Determination at 6.

19
E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports113

1. The Commission’s Original Determination and Prior Reviews

In its original determination, the Commission found that the effect of the subject imports in

causing depressed prices and lost sales was reflected in the financial experience of the domestic industry. 

Specifically, the Commission found that the net operating results of the domestic industry had fallen

continuously from a substantial profit in 1974 to a substantial loss in 1976. The Commission also found

that the ratio of net operating profit to net sales ***. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the

domestic industry was being injured by reason of subject imports of PSP tape from Italy.114

In its first five-year review, the Commission explained that, in the absence of contrary evidence

or argument, it agreed with 3M’s argument that subject imports would have a significant adverse impact

on the domestic industry if the finding were revoked. The Commission further noted that, because PSP

tape accounts for only a small share of the value of the cartons and boxes that it is used to seal, decreased

prices for PSP tape would not stimulate additional demand, but rather would result in a shift to lowerpriced imports. This would result in lower market share for the domestic industry and a consequent

erosion in other financial, production and employment indicators.115

In its second five-year review, the Commission noted that there was little new information on the

condition of the domestic industry. 3M did not argue that the domestic industry was in poor condition or

that it faced difficulty from other sources. Nevertheless, the Commission agreed with 3M’s contention, in

the absence of contrary evidence or argument, that subject imports would have a significant adverse

impact on the domestic industry if the finding were revoked and that material injury would be likely to

recur. Specifically, the Commission found that decreased prices for PSP tape would not stimulate

additional demand because most PSP tape is used to seal cartons and boxes and the tape represents only a

small share of the value of the carton or box. Thus, even if imports from Italy gained some market share

at the expense of fairly traded imports and not the domestic product, a significant portion of the lost sales

nevertheless would be incurred by the domestic industry. The loss of this market share would likely

adversely impact the domestic industry’s revenues, production capacity utilization, and employment and

result in significant adverse effects on the industry’s financial condition. As a result, the Commission

 113 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 its expedited sunset review of the antidumping finding on PSP tape from Italy, Commerce found likely

antidumping duty margins of 10 percent for Comet SARA, S.p.A., Tyco Adhesives Italia, S.p.A., and all others. 74

Fed. Reg. at 40812. Italian producers Plasturopa, Autoadesivi, and Boston are excluded from the antidumping

finding on PSP tape from Italy. CR at Table I-2 (tabular note).

 114 Original Determination at 6 (Vice Chairman Parker and Commissioner Moore) and 8 (Commissioner

Ablondi).

 115 First Five-Year Review at 17.

20
concluded that subject imports would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic

industry within a reasonably foreseeable time if the antidumping duty finding were revoked.116

2. The Current Review

The condition of the domestic industry generally declined from 2006 to 2008 before improving

slightly in January-September 2009. U.S. production of PSP tape decreased from 2.30 billion square

yards in 2006 to 2.27 billion square yards in 2007 and 2.14 billion square yards in 2008. It was 1.68

billion square yards in January-September 2008 and 1.40 billion square yards in January-September

2009.117 The domestic industry’s production capacity increased from 2.98 billion square yards in 2006 to

3.22 billion square yards in 2007, before decreasing to 2.96 billion square yards in 2008. It was 2.22

billion square yards in January-September 2008 and 2.30 billion square yards in January-September 2009. 

Capacity utilization decreased from 77.0 percent in 2006 to 70.5 percent in 2007, before increasing to

72.3 percent in 2008. It was 75.8 percent in January-September 2008 and 61.1 percent in JanuarySeptember 2009.118

U.S. shipments decreased from 2.23 billion square yards in 2006 to 2.12 billion square yards in

2007 and 2.08 billion square yards in 2008. Shipments were 1.58 billion square yards in JanuarySeptember 2008 and 1.33 billion square yards in January-September 2009. Net sales decreased from 2.35

billion square yards in 2006 to 2.26 billion square yards in 2007 and 2.23 billion square yards in 2008,

and were 1.69 billion square yards in January-September 2008 and 1.40 billion square yards in JanuarySeptember 2009.

Domestic producers’ inventories declined from 259 million square yards in 2006 to 257 million

square yards in 2007 and 220 million square yards in 2008. Inventories were 240 million square yards in

January-September 2008 and 212 million square yards in January-September 2009.119

The domestic industry’s employment-related indicators showed a similar pattern of decline. The

industry’s production and related workers (PRWs) declined from 623 in 2007 to 611 in 2008 and 596 in

2008. The number of PRWs was 596 in January-September 2008 and 555 in January-September 2009. 

The number of hours worked decreased from 1.12 million in 2006 to 1.08 million in 2008. The hours

worked were 810,000 in January-September 2008 and 720,000 in January-September 2009.120

The domestic industry’s financial performance followed a similar pattern, with declines that

preceded the economic downturn. The industry’s operating income increased from $53 million in 2006 

 116 Second Five-Year Review at 16-17.

 117 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 118 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 119 CR/PR at Table III-5. The ratio of domestic producers’ inventories to U.S. shipments increased from ***

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

In the original investigation, the ratio of inventories to U.S. shipments was markedly higher than the ratio

reported during the period for which data were collected in the current review. The ratio of inventories to total

shipments in the original investigation was *** percent in 1973, *** percent in 1974, *** percent in 1975, and ***

percent in 1976. USITC Pub. 830 at A-18.

The decline in inventories over the period in this review is attributable to increased efficiencies in the

distribution processes and just-in-time delivery practices implemented by the domestic producers. For example, ***. 

CR at III-8, PR at III-5.

 120 CR/PR at Table C-1. Productivity (square yards/hour) increased from 2,039 in 2006 to 2,097 in 2007, before

declining to 1,988 in 2008. It was 2,081 in January-September 2008 and 1,946 January-September 2009. Id.

21
to $56 million in 2007, before declining to $38 million in 2008. Operating income was $35 million in

January-September 2008 and $55 million in January-September 2009.121 The industry’s operating income

margin increased from 11.0 percent in 2006 to 11.9 percent in 2007, before declining to 8.2 percent in

2009. It was 9.7 percent in January-September 2008 and 17.3 percent in January-September 2009.122 123

Based on the record in these reviews, we conclude that revocation of the finding would likely

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

significantly suppress or depress U.S. prices. Most PSP tape sold in the U.S. market is used to seal

cartons and boxes, and the tape represents only a small share of the value of the cartons and boxes. 

Therefore, decreased prices for PSP tape would not stimulate additional demand, but would likely cause

purchasers to switch to lower-priced subject imports. A significant portion of any gain in market share by

the subject imports after revocation would likely come at the domestic industry’s expense. Thus, we find

that the volume and price effects of the subject imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on

the production, shipments, sales, market share, and revenues of the domestic industry. Declines in these

indicators of industry performance would have a direct adverse impact on the industry’s profitability and

employment as well as its ability to raise capital and to make and maintain the capital investments that are

essential for this capital-intensive industry.124 Accordingly, we conclude that, if the antidumping duty

 121 The industry’s capital expenditures *** from $*** in 2006 to $*** in 2007 and $*** in 2009. Capital

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

 122 The significant declines in raw material costs associated with low oil and natural gas prices were a substantial

factor in the improvement in the domestic industry’s financial performance in the January-September 2009 period. 

CR at III-15, PR at III-8. Similar conditions in the energy market favorable to the domestic industry are not likely to

recur in the reasonably foreseeable future.

 123 Based on these trends, we do not find that the domestic industry is in a weakened state despite some declining

performance and increased competition from nonsubject imports during the period. We therefore do not find that the

domestic industry is vulnerable to the likely volume and price effects of the subject imports.

 124 Commissioner Lane notes that the Commission was able to obtain information regarding the estimated impact

of revocation of the finding from the domestic industry. 3M estimated that revocation would result in a volume

impact of minus *** percent and a price impact of minus *** percent. Applying these percentages to its revenue,

and considering the fixed and variable nature of its operating costs, 3M further estimated that these potential results

of revocation would have reduced its operating income from $*** in January-September 2009 to ***. For JanuarySeptember 2008, 3M estimated that these potential results of revocation would have reduced its operating income

from $*** to ***. Applying 3M’s estimated volume and price impacts and estimated cost effects to the entire

industry would result in similar movement of net operating income to a net loss.

These estimates are affected by 3M’s assumptions which hold other factory costs and SG&A expenses

fixed. It could be argued that these assumptions overstate the negative impacts calculated by 3M. However, even if

extreme assumptions in the other direction were made, that other factory costs and SG&A expenses varied directly

with sales volumes, the calculations would still show a significant negative impact on 3M’s net operating results. 

Assuming that other factory expenses and SG&A expenses would have varied directly with sales volumes and

recalculating 3M’s schedule accordingly, 3M’s operating income in January-September 2009 would have dropped

from $*** to $***, a decrease of *** percent. Similarly, 3M’s operating income in January-September 2008 would

have dropped from $*** to ***.

Commissioner Lane further notes that 3M indicated that it may ameliorate the negative impact on its

operating income by *** in the face of a *** percent drop in sales. Commissioner Lane finds that offsetting the

negative impact of revocation on the producers’ operating income by reducing work force or labor costs does not

alter the potential negative impacts on the domestic industry as a whole. Such labor impacts would simply transfer a 

(continued...)

22
finding were revoked, subject imports from Italy would likely have a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

We have considered the likely effects of nonsubject imports in the U.S. market. The U.S. market

share of nonsubject imports, by volume, rose from 15.3 percent in 2006 to 18.2 percent in 2007, before

declining to 17.6 percent in 2008. It was 18.2 percent in January-September 2008 and 20.1 percent in

January-September 2009.125 These nonsubject imports are primarily acrylic PSP tape and have come

mainly from China, Taiwan, and Indonesia.126 We find that the increasing presence of these nonsubject

imports has heightened price sensitivity in the PSP tape market. In addition, given the size of the U.S.

market, the presence of significant nonsubject imports from Asian producers does not diminish the

attractiveness of the U.S. market to Italian PSP tape producers. Moreover, the impact of increased subject

imports will likely fall disproportionately on the domestic industry because both the Italian and U.S.

producers focus on hot melt products, while the nonsubject imports from Asia are largely acrylic

products.127 Accordingly, we find that subject imports of PSP tape from Italy are likely to have a

significant adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation of the antidumping duty

finding, notwithstanding the presence of nonsubject imports in the U.S. market.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty finding on PSP tape

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

United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

 124 (...continued)

portion of the negative impact on the producers’ income to a negative impact on domestic workers. 

Commissioner Lane notes that 3M’s estimate that the subject imports could capture *** percent of the

domestic industry’s market is consistent with the market share levels achieved by the subject imports prior to the

imposition of the antidumping finding. If the subject imports captured *** percent of domestic deliveries and

nonsubject imports, along with their current levels, subject imports would achieve an approximate *** percent

market share. This is consistent with the market shares of *** percent achieved by subject imports during the

original period of investigation. Such a level of market share is also a reasonable estimate, considering the capacity

of the Italian producers.

 125 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 126 CR at IV-17, PR at IV-7.

 127 CR at III-5, III-6, IV-12 and IV-17, PR at III-3, IV-5, and IV-7.

23
 
DISSENTING VIEWS OF CHAIRMAN SHARA L. ARANOFF, VICE CHAIRMAN DANIEL R.

PEARSON AND COMMISSIONER DEANNA TANNER OKUN

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

of 1930, as amended, that revocation of the antidumping duty finding on pressure sensitive plastic tape

(“PSP tape”) from Italy 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.

We join the Views of the Commission concerning background, domestic like product, domestic

industry, the legal standard governing five-year reviews, and conditions of competition. We write

separately, however, with respect to our analysis and determination that revocation of the antidumping

duty finding regarding subject imports from Italy would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence

of material injury to the domestic PSP tape industry.

I. Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Finding on Subject Imports from Italy Is Not Likely

to Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury to the Domestic Industry

The conditions of competition for the U.S. PSP tape industry today are dramatically different

from those that existed 33 years ago when the original antidumping finding was made in 1977. During

the period of the original investigation, the U.S. PSP tape industry was relatively small and less

established than the larger Italian PSP tape industry.1

 Demand for PSP tape during the 1973-1976 period

was beginning to build in the United States2

 and the established Italian PSP tape industry gained an

increasing share of the developing U.S. PSP tape market.3

Between the original antidumping duty finding in 1977 and the time of the first and second fiveyear reviews in 1999 and 2004, respectively, substantial changes occurred in the conditions of

competition in the U.S. and world markets. Demand in the U.S. market for PSP tape escalated and the

U.S. PSP tape industry significantly increased its share of the burgeoning U.S. market at the expense of

 1 The U.S. PSP tape industry’s production was only *** square yards in 1973 increasing to *** square yards in

1976. CR/PR at Table I-1. Subject imports from Italy were 8.6 million square yards in 1973 increasing to 30.6

million square yards in 1976. Id. The PSP tape industry in Europe (Italy and West Germany) was developed in the

early 1960's to replace gummed paper tape, which was becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to produce

since the basic raw materials for paper tape (wood pulp and kraft paper) had to be imported from timber-rich

countries (e.g., the United States and Canada) and the cost of this raw material was steadily increasing. Since plastic

film was readily available in Europe, its use and acceptance increased rapidly, and it virtually replaced gummed

paper sealing tape in European markets. Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from West Germany, Inv. No. AA1921-

168, USITC Pub. 831 at A-36 (Sept. 1977) (Shortly after issuing its determination in the Italian case, the

Commission made a negative determination regarding subject imports from West Germany; the staff report for both

investigations is included in USITC Pub. 831). Although U.S. firms had produced PSP tape for many years, several

large domestic producers increased their production of PSP tape in the early 1970s and began selling it primarily to

the carton-sealing market. The rising demand for PSP tape in the U.S. market during the period of the original

investigation was primarily the result of changing market conditions which caused consumers to switch from the

traditional methods of sealing cartons (i.e., gummed paper tape and staples) to PSP tape. USITC Pub. 831 at A-12.

 2

 Apparent U.S. consumption increased from *** square yards in 1973 to *** square yards in 1976. CR/PR at

Table I-1.

 3

 The U.S. market share held by the subject imports from Italy was: *** in 1973, *** in 1974, *** in 1975, and

*** in 1976. CR/PR at Table I-1. The domestic producers’ U.S. market share was: *** in 1973, *** in 1974, *** in

1975, and *** in 1976. Id.

25
both the subject and nonsubject imports.4

 Thus, the U.S. PSP tape industry is in a very different position

today than it was at the time of the original antidumping duty finding in 1977. The U.S. industry is large,

holds a dominant share of the U.S. market, uses state of the art production technology, has been

profitable, and makes substantial investments to maintain its competitive position.

While many of the changes in the conditions of competition occurred between the original

investigation and the first or second five-year reviews, the relevant conditions in the second review,5

 as

also discussed in the sections that we join in the majority opinion, have remained the same during the

period covered by this third five-year review: domestic producers’ dominance of the U.S. market,

consolidation of U.S. production, and increased significance of nonsubject imports as a share of total

imports in the U.S. market. Thus, in this review, when we consider the conditions of competition, we

find that the U.S. PSP tape industry starts from a position of strength compared to what it faced during the

period of the original investigation.

Domestic producers consistently held about an 80 percent share of the U.S. market during the

period examined in the third review, in sharp contrast to the *** share of the U.S. market that they held

during the original period of investigation.6

 Four domestic producers accounted for about *** of U.S.

production of PSP tape in 2008, with production concentrated in ***.7

 While domestic producers’

original increase in market share was at the expense of both subject and nonsubject imports, nonsubject

imports have continued to maintain a significant presence in the U.S. market during the period examined

in this review.8

During this review, there also have been some changes in the conditions of competition involving

demand and shifts in product mix and supply sources in the U.S. market. The primary use for PSP tape –

to seal cartons or corrugated boxes – has remained the same.9

 However, after the 30-fold increase in 

 4 In 1997, apparent U.S. consumption of PSP tape had increased 30-fold to *** square yards. CR/PR at Table I1.

 5

 Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Inv. No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 at 13-23

(June 2004) (“Second Five-Year Review”). Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun did not participate in

the original PSP tape investigations or first five-year review. Chairman Aranoff did not participate in the original

PSP tape investigations or the subsequent first and second five-year reviews.

In the second five-year review, Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun determined that

revocation of the finding on PSP tape from Italy would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material

industry to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. In doing so, they found that the

PSP tape market had changed both from the original investigation and since the first five-year review. These

substantial changes in the market, including changes with regard to the number and composition of firms,

concentration of production, domestic producers’ significant increase in share of the U.S. market, subject imports

decreased significance relative to total imports, and the substantial growth in demand for PSP tape, made the

domestic industry less susceptible to injury if the finding was revoked. USITC Pub. 3698 at 17-19.

 6

 CR/PR at Table I-1 and C-1. The domestic industry’s U.S. market share was: 84.2 percent in 2006, 80.6

percent in 2007, 81.5 percent in 2008, 80.8 percent in interim 2008, and 79.4 percent in interim 2009. Id.

 7

 CR at I-25-26 and Table I-5. The share of reported U.S. production for these four firms is: ***. Id.

 8

 CR at Table I-1.

 9

 CR at I-19 and II-6; PR at I-16 and II-4.

26
apparent U.S. consumption between the original investigation and the first review, apparent U.S.

consumption was stable from 2006 to 2008, and market estimates and projections in the record of this

review consider the U.S. market to be large, but relatively slow growing.10

PSP tapes are distinguished by the types of adhesives – hot melt, acrylic, or natural rubber –

applied to the tape backing.11 Hot melt PSP tapes, which account for the largest share of the U.S. carton

sealing tape market, are more expensive to produce and generally sell at higher prices than acrylic tapes.12

As some consumers have been willing to trade off some of the better qualities of hot-melt PSP tape for

less expensive acrylic tape, the market share for hot-melt tape is decreasing with corresponding increases

in the market share of acrylic tape.13 Until recently, the U.S. PSP tape industry has focused on the

production of hot melt PSP tape while nonsubject suppliers, primarily acrylic PSP tape producers in

China, Taiwan, and Indonesia, have made inroads in the U.S. market.14 In response to the increasing

demand for acrylic PSP tapes, both 3M and Intertape have resumed production of this tape in the United

States, which they had historically imported from Asian suppliers.15 Similar to the U.S. industry, PSP

tape production in Italy reportedly is focused largely in the hot-melt segment.16

We find that these conditions in the PSP tape market are likely to persist in the reasonably

foreseeable future and have taken them into consideration in our analysis. For the reasons discussed

below, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty finding on subject imports from Italy would

not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a

reasonably foreseeable time.

A. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

The Commission is to consider whether the likely volume of subject imports would be significant

either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States if the finding under

review were revoked. In so doing, the Commission shall consider “all relevant economic factors,”

including four enumerated in the statute: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused

 10 CR at II-6, IV-16, and Tables I-8 and IV-7; PR at II-4, IV-7, and Tables I-8 and IV-7. We note that apparent

U.S. consumption is understated in this review due to the incomplete information on nonsubject imports. CR at II-6,

n. 7; PR at II-4, n. 7.

 11 CR at III-5; PR at III-2.

 12 CR at III-5 and n. 8; PR at III-3 and n. 8. Hot melt tape accounts for approximately *** of the U.S. market. Id.

 13 CR at III-6; PR at III-3; Hearing Tr. at 10, 70 (“And the hot-melt is declining. . . because of the acrylic taking

over and more on the lower end coming in.”), and 82 (acrylics were “very small, one or two percent, so they’ve

grown very steadily over the last 10 to 15 years to the point where they’re nearly 20 percent.”).

 14 CR at III-5 and III-6; PR at III-3.

 15 CR at III-6; PR at III-3; Hearing Tr. at 10-11 (“For many years, 3M has not been a significant producer of

acrylic tape because the Asian competitors from China, Indonesia and Taiwan have such low prices we concluded

that competition was not feasible, so for that generally low end of the market all domestic companies have been hit

hard by Asian competition.”), 12 (“Finally, we decided to bring some of the production of acrylic products back to

the United States from Asia. We did so despite the fact that the cost of producing product in the United States is

actually higher than purchasing from Asia. . . . But Asian producers still remain a major factor in the acrylic end of

the market. The U.S. industry has largely been driven out of this segment of the market, and we do not see the

Asians going away. Instead, we think that this side of the market will continue to be very competitive and we’ll

have to fight hard to maintain our production in the United States.”), 30 (“IPG decided to move our acrylic tape

production back here to the United States from China again to help cover our fixed costs for capacity utilization.”),

and 67.

 16 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 12 and 24.

27
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 in

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

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

produce other products.17

Our focus in this review is whether subject import volume is likely to be significant in the

reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping duty finding is revoked.18 In performing our analysis,

we have taken into account the Commission’s previous volume findings with respect to the subject

imports from Italy. In the original determination, the Commission found that subject imports from Italy

had increased 169 percent from 1975 to 1976, from 11.4 million square yards in 1975 to 30.6 million

square yards in 1976. It further found that the U.S. market share held by subject imports from Italy rose

from *** in 1975 to *** in 1976, by quantity. By the time of the first and second reviews, imports from

Italy accounted for only approximately *** of apparent U.S. consumption in 1997 and 2003,

respectively.19 In the second review, Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun recognized the

significant increases in production capacity in Italy since the original investigation. However, they found

that events between the original finding in 1977 and the second review in 2004, including the focus of the

Italian producers on the expanded European Union market,20 as well as the evidence that nonsubject

Italian imports have been virtually absent from the U.S. market even after the findings were revoked for

two Italian producers (in 1988 and 1990), indicated that imports from Italy would not reenter the U.S.

market in significant volumes if the remaining findings were revoked.21

The U.S. and worldwide PSP tape markets have changed substantially in the 33 years since the

original antidumping duty finding. We recognize that the Italian PSP tape industry is large, sophisticated,

and has excess capacity.22 However, there is no indication that subject producers intend to, or even have

the ability to, reenter the U.S. market in significant volumes. Specifically, we do not find that the Italian

PSP tape producers have an export incentive to reduce their excess capacity at any cost. Italian producers

attempting to increase imports into the U.S. market will face a dominant, more competitive U.S. industry

and a far different U.S. market than the one that existed in the 1970s when the Italian imports were able to

undercut the developing U.S. industry. Italian imports, primarily in the hot-melt segment, would also be 

 17 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

 18 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 19 Subject imports were estimated in the first review to account for *** of apparent U.S. consumption. CR/PR at

Table I-1. The record in the second review indicated that total imports from Italy accounted for approximately 1

percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2003, based on estimates provided by 3M (3M Submission at 3), with

imports subject to the finding likely accounting for less than 1 percent. USITC Pub. 3698 at 20.

 20 As discussed further below, at the time of the original investigation in 1977, the European Union – the unified

European market for 27 member states – did not exist.

 21 USITC Pub. 3698 at 19-21.

 22 According to a 2009 industry study, Italy is the dominant European supplier of corrugated case sealing tapes

and the *** largest tape producer behind China and the United States, with Taiwan estimated to overtake Italy for

the world’s *** position by 2012. CR at IV-12; PR at IV-5, citing World Pressure Sensitive Tapes, Industry Study

2451, The Freedonia Group, Inc. February 2009 at 110 and 112 (“Freedonia Study”). This industry study includes a

wide range of pressure sensitive tapes that are outside the narrow scope of this review. Despite being the *** largest

worldwide supplier of corrugated case sealing tapes, *** pressure sensitive adhesive tape (a larger aggregation than

carton sealing tapes and the subject product of this review) producers by worldwide sales. CR/PR at Table IV-8.

28
confronted with competition with the expanding market for acrylic PSP tape supplied primarily by

nonsubject imports and the disadvantages of selling in the U.S. market with the euro currency at

historically high levels.23

The precise size of the PSP tape industry in Italy and the extent of its excess capacity is not clear. 

Using industry studies involving a wider range of pressure sensitive tapes, domestic producers estimate

that the Italian production capacity is about 5 billion square meters, production of PSP tape is 3 billion

square meters, with a capacity utilization rate of 55 to 60 percent and thus there is excess capacity of at

least 2 billion square meters.24 They contend that the Italian producers would likely export about onequarter of that excess capacity, or about 500 million square meters annually, to the U.S. market if the

finding is revoked.25 Italian producers of subject product, however, reported substantially higher capacity

utilization levels for PSP tape producers in questionnaire responses submitted to the Commission. The

reported capacity utilization levels from subject producers on the narrowly defined product subject to this

review ranged from a low of ***, which suggest that there is substantially less excess capacity for PSP

tape production in Italy than the Domestic Producers’ estimate.26 These questionnaire responses also

reported that the Italian market constitutes the largest market share for PSP tape produced in Italy,

accounting for no less than *** of all shipments, followed closely by the EU market, which represented

no less than *** during the period examined.27

The record does not indicate that Italy’s current or potential production would be directed to the

United States instead of its home market and other EU member country markets. In fact, domestic

producers’ assertions that subject imports likely would increase focus primarily on their estimated level of

excess capacity and alleged need to improve variable costs rather than alleging that Italian producers

would shift exports from other markets to the U.S. market.28 According to domestic producers, the Italian

 23 CR/PR at Figure V-2.

 24 Domestic Producers’ Posthearing Brief at 2-3. In the second review, 3M estimated that the Italian industry had

significantly increased production from an estimated *** square meters in 1997 to an estimated 3.6 billion square

meters in 2003, and that estimated Italian capacity utilization stood at 60 percent in 2003, with production capacity

about 6 billion square meters. USITC Pub. 3698 at Table I-5. If the Domestic Producers’ estimate here is compared

to 3M’s estimate in the second review, Italian production capacity is 1 billion square meters less in 2009 than 3M

estimated it to be in 2003.

 25 Domestic Producers’ Posthearing Brief at 3; see also Hearing Tr. at 41 (“Out of the 30 roughly PSA tape

manufacturers in Italy, there’s probably 10 that would be the most critical that have the highest level of capacity. As

I look at these, there’s at least four that have very large amounts of capacity and would have a great deal of capacity

available.”).

 26 CR at II-5 and Table IV-3; PR at II-3 and Table IV-3. Responding subject Italian producers reported a capacity

utilization rate of *** in interim 2008 and *** in interim 2009. Id. Nonsubject Italian producer, Plasturopa,

reported *** capacity utilization levels, ranging from a low of *** in 2006 to a high of *** in 2008; its capacity

utilization rate was *** in interim 2008 and *** in interim 2009. CR/PR at Table IV-4. These questionnaire

responses, based on Domestic Producers’ estimates for total Italian capacity, accounted for about *** of Italian

production capacity.

 27 CR at IV-7 and Table IV-3; PR at IV-4 and Table IV-3. Data for nonsubject Italian producer, Plasturopa,

similarly reflect a *** of sales to the EU market. Id. at Table IV-4. According to the Freedonia Study, *** of Italian

pressure sensitive tape shipments were to its home market in 2007, and roughly *** of its export shipments (*** of

its total shipments) were to *** European countries – ***, with the European market as the largest destination for

Italian tapes. CR at IV-13 and Table IV-6; PR at IV-5-6 and Table IV-6.

 28 Hearing Tr. at 50-51 (in response to a question asking if their argument was not that any product from Italy that

currently is being sold in Europe would be likely to be shifted to the U.S. market but that their argument specifically

involved excess capacity, the response was: “That’s right.”).

29
producers have every incentive to sell their product in the United States at extremely low prices in order

to gain market share in the United States and reduce their excess capacity to improve their profit and loss

statements.29

First, we find the certified questionnaire responses from Italian PSP tape producers credible and

therefore are not persuaded by Domestic Producers’ estimates as to the Italian industry's capacity

utilization levels. Even if we accept that certain of the responding Italian producers are atypical of the

Italian industry as a whole with regards to product mix, there is no evidence on the record to suggest that

3M Italia is in any way not representative of the overall Italian industry in product mix, nor is there

anything on the record to indicate that 3M Italia's high capacity utilization levels are in any way nonrepresentative or atypical of overall Italian industry capacity utilization levels. Moreover, we find that

Domestic Producers have not provided any basis for us to consider as not credible the capacity data

provided by *** on its PSP tape production operations and see no reason to replace it with their estimate

of *** based on broader market intelligence.30

Second, we are not persuaded by Domestic Producers’ contention that the Italian firms would

have an export incentive to reduce excess capacity and sell at low prices to cover total variable costs

rather than maximize profits in the same manner as the U.S. PSP tape producers operate.31 The domestic

and Italian producers of PSP tape are operating with the same technology, the same globally traded input

costs, and very similar product mixes. The domestic industry has operated profitably at a level of

capacity utilization lower than the level that Domestic Producers argue the Italian industry would be

compelled to increase production and sell at variable costs to achieve.32 In fact, upon questioning by the

Commission, Domestic Producers acknowledged that the Italian producers would not “need to be at 100

percent” capacity utilization, but rather “will attempt to sell enough to get into a 65% or greater level to

optimize P&L’s compared to current.”33 Thus, the evidence does not support the Domestic Producers’ 

 29 Domestic Producers’ Posthearing Brief at 9-11 (“As Mr. Helton testified, it ‘would make perfect sense for them

to increase production and then sell the product at their total variable cost plus a slight contribution to the fixed cost

absorption.’” Id. at 10.). Domestic producers argue that the “similarity of the U.S. and Italian markets, and the

underutilization of capacity in Italy, makes it compelling for Italian producers to target the U.S. market, in the

absence of the antidumping order.” They maintain that “the European market is not sufficiently large to absorb all of

Italy’s capacity, especially considering that Italy faces competition in the European market from other E.U.

producers, including producers in Germany and France.” Domestic Producers’ Posthearing Brief at 4.

 30 Hearing Tr. at 124-125 (“they’re utterly and completely different. Absolutely, they’re not even close. Can I

explain that? No.”); Domestic Producers’ Posthearing Brief, Answers to Chairman Aranoff Question 3.

 31 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 24-25 (“Italian producers are only at 55 to 60 percent capacity utilization . . . .It would

make perfect sense for them to increase production and then sell the product at their total variable cost plus a slight

contribution to the fixed cost absorption. . . .so they can improve their P&L by selling into the U.S. at less than total

factory cost and forego a typical gross margin contribution. Italian producers therefore have an incentive to sell at

low prices in order to increase their capacity utilization and move toward running their equipment in a more efficient

way of 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”).

 32 The domestic industry’s capacity utilization rate was 77.0 percent in 2006, 70.5 percent in 2007, 72.3 percent in

2008, 75.8 percent in interim 2008, and 61.1 percent in interim 2009. The industry’s operating income margin

ranged from a low of 8.2 percent in 2008 to a high of 17.3 percent in interim 2009. CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 33 Hearing Tr. at 95; Domestic Producers’ Posthearing Brief, Answers to Chairman Aranoff Question 1 (“The

Italian companies are in the 55% utilization zone which is probably cash flow acceptable; but not in a healthy

sustainable zone. Hence the concern that they will attempt to sell enough to get into a 65% or greater level to

optimize P&L’s compared to current.”). Domestic Producers acknowledged that capacity utilization levels of 65

percent would ensure profitability and argued that “around the mid-80 % area to yield profitability that would spur

true growth.” Id.

30
contentions that the Italian PSP tape producers have an incentive to export to the U.S. market at variable

costs in order to reduce any excess capacity.

The evidence in the record of this review also demonstrates that imports from Italy would be

faced with a very different U.S. market than existed in the 1970s and would have to compete with a

dominant, well-established, and profitable U.S. PSP tape industry as well as nonsubject suppliers in the

expanding acrylic segment of the market. Thus, we find that the significant changes in both the U.S.

market and subject producers’ home market indicate that subject imports would not be likely to increase

in significant volumes if the finding is revoked. The original antidumping finding appears to have had a

significant impact on the level of imports, and thus the market share of PSP tape from Italy. During the

period examined in this review, subject import volume fluctuated, and accounted for at most 1.2 percent

of the U.S. market.34 Thus, the record indicates that subject imports from Italy continue to constitute a

small portion of the U.S. market, particularly in comparison to the dominant share maintained by

domestic producers and the increases in market presence of nonsubject imports during the period

examined. The domestic industry had reaped significant benefits from the explosive growth in domestic

consumption between the original investigation and first review, and gained substantial market share at

the expense of subject and nonsubject imports. The U.S. market, since the period of the original

investigation, has consistently been dominated by domestic producers and, to a lesser extent, nonsubject

suppliers that combined held almost *** of apparent U.S. consumption during the period of this review;

this is in stark contrast to the situation in 1976 during the original investigation when U.S. producers and

subject imports held *** share of apparent U.S. consumption.35 The U.S. industry’s extensive, and

consistently maintained, share in the large U.S. market signifies that imports from Italy are likely to face

strong competition from U.S. and nonsubject suppliers, and are not likely to increase to significant levels

nor lead to any adverse effect if the finding is revoked.36

As discussed above, the acrylic segment of the U.S. PSP tape market, which generally has been

supplied by nonsubject sources, is increasing. Similar to the U.S. industry, PSP tape production in Italy

reportedly is focused largely in the hot-melt segment and Italian exports would have to contend with the

increasing willingness of customers to consider purchasing more product at the lower end of the market.37

Italian imports also would have the extra burden of competing in the U.S. market with the euro at

historically high levels relative to the U.S. dollar. We consider the current high level of the euro to be an 

 34 During the period examined in this review, subject imports’ share of the U.S. market was: 0.5 percent in 2006,

1.2 percent in 2007, and 0.8 percent in 2008. CR/PR at Table I-1.

 35 CR/PR at Table I-1. Domestic Producers’ share of the U.S. market was: *** in 1976, *** in 1997, and 81.5

percent in 2008. Subject imports’ share of the U.S. market was: *** in 1976, *** in 1997, and 0.8 percent in 2008. 

Nonsubject import’s share of the U.S. market was: *** in 1976, *** in 1997, and *** in 2008. Id.

 36 Another deterrent to entry of Italian-produced PSP tape into the U.S. market in the reasonably foreseeable

future are qualification requirements by domestic purchasers. Six of the ten responding purchaser questionnaires

stated that they required certification or prequalification of the PSP tape they bought. CR at II-9; PR at II-7; see also

Hearing Tr. at 44 (Domestic Producers indicated that their industrial customers "very much look at the specifications

and do testing . . . ."). Combined with the relatively smaller size of the private label segment in which Domestic

Producers assert the Italian producers will be competing, these qualification requirements indicate that any increase

in Italian imports likely would be much smaller than Domestic Producers' estimates.

 37 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 12 and 24; see also Id. at 50 (majority of Italian produced products are “high end type

products produced in Italy that would go to other markets outside of that.”).

31
added deterrent to Italian exports to the U.S. market,38 rather than the incentive to export at dumped

prices, as the Domestic Producers have alleged.39

Domestic Producers proposed that the channel of entry for Italian PSP tape imports if the finding

was revoked would be to "go to the private labels first and foremost."40 The private label segment of the

U.S. market is estimated by Domestic Producers to be about 25 percent of the total market.41 Thus, the

Domestic Producers' projected market dynamic relies on the Italian PSP tape imports entering the smaller

segment of the U.S. market, which likely would make achieving Domestic Producers’ projected levels of

imports difficult to realize in the reasonably foreseeable future.

Moreover, the Italian share of the U.S. market has remained insignificant notwithstanding

Commerce’s revocation of the finding on two Italian companies, Autoadesivi, S.p.A. in 1988 and Boston

S.p.A. in 1990,42 and the relatively low dumping margins for all Italian producers and exporters since the

original finding in 1977.43 We recognize that Domestic Producers contend that these Italian producers are

atypical because they may focus on specialized products or no longer produce substantial volumes of 

 38 Hearing Tr. at 60 (“if people were profit maximizing, if that was what they were trying to do, then certainly a

strong currency in Europe, a high euro, would work against selling to the United States. . . .The question I think that

you have ask yourself is are they really profit maximizing in the sense of per unit profit or are the Italians likely to

do what our witnesses testified to, which is to try to cover their fixed costs, some of their fixed costs, cover their

variable costs and makes some contribution to fixed costs, which is a rational business decision which maximizes

profits overall for the corporation without necessarily and probably won’t maximize per unit profits. Because we

don’t think that’s what they’re trying to do. Sure it works against them to have a high euro. They’d like to have it

lower in terms of maximizing profitability, but we don’t think that’s what it’s about.”) and 62 (“We agree there’s

less incentive, but we still think there’s plenty of incentive even with a high euro I guess is what we’re saying.”)

 39 Domestic Producers contend that “[t]o sell in the U.S. market with a strong euro, they inevitably will dump

their product.” Domestic Producers’ Prehearing Brief at 19.

 40 Domestic Producers’ Posthearing Brief at 9 (citing Hearing Tr. at 106) (Domestic Producers state that large

U.S. distributors "want more private label business now . . . .") and n. 19 (citing Hearing Tr. at 108) (The best Italian

"marketing strategy," according to the Domestic Producers, "would be first the distribution private label programs,

industrial distribution . . . ."); see also Hearing Tr. at 107 (The Italian producers, according to the Domestic

Producers, would "go to the private label and plant to establish private label sales, and that's where the industrial

customers, the buyers themselves would see that." They admit that for the Italian producers to reach the retail

market in the United States, it "would probably take a little bit longer for them . . . ."). The Domestic Producers

envision that the Italians would first use "large distributors such as Horizon and ATP, as well as Xpedx and Uline"

and "big box stores and private label sales" to swiftly reestablish a significant presence in the U.S. market. Domestic

Producers’ Posthearing Brief at 8-9 (citing Tr. at 13).

 41 Hearing Tr. at 106 (“I would guess it’s probably 75/25 branded versus private labels. . . . That’s fair.”).

 42 CR at I-3 and I-4; PR at I-2 and I-3.

 43 In the original antidumping duty findings, the U.S. Department of Treasury (“Treasury”) found weighed

average margins of: 9.9 percent for Manuli Tapes S.p.A., 9 percent for Boston Tapes S.p.A., and 11 percent for

Comet S.p.A.. Treasury also excluded Plasturopa-SIPA S.A.S (“Plasturopa”) from its antidumping duty finding. 

CR at I-3; PR at I-2. During administrative reviews, conducted between 1980 and 1999, the U.S. Department of

Commerce (“Commerce”) has calculated dumping margins ranging from 0.0 percent to 12.66 percent. CR/PR at

Table I-2. In its first, second, and third five-year reviews, Commerce calculated all dumping margin as 10 percent. 

Id. at Table I-3.

32
subject imports.44 However, we are not persuaded by the Domestic Producers’ arguments that Italian

imports are likely to enter the U.S. market at low prices. The record shows that Italian imports have not

reentered the U.S. market even as demand in United States increased substantially, despite being subject

to relatively low dumping margins since the original findings. We find that the fact that Italian imports

have not returned to any significant degree to the U.S. market in the 33 years since the original

antidumping duty finding provides additional evidence that the U. S. market is not, nor likely would be, a

primary export market for Italian PSP tape in the reasonably foreseeable future if the finding is revoked.

Many shifts in global trade patterns have occurred since the original investigation and most

important, regarding Italian PSP tape, is the major political and economic development that changed the

character and composition of the European market after 1976. Specifically, since the original

investigation, the European Union has grown from nine member states to 27 member states. Moreover,

the EU further integrated the economies by beginning to circulate a common currency, the euro, on

January 1, 2002.45 This expansion represented a massive new market potential for Italian PSP tape

producers. In essence, European demand for Italian PSP tape had increased simply through the expansion

of the EU. Italy’s primary market is the EU, and the EU is likely to remain the primary market of Italian

PSP tape producers, given the duty-free advantages it provides. Evidence in the record of this review,

moreover, demonstrates that large global suppliers tend to regionally source in the market where the

operations are located.46

Because the domestic market is dominated by U.S. producers and by nonsubject suppliers, and

because the record demonstrates that at least some Italian suppliers are focused on the EU market, we find

that revocation of the antidumping finding is not likely to lead to an increase in the volume of subject

imports such that the likely volume of subject imports would be significant. For all of these reasons, and

taking into consideration our findings above concerning the conditions of competition that are distinctive

to this industry, we do not find it likely that the volume of imports of subject PSP tape from Italy would

be significant, in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States, within a

reasonably foreseeable time in the event of revocation of the antidumping duty finding.

B. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the antidumping duty finding is

revoked, the Commission considers whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the subject

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

 44 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 18 (“Boston Tapes is primarily a producer of protective tape and has very little

capacity or production of the subject merchandise. In addition, Autoadesivi is part of 3M Italy and has been for

several years. I think that these facts explain why these companies have not been selling to the United States in the

absence of an order. Their experience is in no way typical of that of other Italian producers, which we have listed in

our capacity figures.”), 41 (“Boston Tapes was purchased by a Canadian company . . . who is a manufacturer of

specialty protective film, so I do not believe they still have the capacity to make the packaging tape that is

shipped.”).

 45 See, e.g., CR at IV-7 and IV-8, PR at IV-4.

 46 Hearing Tr. at 52 (“I know from our standpoint the large global suppliers that we deal with, the large global

channel customers don’t buy products in the U.S. and then ship it to Europe, for example, or Asia. They tend to

regionally source. So if a large – you can pick your name – customer has operations in China, for example, they’ll

source locally. If they have operations here they’ll source locally typically, once again primarily speaking because

of capacity issues.”).

33
United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or supressing effect on the price

of domestic like products.47

In performing our analysis, we have taken into account the Commission’s previous price findings. 

In the original determination, the Commission found price, while not the most important factor in

purchasing decisions, to be a significant factor. The Commission indicated that the record showed

consistent underselling and that prices of both domestic products and subject imports exhibited downward

and flat trends. Consequently, the Commission found that imports depressed domestic prices.48 No

pricing data were available on the record in the first and second reviews. Therefore, Vice Chairman

Pearson and Commissioner Okun’s conclusions in the second review that revocation of the finding is not

likely to lead to any significant price effects was drawn largely from their conclusions on likely subject

volumes.49

The record in this review indicates that price, along with availability and quality, remains an

important consideration in purchasing decisions.50 PSP tape of the same characteristics and requirements

for a specific application or end use is always or frequently interchangeable whether it is domestically

produced or imported.51 Most sales of PSP tape are made through distributors, on a spot and nationwide

basis.52

While the Commission collected pricing data on four products,53 the pricing data specific to

subject PSP tape from Italy available to compare to the domestic like product is limited in volume and

frequency.54 Prices of subject imports fluctuated widely, due in large part to the very small quantities

reported for these price comparisons.55 In contrast, the data show that U.S. producer prices were fairly

stable over the period examined and did not reflect increases in raw material costs from 2006 to 2008, or

the lower raw material costs in interim 2009 compared to interim 2008.56 This is demonstrated by the

trend in the industry’s ratio of cost of goods sold (“COGS”) to sales which increased from 2006 to 2008,

indicating that costs rose faster than sales values, and a lower ratio in interim 2009, as costs declined more

than sales values.57

As discussed above, U.S. customers have increasingly shifted purchases to lower priced acrylic

PSP tape, supplied primarily by nonsubject Asian suppliers, rather than higher priced hot-melt PSP tape

 47 19 U.S.C. § 1675(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.

 48 Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Inv. No. AA1921-167, USITC Pub. 830 at 5-6 (Aug. 1977)

(“Original Determination”). Three Commissioners voted in the affirmative, and two Commissioners dissented and

made negative determinations.

 49 USITC Pub. 3698 at 21-22.

 50 CR at II-8 and Tables II-2 and II-3; PR at II-6 and Tables II-2 and II-3.

 51 CR/PR at Table II-4.

 52 CR at II-1, II-2, V-5 and Table II-1; PR at II-1, II-2, V-4 and Table II-1.

 53 CR at V-5 and V-6; PR at V-4 and V-5.

 54 In this review, there were 31 price comparisons possible regarding the subject imports from Italy (18 instances

of underselling and 13 instances of overselling); *** of the 18 instances of underselling were in product 4 which

showed very small and highly variable import volumes. CR/PR at Tables V-1, V-2, V-4, and V-6.

 55 CR/PR at Tables V-1, V-2 and V-4, and Figure V-2.

 56 CR/PR at Tables III-10, V-1 - V-4, and Figure V-2.

 57 CR/PR at Tables III-8, III-10, and C-1.

34
whether from U.S. or Italian suppliers. The increased U.S. market for acrylic PSP tape reduces the

incentive for the Italian product to lower prices and compete against the Asian suppliers of acrylic PSP

tape, particularly with the disadvantages of the high euro rate.58

Given the likely small volume of subject imports from Italy in the event of revocation and taking

into consideration our findings above concerning the conditions of competition that are distinctive to this

industry, we find that revocation of the antidumping duty finding on subject imports of PSP tape from

Italy would not be likely to lead to significant underselling by the subject imports as compared to the

domestic like product, or to significant price depression or suppression within a reasonably foreseeable

time. Therefore, we find that revocation of the antidumping duty finding is not likely to lead to any

significant price effects.

C. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

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

revoked, the Commission considers 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: (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.59 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.60 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 finding at issue and

whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the finding is revoked.61

In the original determination the Commission found that the significant increase in less-than-fair

value imports adversely affected the financial condition of the domestic industry. It found that the firms

reporting financial data had gone from showing a substantial profit in 1974 to a substantial loss in 1976.62

No updated data on the state of the domestic industry were available on the record in the first and second

reviews. In the second review, Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun recognized that there

 58 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 84 (“I think it would be tougher for the Italians to compete in the acrylic markets with

the Asians, but it’s possible.”); see also CR at IV-20, n.31; PR at IV-8, n. 31.

 59 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).

 60 19 U.S.C. § 1675(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 its expedited sunset review of the antidumping finding on PSP tape from Italy, Commerce found likely

antidumping duty margins of 10 percent for Comet SARA, S.p.A., Tyco Adhesives Italia, S.p.A., and all others. 74

Fed. Reg. at 40812. Italian producers Plasturopa, Autoadesivitialia, S.p.A., and Boston are excluded from the

antidumping finding on PSP tape from Italy. CR/PR at Table I-2 (tabular note).

 61 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the finding 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.

 62 Original Determination at 6.

35
had been significant changes in the U.S. industry in the 27 years since the original investigation, such as

massive growth in consumption, production, and increases in U.S. market share, as well as new entrants

and therefore additional investment in the U.S. market.63 Therefore based largely on these changes and

their conclusions on likely subject imports, they found that subject imports would not be likely to have a

significant adverse impact on the domestic PSP tape industry if the finding was revoked.64

In this third review period, the domestic PSP tape industry has experienced some declines, but

has generated positive operating and financial performance throughout the period examined, particularly

in 2008 and interim 2009, even with lower apparent U.S. consumption. The domestic industry’s capacity

fluctuated between years but remained relatively stable from 2006 to 2008, and was slightly higher in

interim 2009 compared to interim 2008.65 Production and shipment trends followed declines in apparent

U.S. consumption.66 The domestic industry’s capacity utilization rate declined from 77.0 percent in 2006

to 70.5 percent in 2007, but increased to 72.3 percent in 2008.67 Its capacity utilization rate was lower in

interim 2009 (61.1 percent) than in interim 2008 (75.8 percent). The number of workers, wages paid,

hours worked, and productivity generally declined from 2006 to 2008, and were lower in interim 2009

compared to interim 2008.68

The financial performance of the domestic industry experienced declines from 2006 to 2008 but

remained positive in each period and saw some improvement in interim 2009 compared to interim 2008. 

The domestic industry’s net sales by quantity and by value declined from 2006 to 2008 and were lower in

interim 2009 compared with interim 2008.69 However, average unit sales values increased each year and

were at their highest level ($0.23) in interim 2009.70 At the same time, the domestic industry’s operating

income fluctuated between years and declined by 28.8 percent from 2006 to 2008, but was 56.5 percent

higher in interim 2009 compared with interim 2008.71 Similarly, the domestic industry’s operating

income margin increased from 11.0 percent in 2006 to 11.9 percent in 2007, and declined to 8.2 percent

in 2008; the industry’s operating income margin was 9.7 percent in interim 2008 and 17.3 percent in

interim 2009.72 Capital expenditures increased from 2006 to 2008, although they were lower in interim

2009 compared to interim 2008.73 Given the industry’s generally positive performance throughout the

 63 USITC Pub. 3698 at 22-23.

 64 USITC Pub. 3698 at 22-23.

 65 CR/PR at Tables III-3 and C-1. The domestic industry’s capacity was: 2.98 billion square yards in 2006, 3.22

billion square yards in 2007, 2.96 billion square yards in 2008, 2.22 billion square yards in interim 2008, and 2.30

billion square yards in interim 2009. Id.

 66 CR/PR at Tables III-3, III-4, and C-1. The domestic industry’s production was: 2.30 billion square yards in

2006, 2.27 billion square yards in 2007, 2.14 billion square yards in 2008, 1.68 billion square yards in interim 2008,

and 1.40 billion square yards in interim 2009. CR/PR at Tables III-3 and C-1. The domestic industry’s U.S.

shipments were: 2.23 billion square yards in 2006, 2.12 billion square yards in 2007, 2.08 billion square yards in

2008, 1.58 billion square yards in interim 2008, and 1.33 billion square yards in interim 2009. CR/PR at Tables III-4

and C-1.

 67 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 68 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 69 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 70 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 71 CR/PR at Table C-1. The domestic industry’s operating income increased from $53.5 million in 2006 to $56.1

million in 2007, and declined to $38.1 million in 2008; the domestic industry’s operating income was $35.1 million

in interim 2008 and $55.0 million in interim 2009. Id.

 72 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 73 CR/PR at Table III-12.

36
period of review and improvements in 2009 despite the general economic recession, we have not found

that the domestic industry currently is in a vulnerable or weakened state as contemplated by the statute.

Subject imports are not likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic PSP tape

industry if the finding is revoked. Subject imports have accounted for an insignificant share of apparent

U.S. consumption during the period examined in this review.74 The domestic industry is well established

and dominated the U.S. market with a substantial market share of about 80 percent throughout the period

examined.75 Nonsubject suppliers accounted for the difference, holding a low of 15.3 percent of the U.S.

market in 2006 and a high of 20.1 percent in interim 2009.76 As discussed above, nonsubject imports of

acrylic PSP tape from Asia have aggressively made inroads into the U.S. market and resulted in declines

in U.S. producers’ sales of hot-melt PSP tape. Subject imports would have to increase substantially to

have a likely adverse effect on volume or prices. We have determined that subject producers’ lack an

incentive to gain substantial additional U.S. market share and thus subject imports are not likely to

increase to significant levels or to have a significant adverse impact on domestic prices, production,

shipments, sales, market share, and revenues. We therefore find that revocation of the antidumping duty

finding on subject imports from Italy would not be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

II. Conclusion

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

PSP tape from Italy would not be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the

domestic PSP tape industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

 74 CR/PR at Tables I-1 and C-1.

 75 CR/PR at Table I-1 and C-1. The domestic industry’s U.S. market share was: 84.2 percent in 2006, 80.6

percent in 2007, 81.5 percent in 2008, 80.8 percent in interim 2008, and 79.4 percent in interim 2009. Id.

 76 CR/PR at Table I-8.

37
 
PART I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND

On May 1, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”) gave

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

 that it had instituted

a review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty finding on pressure sensitive plastic

tape (“PSP tape”) from Italy would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a

domestic industry.2 3

 On August 4, 2009, the Commission determined that it would conduct a full review

pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act.4

 Selected information relating to the schedule of this proceeding

appears in the following tabulation:5

Effective date Action

October 21, 1977 Department of Treasury’s antidumping duty finding (42 FR 56110)

September 1, 1998 Commission’s institution (63 FR 46475) and Commerce’s initiation (63 FR

46410) of first review

January 6, 1999 Commerce’s final results of expedited first review (64 FR 853)

February 10, 1999 Commission’s expedited first review determination (64 FR 6681)

February 17, 1999 Commerce’s first continuation order concerning the antidumping duty finding (64

FR 51515, September 23, 1999)

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

 2

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

Commission. Pressure Sensitive Tape from Italy, 74 FR 20340, May 1, 2009. The Commission received one

submission in response to its notice of institution for the subject review. It was filed on behalf of 3M Company

(formerly known as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), a U.S. producer of PSP tape and the petitioner

in the original investigation, with the support of Intertape Polymer Group, Inc. (“Intertape”) and Shurtape

Technologies, Inc. (“Shurtape”). Domestic interested parties’ response to the notice of institution, June 1, 2009. 

 3

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

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

notice of institution. Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 74 FR 20286, May 1, 2009. 

 4

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

20340, May 1, 2009) was adequate, but that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. 

Notwithstanding the Commission’s determination that the respondent interested party group response was

inadequate, the Commission determined to conduct a full review in light of information regarding possible changes

in conditions of competition. These include trends in U.S. demand; the nature of U.S. supply, particularly

concerning the presence in the U.S. market of nonsubject imports from China and Taiwan; and the structure and

market orientation of the Italian pressure sensitive plastic tape industry. Commissioners Irving A. Williamson and

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

in the adequacy phase did not indicate sufficient changes in the conditions of competition since the original

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

Commission Determination on Adequacy.

 5

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

adequacy appear in appendix A and may also be found at the Commission’s web site (internet address

www.usitc.gov). Commissioners’ votes on whether to conduct an expedited or a full review may also be found at the

web site. 

I-1
January 2, 2004 Commission’s institution (69 FR 101) and Commerce’s initiation (69 FR 50) of

second review

May 11, 2004 Commerce’s final results of expedited second review (69 FR 26068)

June 14, 2004 Commission’s expedited second review determination (69 FR 33070)

June 25, 2004 Commerce’s second continuation order concerning the antidumping duty finding

(69 FR 35584)

May 1, 2009 Commission’s institution (74 FR 20340) and Commerce’s initiation (74 FR

20286) of third review

August 4, 2009 Commission’s determination to conduct a full review (74 FR 40845, August 13,

2009)

August 13, 2009 Commerce’s final results of expedited third review (74 FR 40811)

August 20, 2009 Commission’s scheduling of the review (74 FR 43155, August 26, 2009)

January 14, 2010 Commission’s hearing1

February 26, 2010 Commission’s vote

March 11, 2010 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce

 1 The list of hearing witnesses is presented in app. B.

THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION AND SUBSEQUENT FIVE-YEAR REVIEWS

The Commission instituted an antidumping duty investigation concerning PSP tape from Italy

(Inv. No. AA1921-167) on June 3, 1977, following notification from the Department of Treasury

(“Treasury”) on May 31, 1977, that PSP tape was being, or was likely to be, sold in the United States at

less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) within the meaning of the Antidumping Act, 1921, as amended.6

 The 

original investigation resulted from complaints filed by Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. of St.

Paul, MN, on April 8, 1976, alleging sales at LTFV of “box sealing tape” from Italy and West Germany. 

In September 1977, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was not being, and

was not likely to be, injured by imports of PSP tape from West Germany sold, or likely to be sold at

LTFV.7

 The Commission did, however, determine that an industry in the United States was being injured

by imports of PSP tape from Italy sold, or likely to be, sold at LTFV. After receipt of the Commission’s

determination, the Department of Treasury (“Treasury”) issued an antidumping duty finding on imports

of PSP tape from Italy. The weighted average margins for the three Italian manufacturers found by

Treasury to have made LTFV sales of the subject merchandise were 9.9 percent for Manuli Tapes S.p.A

(“Manuli”), 9 percent for Boston Tapes S.p.A. (“Boston”), and 11 percent for Comet S.p.A (“Comet”). 

Treasury excluded one Italian firm producing and exporting PSP tape, Plasturopa–SIPA S.A.S.

(“Plasturopa”), from its antidumping duty finding.8 9

 In 1988, Commerce revoked the antidumping duty

 6 19 U.S.C. 160(a).

 7 Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from West Germany, Investigation No. AA1921-168, USITC Publication 831,

September 1977, p. A-1. Information obtained in the two separate investigations was presented together by the

Commission in USITC Publication 831. 

 8

 Treasury found no LTFV margin for sales of PSP tape by Plasturopa, and excluded the company from the

finding. Antidumping–Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape Measuring Over One and Three-Eighths Inches in Width and

(continued...)

I-2
finding on PSP tape produced by Autoadesivitalia, S.p.A (“Autoadesivi”).10 In 1990, Commerce revoked

the antidumping duty finding on PSP tape produced by Boston.11

In February 1999, the Commission completed an expedited first five-year review of the

antidumping duty finding on PSP tape from Italy and determined that revocation of the finding on PSP

tape from Italy would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in

the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.12 Following affirmative determinations in the

five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective February 17, 1999, Commerce issued a

continuation of the antidumping duty finding on imports of PSP tape from Italy.13

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

duty finding on PSP tape from Italy and determined that revocation of the finding would be likely to lead

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

 8 (...continued)

Not Exceeding Four Millimeters in Thickness From Italy, 42 FR 56100, October 21, 1977. Treasury issued a

correction notice (Antidumping–Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape Measuring Over One and Three-Eighths Inches in

Width and Not Exceeding Four Mils in Thickness from Italy; Correction, 42 FR 245, December 21, 1977) noting that

“Not Exceeding Four Millimeters in Thickness” should read “Not Exceeding Four Mils in Thickness”, wherever it

appears. On October 14, 2009, Commission staff notified Commerce that the same clerical error appeared in

Commerce’s scope language contained in Commerce’s notice announcing the final results of its expedited third

review (Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy: Final Results of Expedited Review, 74 FR 40811, August 13,

2009) and Commerce’s notice announcing the initiation of an antidumping duty changed circumstances review of the

finding (Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed

Circumstances Review, 74 FR 47555, September 16, 2009). On October 26, 2009, Commerce filed a memorandum

acknowledging the errors in the scope language and noted that all subsequent actions regarding the PSP tape finding

from Italy will contain the word mils, not millimeters. Commerce Memorandum re: Corrections to Scope Language,

October 26, 2009. 

 9

 According to the domestic interested parties, Plasturopa is primarily a small producer of PVC tapes that are

overwhelmingly nonsubject merchandise. Furthermore, they maintain that PVC subject merchandise is generally too

expensive to compete in the U.S. market. Posthearing brief of 3M, Intertape, and Shurtape, Response to questions of

Chairman Aranoff regarding the status of Autodesivi and Plasturopa. 

 10 Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and

Revocation in Part, 53 FR 16444, May 9, 1988. According to the domestic interested parties, 3M Italia acquired

Autoadesivi in 1985 and decided to obtain the revocation of the finding so that it would have options to sell in the

U.S. in the future. The domestic interested parties maintain that the production capacity of Autoadesivi at that time

was devoted primarily to nonsubject filament tape and that subject merchandise was a minor part of its product line. 

The domestic interested parties argue that since 3M Italia owns Autoadesivi and does not wish to compete with 3M

U.S. production, Autoadesivi has concentrated on different markets and specialty products since that time. 

Posthearing brief of 3M, Intertape, and Shurtape, Response to questions of Chairman Aranoff regarding the status of

Autoadesivi and Plasturopa. 

 11 Final Results of Antidumping Duty; Administrative Review and Revocation in Part; Pressure Sensitive Plastic

Tape from Italy, 55 FR 6031, February 21, 1990. According to testimony presented at the hearing, Boston was

purchased by a Canadian company and is operating in the United States under the management of Novacel, a

manufacturer of special protective film with very little capacity or production of the subject merchandise. Hearing

transcript, p.18 (Anderson) and p. 41 (Serra). 

 12 Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, 64 FR 6681, February 10, 1999. Chairman Bragg and

Commissioners Crawford and Askey made negative determinations. See their Dissenting Views in Pressure

Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Investigation No. AA1921-167 (Review), USITC Publication 3157, February 1999. 

 13 Continuation of Antidumping Duty Finding: Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, 64 FR 51515,

September 23, 1999.

I-3
foreseeable time.14 Following affirmative determinations in the second five-year reviews by Commerce

and the Commission, effective June 25, 2004, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty

finding on imports of PSP tape from Italy.15

SUMMARY DATA

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

and current reviews. From 1973 to 1976, the period for which data were collected in the original

investigation, the U.S. industry’s production, shipments, and net sales increased markedly over the period. 

However, as costs and expenses increased, operating income turned negative. Capacity utilization of the

U.S. industry was not calculated in the original investigation because machinery and equipment used in

the production of PSP tape were also used in the production of other plastic tape products.16 As noted in

Table I-1, certain data, including U.S. production, shipments, and imports of PSP tape for the first and

second five-year expedited reviews were based on estimates submitted by 3M’s responses to the

Commission’s notice of institution in the respective reviews. U.S. import data and related information for

the period since January 2006 are based on questionnaire responses of 19 U.S. importers of PSP tape that

are believed to have accounted for the vast majority of the total subject U.S. imports from Italy during

2008, which domestic interested parties estimate to be *** percent of total U.S. imports of PSP tape. 

Given the large volume of the remaining imports from all other countries, staff believes that data for U.S.

imports of PSP tape from nonsubject countries are under-represented.17 

 14 Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, 64 FR 33070, June 14, 2004. Chairman Okun and Commissioners

Lane and Pearson made negative determinations. See their Dissenting Views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from

Italy, Investigation No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3698, June 2004. 

 15 Continuation of Antidumping Duty Findings: Prestressed Concrete Wire Strand from Japan and Pressure

Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, 69 FR 35584, June 25, 2004. 

 16 Staff Report of August 15, 1977, p. A-23

 17 PSP tape, as defined by Commerce, falls into a broad “basket category” of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) of the United States, which includes products that do not conform to the characteristics (e.g., adhesive on one

side) or dimensional specifications (e.g., greater than 1 3/8 inches in width and no greater than 4 mils in thickness)

included in the scope language. As a result, Staff believes that official Commerce statistics overstate imports of PSP

tape. 

I-4
I-5

Table I-1PSP tape: Summary data from the original investigation, first and second reviews, and current review, 1973-76, 1997, 2

(Quantity=1,000 square yards; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are pe

Item 1973 1974 1975 1976 19972 3 20032 20

U.S. consumption quantity: Amount *** *** *** *** *** N/A 2,64 Producers’ share1 *** *** *** *** *** N/A 

Importer’s share:1

Italy (subject) *** *** *** *** *** N/A Italy (nonsubject) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All other countries *** *** *** *** *** N/A 

Total imports *** *** *** *** *** N/A 

U.S. consumption value:

Amount *** *** *** *** *** N/A 52Producers’ share:1 *** *** *** *** *** N/A Importer’s share:1

Italy (subject) *** *** *** *** *** N/A Italy (nonsubject) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All other countries *** *** *** *** *** N/A 

Total imports *** *** *** *** *** N/A 

U.S. imports from

Italy (subject):

Quantity 8,618 8,391 11,396 30,615 *** N/A 1

Value 1,484 2,009 1,979 5,397 N/A N/A Unit value 0.17 0.24 0.17 0.18 N/A N/A 

Italy (nonsubject):

Quantity N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Value N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Unit value N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

All other countries:

Quantity 13,983 25,840 27,974 40,703 *** N/A Value 2,957 5,653 5,370 8,007 N/A N/A Unit value 0.21 0.22 0.19 0.20 N/A N/A 

Table continued on the following page.
I-6

Table I-1--Continued PSP tape: Summary data from the original investigation, first and second reviews, and current review, 1973-76, 1997, 2

(Quantity=1,000 square yards; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are pe

Item 1973 1974 1975 1976 1997 2 3 2003 2 20

All countries:

Quantity 22,601 34,231 39,370 71,318 *** N/A 46

Value 4,441 7,662 7,349 13,404 N/A N/A 5Unit Value $0.20 $0.22 $0.19 $0.19 N/A N/A 

U.S. producers’--

Capacity quantity N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,98

Production quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** 2,29Capacity utilization1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

U.S. shipments:

Quantity *** *** *** *** N/A N/A 2,22Value *** *** *** *** N/A N/A 45Unit value $*** $*** $*** $*** N/A N/A 

Ending inventory quantity *** *** *** *** N/A N/A 25Inventories/total shipments1 *** *** *** *** N/A N/A 

Production workers *** *** *** *** N/A N/A Hours worked (1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** N/A N/A 

Wages paid (1,000 dollars) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2Hourly wages N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $Productivity 

 (square yards per hour) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Net sales:

Quantity N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,35

Value *** *** *** *** N/A N/A 48Unit value N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Cost of goods sold *** *** *** *** N/A N/A 37Gross profit or (loss) *** *** *** *** N/A N/A 11SG&A *** *** *** *** N/A N/A 6Operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** N/A N/A 5

Table continued on the following page.
I-7

Table I-1--ContinuedPSP tape: Summary data from the original investigation, first and second reviews, and current review, 1973-76, 1997, 2

(Quantity=1,000 square yards; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are pe

Item 1973 1974 1975 1976 1997 2003 20

Unit cost of goods sold N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Unit operating income or (loss) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Cost of goods sold/sales (percent) *** *** *** *** N/A N/A 

Operating income or (loss)/sales 

(percent) *** *** *** *** N/A N/A 

Note. --In order to maintain consistency with the historical data series, import data are drawn from actual U.S. import entries, rather than U.S

accordingly 2006-08 U.S. consumption data in this table do not reconcile with data presented in tables I-7, I-8, and C-1.

Note. --Based on the domestic interested parties’ estimates, which are drawn from U.S. producer shipment data from questionnaire respons

statistics, which include some nonsubject merchandise, total U.S. imports were approximately 1.69 billion square yards in 2008, with 37.6 pefrom China, Indonesia, and Taiwan. Based on these estimates, apparent U.S. consumption for 2008 would be 4.49 billion square yards. Pos

and Shurtape, Response to questions of Commissioner Okun regarding projections for Asian producers. 

1 In percent.2 Production data for 1997 and 2003 were calculated based on estimates provided by 3M in response to the Commission’s notice of instit

year reviews. In 1997, 3M reported producing *** square yards of PSP tape, and estimated that it accounted for *** percent of total U.S. proaggregate production of *** square yards of PSP tape for itself, Intertape, Shurtape, and STA, and estimated that they collectively accounted 

production in that year.

3 Import data are based on 3M’s estimates provided in its response to the Commission’s 1998 notice of institution. 3M reported importing 

from Italy into the United States in 1997. 3M estimated that its imports accounted for *** percent of all U.S. imports of PSP tape from Italy in 

represented 4 percent of U.S. imports of PSP tape from all sources. Source: Compiled from information presented in the Original Staff Report, tables 3 and 7; Second Review Staff Report (INV-BB-057), tables submitted in response to Commission questionnaires (2006-08). 
STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

Section 751© of the Act requires Commerce and the Commission to conduct a review no later than

five years after the issuance of an antidumping or countervailing duty order or the suspension of an

investigation to determine whether revocation of the order or termination of the suspended investigation

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

case may be) and of material injury.”

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

recurrence of material injury–

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

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

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

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

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

is terminated. The Commission shall take into account--

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

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

issued or the suspension agreement was accepted, 

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

or the suspension agreement, 

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

or the suspension agreement is terminated, and 

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

absorption . . ..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

capacity in the exporting country, 

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

inventories, 

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

countries other than the United States, and 

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

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

being used to produce other products.

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

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

Commission shall consider whether--

I-8
(A) there is likely to be significant price underselling by imports of the subject

merchandise as compared to domestic like products, and 

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

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

the price of domestic like product.

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

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

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

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

not limited to–

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

investments, and utilization of capacity, 

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

growth, ability to raise capital, and investment, and 

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

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

the domestic like product.

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

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

industry.

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

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

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

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

Subsidies Agreement.”

Organization of the Report

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

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

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

U.S. producers of PSP tape that are believed to have accounted for approximately 70 percent of domestic

production of PSP tape in 2008.18 U.S. import data and related information are based on questionnaire

responses of 19 U.S. importers of PSP tape that are believed to have accounted for the vast majority of the

total subject U.S. imports from Italy during 2008, which domestic interested parties estimate to be ***

percent of total U.S. imports of PSP tape. Given the large volume of the remaining imports from all other

countries, staff believes that data for U.S. imports of PSP tape from nonsubject countries are under-

 18 This estimate is based on the domestic interested parties’ belief that 3M, Intertape, and Shurtape account for

approximately *** percent of U.S. PSP tape production. ***. The Commission also received questionnaire

responses from U.S. PSP tape producers Berry Plastics Corporation (“Berry”) and Canadian Technical Tape Ltd.

(“Cantech”). Responses submitted by ***, which each accounted for a very small portion of the U.S. PSP tape

industry, contained incomplete data and were not compiled in this report. The Commission also received

confirmation from Tesa Tape, Inc. (“Tesa”) that it is a *** producer of PSP tape in the United States; however, Tesa

did not submit a response to the Commission’s questionnaire. 

I-9
represented.19 Foreign industry data and related information are based on the questionnaire responses of

two producers of PSP tape in Italy (3M Italia and Sicad S.p.A (“Sicad”)) accounting for an estimated ***

percent of total PSP tape production.20 Responses by U.S. producers, importers, purchasers, and foreign

producers of PSP tape to a series of questions concerning the significance of the existing antidumping

duty finding and the likely effects of revocation of the finding are presented in appendix D.

COMMERCE’S REVIEWS

Administrative Reviews21

Commerce has completed 12 administrative reviews of the antidumping duty finding on PSP tape

from Italy as shown in table I-2.22 On May 9, 1988, Commerce revoked the antidumping duty finding on

PSP tape from Italy produced by Autoadesivi.23 On February 21, 1990, Commerce revoked the

antidumping duty finding on PSP tape from Italy produced by Boston.24

Table I-2

PSP tape: Commerce’s administrative reviews of the antidumping duty finding concerning Italy

Date results

published Producer or exporter Period of review Margin (percent)

August 5, 1983 (48 FR

35686)

Autoadesivitalia, S.p.A 05/11/78-09/30/80 0.00

Boston, S.p.A. 01/01/79-09/30/80 8.53

Comet S.A.R.A., S.p.A. 07/01/78-09/30/80 2.79

Cosmonastri, S.p.A. 02/18/77-09/30/80 12.66

Manuli Autoadesivi, S.p.A. 04/01/79-09/30/80 0.391

Nazionale Imballaggi 02/18/77-09/30/80 12.66

S.M.A.C., S.p.A. 09/01/79-09/30/80 12.66

Table continued on following page.

 19 Staff received data from *** that are believed to be among the largest PSP tape producers in Asia. One firm,

*** reported imports from its related PSP tape producers in China, Taiwan (where its parent company’s headquarters

are located), and Malaysia. ***. 

 20 The Commission also received a questionnaire response from Plasturopa, a producer of PSP tape in Italy that

was excluded from the original antidumping duty finding. ***. Staff estimates that this company accounted for ***

percent of total production of PSP tape in Italy in 2008.

 21 No duty absorption findings were made. 

 22 For previously reviewed or investigated companies not included in an administrative review, the cash deposit

rate continues to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period.

 23 Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and

Revocation in Part, 53 FR 16444, May 9, 1988.

 24 Final Results of Antidumping Duty; Administrative Review and Revocation in Part; Pressure Sensitive Plastic

Tape from Italy, 55 FR 6031, February 21, 1990.

I-10
Table I-2--Continued

PSP tape: Commerce’s administrative reviews of the antidumping duty finding concerning Italy

Date results

published Producer or exporter Period of review Margin (percent)

December 5, 1986 (51

FR 43955), corrected,

March 10, 1987 (52 FR

7288)

Autoadesivitalia, S.p.A. 10/01/80-9/30/81 0.16

10/01/81-10/05/82 0.31

Boston, S.p.A. 10/01/80-09/30/81 8.67

10/01/80-08/30/83 8.672

Comet S.A.R.A., S.p.A. 10/01/80-9/30/81 6.15

10/01/81-9/30/82 5.64

10/01/82-09/30/83 6.07

Irplastnastri 01/16/84-06/15/84 12.66

Manuli Autoadesivi, S.p.A. 02/18/77-3/31/78 2.06

04/01/78-03/31/79 1.35

10/01/80-09/30/81 1.19

10/01/81-09/30/82 0.03

10/01/82-09/30/83 2.19

10/01/83-09/30/84 0.97

10/01/84-09/30/85 0.00

N.A.R., S.p.A. 07/01/79-09/30/80 4.76

10/01/80-09/30/81 2.66

10/01/81-09/30/82 2.40

10/01/82-09/30/83 4.61

10/01/83-09/30/84 4.51

SICAD, S.p.A. 10/01/80-09/30/81 4.71

10/01/81-09/30/82 0.16

10/01/82-09/30/83 1.65

SYROM 06/01/82-09/30/85 12.66

May 9, 1988 (53 FR

16444)

N.A.R., S.p.A. 10/01/85-09/30/86 6.39

Manuli Autoadesivi, S.p.A 10/01/85-09/30/85 0.002

March 30, 1989 (54 FR

13091)

Boston, S.p.A. 10/01/86-09/30/87 8.672

Irplastnastri 10/01/86-09/30/87 12.662

Manuli Autoadesivi, S.p.A. 10/01/86-09/30/87 0.002

N.A.R., S.p.A. 10/01/86-09/30/87 1.40

February 21, 1990 (55

FR 6031) corrected,

March 5, 1990 (55 FR

7867)

Boston, S.p.A. 10/01/87-08/05/88 8.672

Manuli Autoadesivi, S.p.A. 10/01/87-09/30/88 0.002

N.A.R., S.p.A. 10/01/87-09/30/88 0.141

Table continued on the following page.

I-11
Table I-2--Continued

PSP tape: Commerce’s administrative reviews of the antidumping duty finding concerning Italy

Date results

published Producer or exporter Period of review Margin (percent)

November 30, 1990 (55

FR 49671)

Manuli Autoadesivi, S.p.A. 10/01/88-09/30/89 0.002

N.A.R., S.p.A. 10/01/88-09/30/89 4.76

November 6, 1991 (56

FR 56630)

N.A.R., S.p.A.

10/01/89-09/30/90 1.24

October 4, 1993 (58 FR

51616)

N.A.R., S.p.A.

10/01/91-09/30/92 1.242

July 15, 1994 (59 FR

36162)

N.A.R., S.p.A.

10/01/92-09/30/93 1.242

October 31, 1995 (60

FR 55362)

Autoadesivi Magri 10/01/93-09/30/94 12.66

N.A.R., S.p.A. 10/01/93-09/30/94 12.66

September 23, 1998

(63 FR 50882)

N.A.R., S.p.A.

10/01/96-09/30/97 12.66

November 16, 1999 (64

FR 62175)

Autoadesivi Magri

10/01/97-09/30/98 12.66

 1 Margins less than 0.5 percent were de minimis and liquidated without regard to antidumping duties.

 2

 No shipments during this period; margins from last review in which there were shipments.

Note.–The original antidumping duty order covered all Italian producers, except Plasturopa-SIPA S.a.S.,

Montemurlo (Florence), Italy. 42 FR 56110, October 21, 1977. Commerce partially revoked the antidumping duty

order in 1988 (Autoadesivitalia, S.p.A.) (53 FR 16444, May 9, 1988) and 1990 (Boston, S.p.A.) (55 FR 6031,

February 21, 1990). 

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Changed Circumstances Reviews

Since the publication of the antidumping duty finding on PSP tape from Italy, Commerce

published one notice of final results of a changed circumstances review with respect to the finding. In

that review, Commerce determined that Tyco Adhesives Italia S.p.A. (“Tyco”) is a successor-in-interest

company to Manuli Tapes S.p.A. (“Manuli”) and that Tyco should receive the same antidumping duty

margin as Manuli.25 Commerce is currently conducting a changed circumstances review to determine

whether Evotape Packaging S.r.l. (“Evotape”), a producer/exporter of PSP tape from Italy, is the

successor-in-interest to Tyco.26

Scope Inquiry Reviews

 There have been two scope inquiry reviews concerning the antidumping duty finding on PSP

tape from Italy. On May 7, 1992, Commerce issued a scope ruling on highlighting “note tape” and

 25 Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape

From Italy, 69 FR 15297, March 25, 2004.

 26 Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Changed Circumstances Review: Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from

Italy, 74 FR 47555, September 16, 2009. 

I-12
determined that it was not within the scope of the order.27 On February 7, 2007, Commerce issued a

scope ruling on certain PSP tapes imported by Ritrama, Inc. (“Ritrama”) and determined that dualadhesive products imported by Ritrama from Italy did not meet the definition of PSP tape as defined in

the antidumping duty finding, while single-adhesive products imported by Ritrama from Italy were within

the scope of the finding.28

Results of Five-Year Reviews

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

third reviews.29

Table I-3

PSP tape: Commerce’s first, second, and third five-year dumping margins for producers/exporters

in Italy

Producer/exporter

First five-year

review margin

(percent)

Second five-year

review margin

(percent)

Third five-year

review margin

(percent)

Comet 10.0 10.0 10.0

Cosmonastri 10.0 (1

) (1)

Manuli2 10.0 10.0 10.0

Nazionale Imballaggi 10.0 (1

) (1)

SMAC 10.0 (1

) (1)

All others (1

) 10.0 10.0

 1 Not listed.

 2

 Commerce determined that Tyco Adhesives Italia S.p.A. is the successor-in-interest to Manuli Tapes S.p.A. 

69 FR 15297, March 25, 2004. 

 

Source: Final results of first expedited five-year review, 64 FR 853, January 6, 1999; final results of second

expedited five-year review, 69 FR 26068, May 11, 2004; final results of third expedited five-year review, 74 FR

40811, August 13, 2009.

DISTRIBUTION OF CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT FUNDS

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

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

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

producers incur after the issuance of such orders.30 Qualified U.S. producers of PSP tape have been

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

 27 Notice of Scope Rulings, 57 FR 19602, May 7, 2002.

 28 Notice of Scope Rulings, 72 FR 5677, February 7, 2007.

 29 Commerce’s first and second expedited reviews covered all manufacturers and exporters of pressure sensitive

plastic tape from Italy other than Plasturopa, which was excluded from the original LTFV investigation conducted

by Treasury, and Autoadesivi and Boston for which the finding has been revoked. 53 FR 16444, May 9, 1988, for

Autoadesivitalia and 55 FR 6031, February 21, 1990, for Boston Tapes. 

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

I-13
CDSOA relating to the orders covering the subject merchandise beginning in Federal fiscal year 2002.31

Tables I-4 presents CDSOA disbursements and claims for the five most recent complete Federal fiscal

years, October 1-September 30, 2004-08. 3M was the only domestic producer to receive disbursements

in connection with the antidumping duty finding with respect to PSP tape from Italy.

Table I-4

PSP tape: CDSOA disbursements, by firm, and total claims, Federal fiscal years 2004-08

Item

Federal fiscal year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Disbursements (dollars)

3M1 $84,746 $265,532 $418,504 $5,244 $541,094 $256,095

Claims (dollars)

3M1 $961,820,205 $961,735,458 $961,470,253 $961,051,748 $961,046,503 $960,505,409

 1

 3M was the only firm to submit claims and receive disbursements.

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

www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/add_cvd.

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

The imported PSP tape subject to the antidumping finding under review, as defined by Commerce

in its 2004 continuation notice, is as follows: Pressure sensitive plastic tape measuring over one and

three-eighths inches in width and not exceeding four mils32 in thickness.33

 31 19 CFR 159.64 (g).

 32 One mil equals 0.001 of an inch.

 33 Continuation of Antidumping Duty Findings: Prestressed Concrete Wire Strand from Japan and Pressure

Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, 69 FR 35584, June 25, 2004. On October 14, 2009, Commission staff notified

Commerce that the scope language contained in Commerce’s notice announcing the final results of its expedited

third review (Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy: Final Results of Expedited Review, 74 FR 40811, August

13, 2009) and Commerce’s notice announcing the initiation of an antidumping duty changed circumstances review

of the finding (Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed

Circumstances Review, 74 FR 47555, September 16, 2009) mistakenly used millimeters instead of mils. On October

26, 2009, Commerce filed a memorandum acknowledging the error noted that all subsequent actions regarding the

PSP tape finding from Italy will contain the word mils, not millimeters. Commerce Memorandum re: Corrections to

Scope Language, October 26, 2009. 

I-14
Tariff Treatment

PSP tape is classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”)

subheadings 3919.10.2034 and 3919.90.50. The general duty rate for both subheadings is 5.8 percent ad

valorem.

35

THE PRODUCT

Description and Applications

PSP tape is a plastic film-backed tape with an adhesive on one side that remains permanently

tacky at room temperatures. The product adheres to a variety of surfaces (including paper, film, wood,

and metal) upon contact, with minimal application of pressure. Importantly, it requires no activation by

water, solvent, or heat to generate its adhesive holding force.

PSP tape consists of at least 2 layers, a plastic film backing and a layer of pressure sensitive

adhesive. Depending upon the adhesive, some tapes may have a release coating on the outer surface of

the plastic backing to keep the adhesive layer from sticking to the plastic backing on the tape layer

underneath when on the roll.36 Alternatively, PSP tapes have a paper or plastic film liner to prevent the

two layers from bonding together permanently. 

There are many plastic polymer films used as mechanical backing for pressure sensitive plastic

tapes, among them biaxially oriented polypropylene, polyester, and vinyl. The film backing may be

purchased from merchant sources or captively produced by the tape manufacturer. *** is the primary 

U.S. captive producer of ***. ***. ***.

The pressure sensitive adhesive types used include hot melt, vinyl adhesives, and synthetic or

natural rubber adhesives. The hot melt adhesives are used in high-speed sealing lines that apply heat to

the tape to quickly make a strong seal, and also in cold application machines or by hand; vinyl adhesives

are used in lesser quality box sealing tapes and the rubber-based adhesives are favored for sealing where

the sealing surfaces may be dusty, dirty, greasy, or irregular. The holding power (i.e., adhesion, tack, and

shear strength) of hot melt adhesives is superior to acrylic and the tapes can be applied quicker.37 The

manufacturing cost of PSP tape depends on the cost of the plastic film backing, the cost of the adhesive

system applied, the converting cost, and the capital intensity and productivity of the manufacturing

equipment employed and is generally in the increasing order of acrylic, hot melt, and solution. Typically

the end user chooses the product with the performance attributes and pricing that best fits the customer’s

needs. For example, customers shipping valuable products, such as laptop computers, heavy machine

 34 On October 14, 2009, Commision staff notified Commerce that the HTS subheading 3919.90.20 cited in

Commerce’s notice announcing the final results of its expedited third review (Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from

Italy: Final Results of Expedited Review, 74 FR 40811, August 13, 2009) appeared to be a clerical error, since this

particular HTS subheading does not exist and that the actual subheading should read 3919.10.20. On October 26,

2009, Commerce filed a memorandum acknowledging the error in the scope language and noted that all subsequent

actions regarding the PSP tape finding from Italy will contain the HTS subheadings 3919.10.20 and 3919.90.50. 

Commerce Memorandum re: Corrections to Scope Language, October 26, 2009. 

 35 At the time of the original investigation, PSP tape was dutiable under item 790.55 of the Tariff Schedules of the

United States at a rate of 10.0 percent ad valorem. Original Staff Report at A-11. 

 36 “Hot melt” adhesive - the primary form of adhesive used in U.S.-produced PSP tape - requires the use of a

release coat, while acrylic-based adhesive - an adhesive used in smaller volumes of U.S.-produced PSP tape but

more common in imported tape from sources of supply in Asia - does not. Plant tour and interview session with ***,

December 2 and 3, 2009.

 37 Hearing transcript, p. 23 (Helton); p. 21 (Anderson).

I-15
replacement parts, or consumer products subject to pilferage,38 may consider the extra cost for higher

performing sealing tape to be minimal.39

The principal application of PSP tape is to seal corrugated paper shipping cartons. PSP tape is

used for hand-sealing cartons, however, most higher volume applications involve highly automated

sealing lines. In addition, converter rolls are slit down and rewound as narrower tapes in varying length

for various narrow consumer and office tape applications. Finally, PSP tape is used in certain lowervolume and/or more specialized applications such as labels, label protection, color coding, and tabbing.40

Manufacturing Process

In general, PSP tape manufacturing takes place over three or four stages, depending upon whether

the producer manufactures its own film backing. Film production in the United States is primarily

biaxially oriented polypropylene (“BOPP”), followed distantly by polyester. Film production (or

acquisition) is followed by coating the film backing with purchased or captively-formulated pressure

sensitive adhesive (and any required release or preparative coatings). This step is followed by slitting and

spooling the pressure sensitive adhesive coated plastic tape down to the stock-keeping unit (“SKU”) tape

width and length specification. The final stage in PSP tape production is packing and shipping finished

tape orders, holding finished product in inventory as necessary. As a large, fully-integrated producer,

3M’s production process in its Greenville, SC, facility is illustrative.41

***.42 

***.

***.43

Adhesive formulations can vary considerably depending on the manufacturer and intended

application, but typically the hot melt adhesives favored by domestic tape producers are based on SIS

rubber and C5 tackifiers.44 45 Vinyl tapes, of which there is only limited domestic production, use butyl

acrylamide as the adhesive base to which tackifiers and other substances may be added and typically

coated from water dispersions.46 47 Natural rubber, obtained by tapping the sap (“latex”) of the Para

rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis) is a natural polymer of isoprene (mostly cis-1,4-polyisoprene), with a

 38 Hearing transcript, p. 117-118 (Martin).

 39 Hearing transcript, p. 45 (Anderson); p. 85-86 (Anderson); p. 84 (Serra).

 40 Examples of such applications range from diaper tabs - an application that reportedly is diminishing in favor of

clipping devices - to 3M’s own Post It ® flags. Plant tour and interview session with ***, December 2 and 3, 2009.

 41 The following description of 3M’s PSP tape operations is based on ***.

 42 ***.

 43 ***.

 44 Wolfgang Roessing (ExxonMobil Chemical Company), Pressure Sensitive Tape Production, Western Europe

2008, Afera presentation, Cracow, Poland, October 9, 2009, p. 8.

 45 SIS rubber is a synthetic block copolymer consisting of alternating Styrene-Isoprene-Styrene monomer units. 

C5 tackifiers to provide the necessary “tackiness” or “stickiness” to the SIS rubber base are polymers of 5 carbon

chain aliphatic resins, or, more often, hydrogenated aliphatic resins to achieve the light color and thermal stability

desired in the transparent tape. The C5 aliphatic feedstock comes from naphtha cracking and is a C5 piperylene

hydrocarbon resin oil of somewhat variable composition. EastmanTM Tackifier Center,

<http:www.eastman.com/Markets/Tackifier_Center/Tackifier_Families.html>, retrieved January 23, 2010.

 46 Hearing transcript, p. 82 (Serra).

 47 Hearing transcript, p. 23 (Helton).

I-16
molecular weight of 100,000 to 1,000,000, with which small amounts of tackifiers and other additives

may be compounded.48

***. 

***.

The domestic industry characterizes its operations as capital-intensive, according to testimony

offered at the Commission’s hearing. The automated adhesive coating lines, slitters and spoolers, and

film-making lines, are all highly specialized industrial process machines, sold only to a few buyers in the 

industry in small volumes by several, mostly small, Italian manufacturers.49 Moreover, the competitive

imperative to add innovations to their machines that may increase productivity, improve final tape

product quality, or reduce processing waste, also means that the machines must be replaced long before

they wear out, if the tape manufacturer is to remain competitive in the low margin pressure sensitive

plastic tape business.50 51

In addition, witnesses testified that when a production line is shut down, the usually warm

adhesive mixture must be cooled down, cleaned out, and (usually) discarded, a several hour process at

least. While the processing line is to be restarted, the reverse process takes place, and may take the crew 

eight hours to set up. While the formulated adhesive mixture might be saved, it is subject to degradation,

producing lower quality finished tape, sold at a lower price.52 Thus, producers face a strong incentive to

keep production lines active.53

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

The Commission did not make a domestic like product determination per se in its original

investigation; however, in its expedited first and second five-year review determinations, the Commission

found that the appropriate definition of the domestic like product was the same as Commerce’s scope: 

pressure sensitive plastic tape measuring over 1-3/8 inches in width and not exceeding 4 mils in

thickness.54 The Commission also found the domestic industry to be all producers of the domestic like

product. For the purposes of the current review, the domestic interested parties have indicated that no

new evidence has arisen that would require the Commission to revisit the like product determinations

from the original and the first and second five-year reviews.55

 48 Pechsiam, <http://www.pechsiam.com/allabout_what%20is%20latex.htm>, retrieved January 25, 2010.

 49 Hearing transcript, pp. 59-60 (Anderson). 

 50 Hearing transcript, p. 60 (Serra); pp. 59-60 (Anderson); p. 60 (Serra).

 51 Identified prominent Italian PSA tape converting equipment manufacturers include Sicad (also a major PSA

tape manufacturer, “Eurocel”), Guzzetti, and Bobst. Hearing transcript, p. 24 (Helton); Plant tour and interview

session with ***, January 7, 2010.

 52 Hearing transcript, p. 97 (Neeley); pp. 98-99 (Helton); p. 99, p. 127 (Serra).

 53 The large domestic producers contend that the dynamic effect of this high capital intensity required at the high

end of the hot melt market -- shared globally with the large Italian tape producers -- is unworkable at 55-60 percent

of capacity for very long. Hearing transcript, p. 55 (Anderson), p. 69 (Anderson); pp. 63-64 (Helton). 

 54 Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Investigation No. AA1921-167 (Review), USITC Publication 3157,

February 1999. Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Investigation No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC

Publication 3698, June 2004. 

 55 The domestic interested parties have indicated that distinctions between different types of PSP tape (such as

acrylic, hot melt and natural rubber) constitute a continuum that comprises a single domestic like product. 

Prehearing brief of 3M, Shurtape, and Intertape, p. 8. 

I-17
U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Producers

The domestic PSP tape industry has experienced a number of changes since the Commission’s

original investigation concerning PSP tape from Italy was conducted in 1977. Since that time, closures,

openings, and acquisitions have altered the composition of the domestic industry. During the original

investigation, eight firms were identified as producers of PSP tape,56 with four firms believed to account

for at least 80 percent of domestic production during the original investigation: 3M (identified as “by far”

the largest U.S. manufacturer); Johnson & Johnson, Permacel Division;57 Nashua Corp., Industrial

Tape Division;58 and Borden Co., Mystic Tape Division.59 Anchor Continental, which began its PSP tape

operations in 1975, was also identified as a U.S. producer of PSP tape in the original staff report.60 

In the Commission’s first five-year review, 3M, the only party to respond to the Commission’s

notice of institution in that review, provided the following list of U.S. producers of PSP tape: 3M;

Intertape Polymer Group, Inc. (“Intertape”); Central Products Co.;61 Bemis Co., Inc.; Sekisui TA

Industries, Inc. (“STA”); and Shurtape Technologies, Inc. (“Shurtape”).62 In the Commission’s second

five-year review, 3M identified the following ten companies as producers of PSP tape in the United

States: Bemis Co.; Canadian Technical Tapes (“Cantech”); Intertape; Manco; Nitto Denko (“Permacel”);

Shurtape; STA; Tyco Adhesives; Tara Tape; and Tesa Tape, Inc (“Tesa”). 63

In response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the present review, 3M identified 13

firms as those currently producing PSP tape in the United States. 3M acknowledged that many of the

producers listed were small and that it believed that 3M, Intertape, and Shurtape account for *** of U.S.

PSP tape production, respectively accounting for *** percent, *** percent, and *** percent, of U.S. PSP

tape production.64 Upon request from the Commission, 3M also submitted a list of converters, but

observed that the vast majority of converting operations are performed by 3M itself. 3M reported that it

***.65 

 56 Original staff report at A-17.

 57 Johnson & Johnson sold its Permacel Division to Avery International Corporation in 1982. In 1988, Permacel

was acquired by Nitto Denko Corporation (“Nitto Denko”), a Japanese chemical company, at which time Permacel

moved its headquarters from Pleasant Prairie, WI to Teaneck, NJ. In April 2009, Nitto Denko announced plans to

close its Pleasant Prairie operations by the end of September 2009. “Nitto Denko to close Pleasant Prairie Plant, cut

some 100 jobs” http://www.jsonline.com/newswatch/42285032.html?newsWatchDate=11-8-2009, retrieved

December 10, 2009. Effective October 1, 2009, Nitto Denko announced that the Permacel brand name will be

converted over to the existing Nitto Denko corporate brand called Nitto Tape. “Permacel Brand Name Changes after

October 1, 2009.” http://www.nittousa.com/files/news.aspx?aid=151, retrieved December 10, 2009. 

 58 Nashua Tape-branded products are now offered by Berry Plastics Corporation (“Berry”), a *** U.S. producer

of PSP tape. ***. 

 59 After a leveraged buy-out in 1995, Borden began divesting itself of its various divisions and is no longer

present in the U.S. PSP tape industry. 

 60 Anchor Continental was acquired by Intertape Polymer Group, Inc. (“Intertape”) in 1996.

 61 Central Products Co. was acquired by Intertape in 1999.

 62 Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Investigation No. AA1921-167 (Review), USITC Publication 3157,

February 1999, p. I-15.

 63 Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Investigation No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Publication

3698, June 2004, p. I-6.

 64 Domestic interested parties’ response to the notice of institution, June 1, 2009; Domestic interested parties’

supplemental response to the notice of institution, June 12, 2009.

 65 Email from ***, October 2, 2009. Plant tour and interview session with ***, December 2 and 3, 2009. 

I-18
The Commission issued producers’ questionnaires to 25 firms, eight of which are confirmed

producers of PSP tape in the United States. Of these eight firms, five provided the Commission with

useable information on their PSP tape operations.66 These five firms are believed to account for

approximately 70 percent of U.S. production of PSP tape in 2008.67 Presented in table I-5 is a list of

current domestic producers of PSP tape and each company’s position on continuation of the finding,

production location(s), related and/or affiliated firms, and share of reported production of PSP tape in

2008.

As indicated in table I-5, U.S. producer, 3M, is related to a foreign producer of the subject

merchandise from Italy. The domestic interested parties estimate that 3M accounts for *** percent of

imports of the subject merchandise from Italy.68 In addition, as discussed in greater detail in Part III, ***

U.S. producers directly import PSP tape and *** U.S. producers purchase PSP tape from U.S. importers.

 66 The five U.S. producers that supplied the Commission with usable questionnaire information are: 3M, Avery

Dennison, Specialty Tapes Division (“Avery Dennison”), Intertape, Shurtape, and STA. The Commission also

received questionnaire responses from U.S. PSP producers Berry Plastics Corporation (“Berry”) and Cantech. 

Responses submitted by ***, which each accounted for a very small portion of the U.S. PSP tape industry, contained

incomplete data and were not compiled in this report. The Commission also received confirmation from Tesa that it

is a *** producer of PSP tape in the United States; however, Tesa did not submit a response to the Commission’s

questionnaire. 

 67 A representative on behalf of the Pressure Sensitive Tape Council (“PSTC”), a trade association representing

23 tape manufacturers and 12 affiliate suppliers, presented testimony at the hearing. Speaking on behalf of the

smaller companies that did not respond to the Commission’s questionnaires and that have maintained a “passive lack

of interest” regarding the finding, the witness noted that these companies have been more focused on imports from

Asia and that since imports from Italy have not entered in the U.S. in significant quantities because of the

antidumping finding, these companies are simply not aware of the situation in Italy. Moreover, the witness noted

that as smaller producers, these companies rely on the key industry leaders to carry the burden of such threats to the

industry. Hearing transcript, pp. 35-36 (Anderson). 

 68 Domestic interested parties’ supplemental response to the notice of institution, June 12, 2009.

I-19
Table I-5

PSP tape: U.S. producers, positions on the orders, U.S. production locations, related and/or

affiliated firms, and shares of 2008 reported U.S. production

Firm

Position on

continuation

of the orders

Production

location(s)

Related and/or affiliated

firms

Share of

production

(percent)

 3M Support

Greenville, SC

Cynthiana, KY 3M Italia; 3M Canada ***

Avery Dennison *** Painesville, OH

Avery Dennison Belgie,

BVBA ***

Berry *** Evansville, IN None ***

Cantech *** Johnson City, TN Canadian Technical Tape ***

Intertape Support

Brighton, CO;

Danville, VA;

Richmond, KY None ***

Shurtape Support

Hickory, NC

Hudson, NC Shurtech Brands ***

STA ***

Brea, CA;

Rogersville, TN Sekisui Chemical, Ltd. ***

Tesa Tape, Inc. *** Sparta, Michigan Tesa, SE ***

 1 ***.

 2

 ***.

Note.–Because of rounding, shares may not total to 100.0 percent.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

I-20
U.S. Importers

The Commission issued 96 questionnaires to potential U.S. importers of PSP tape identified in the

domestic interested parties’ response to the notice of institution and identified through independent staff

research. Of these, the Commission received useable data from 19 U.S. importing firms on their

operations involving the importation of PSP tape. Staff believes that the data reported by responding U.S.

importers account for the vast majority U.S. imports of subject PSP tape from Italy, which domestic

interested parties estimate to be *** percent of total U.S. imports of PSP tape. Given the large volume of

the remaining imports from all other countries, staff believes that data for U.S. imports of PSP tape from

nonsubject countries are under-represented. Table I-6 lists all responding U.S. importers of PSP tape

from Italy and other sources, their locations, and their shares of U.S. imports in 2008.

Table I-6

PSP tape: U.S. importers, U.S. headquarters, and shares of reported imports in 2008

* * * * * * *

U. S. Purchasers

The Commission received ten usable purchaser questionnaires from firms that bought pressure

sensitive plastic tape during 2006-08 and January-September 2009. Five of the firms are end users, two

are distributors, one is a retailer, one functions both as an end user and distributor, and one is a reseller

that sells to wholly owned subsidiaries. Five are located in the South, four are located in the Midwest and

one is located on the West Coast. The responding purchasers represent a variety of domestic industries

including computers, paint, baby care products, retailing, and the shipment of packages. Five of the

purchasers, *** are among *** ten largest customers.

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND MARKET SHARES

Table I-7 presents apparent U.S. consumption for 2006-08, January-September 2008, and JanuarySeptember 2009, while table I-8 presents U.S. market shares for the same period. Apparent U.S.

consumption of PSP tape, as shown in table I-7 and I-8, is based on U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of

PSP tape and U.S. shipments of imports of PSP tape as compiled from questionnaire responses submitted

by U.S. importers. Staff believes that data for U.S. imports of PSP tape from nonsubject countries are

under-represented.69 

 69 PSP tape, as defined by Commerce, falls into a broad “basket category” of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) of the United States, which includes products that do not conform to the characteristics (e.g., adhesive on one

side) or dimensional specifications (e.g., greater than 1 3/8 inches in width and no greater than 4 mils in thickness)

included in the scope language. As a result, Staff believes that official Commerce statistics overstate imports of PSP

tape. 

I-21
Table I-7

PSP tape: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. shipments of imports, and apparent U.S.

consumption, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and January-September 2009

Item

Calendar year January-September

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 square yards)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 2,229,550 2,123,615 2,081,742 1,581,036 1,330,397

U.S. shipments of imports from–

Italy (subject) 12,154 32,374 21,528 17,675 7,864

Italy (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

Other nonsubject countries *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, nonsubject sources 405,187 479,677 450,764 357,234 337,509

Total U.S. import shipments 417,341 512,051 472,291 374,909 345,373

Apparent U.S. consumption 2,646,891 2,635,666 2,554,033 1,955,945 1,675,770

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 456,880 440,417 435,653 341,018 302,194

U.S. shipments of imports from--

Italy (subject) 5,248 6,446 4,781 3,444 2,874

Italy (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

Other nonsubject countries *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, nonsubject sources 65,633 74,578 75,831 56,493 58,562

Total U.S. import shipments 70,882 81,024 80,612 59,937 61,436

Apparent U.S. consumption 527,762 521,441 516,265 400,955 363,630

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

I-22
Table I-8

PSP tape: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and JanuarySeptember 2009

Item

Calendar year January-September

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 square yards)

Apparent U.S. consumption 2,646,891 2,635,666 2,554,033 1,955,945 1,675,770

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent U.S. consumption 527,762 521,441 516,265 400,955 363,630

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 84.2 80.6 81.5 80.8 79.4

U.S. imports from--

Italy (subject) 0.5 1.2 0.8 0.9 0.5

Italy (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

Other nonsubject

countries *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal, nonsubject sources 15.3 18.2 17.6 18.3 20.1

All countries 15.8 19.4 18.5 19.2 20.6

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 86.6 84.5 84.4 85.1 83.1

U.S. imports from--

Italy (subject) 1.0 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.8

Italy (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

Other nonsubject

countries *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal, nonsubject sources 12.4 14.3 14.7 14.1 16.1

All countries 13.4 15.5 15.6 14.9 16.9

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

I-23
 
 1

 When asked whether the demand is subject to business cycles, most questionnaire respondents answered no.

However, one purchaser and one producer reported that demand for PSP tape reaches peak levels during the

Christmas season. One importer also reported that demand is strong during the moving season in the second and

third quarters of the year. Hearing testimony suggested that the consumer side of the business is particularly

seasonal. Rick Anderson , the global business manager for 3M, reported that consumer demand is strong during the

third and fourth quarters of the year due to back-to-school demand and the holiday season. Hearing transcript, p.

118 (Anderson). 

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

Introduction

PSP tape is used primarily to seal cartons or corrugated boxes. It is also used for masking

applications, insulating electrical wires and cables, and for certain sanitary, medical, or health-related

functions.1

 As shown in table II-1, the majority of shipments of PSP tape by U.S. producers and by

importers of PSP tape from Italy and other sources went to distributors throughout the period for which

data were collected. 

Table II-1

PSP tape: Share of U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments, by channels of

distribution, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and January-September 2009

Item

Calendar year January-September

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Share of shipments (percent)

United States

Distributors 93.8 93.7 92.9 92.7 94.0 

End users 6.2 6.3 7.1 7.3 6.0 

Italy (subject)1

Distributors *** *** *** *** ***

End users *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries

Distributors *** *** *** *** ***

End users *** *** *** *** ***

 1 One importer reported imports from a nonsubject Italian source, but did not provide breakouts of shipments

between distributors and end users. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
II-2

U.S.-produced PSP tape, subject imports from Italy, and imports from nonsubject countries are

sold in all areas of the United States. Six of the seven U.S. producers provided numerical breakouts of

their sales by region in the United States in 2008. The distribution of these sales (on a weighted-average

basis) is shown in the following tabulation:

Region Percentage

Northeast 14.1

Midwest 26.3

Southeast 22.9

Central Southwest 15.9

Mountain 6.0

Pacific 14.4

Other 0.4

Total 100.0

 

Most importers did not provide breakouts of sales by region and therefore, weighted-averages

were not computed. *** reported that in 2008, *** percent of its sales of subject imports from Italy were

in the Northeast, *** percent were in the Midwest, *** percent were in the Southeast, *** percent were in

the central Southwest, *** percent were in the Mountain States, and *** percent were in the Pacific Coast

region. *** reported that in 2008, *** percent of its sales of subject imports from Italy were in the

Northeast, *** percent were in the Midwest, *** percent were in the Southeast, *** percent were in the

central Southwest, *** percent were in the Mountain States, and *** percent were in the Pacific Coast

region.

For the importers of PSP tape from nonsubject countries the shares of sales ranged from 12.0 to

35.0 percent in the Northeast, 10.0 to 55.0 percent in the Midwest, 10.0 to 26.0 percent in the Southeast,

10.0 to 21.7 percent in the central Southwest, 4.0 to 10.0 percent in the Mountain States, and 9.4 to 35.0

percent in the Pacific Coast region.

Average lead times for delivery of PSP tape depend upon whether the product is sold from

inventory or produced to order. Among U.S. producers, average lead times ranged from 2 days to 1 week

if the item is sold out of inventory and from 10 days to 8 weeks if the item is produced to order. Among

importers, lead times ranged from 3 days to 2 weeks if the item is sold out of inventory in the United

States. For items produced to order, the lead time is as much as 12 weeks.
 2

 Short-run effect discussed in the supply and demand sections refer to changes that could occur within 12 months

unless otherwise indicated.

 3

 Data on U.S. PSP production, capacity, inventories, and alternative markets are presented in detail in Part III.

 4

 ***. 

II-3

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS2

Supply

U.S. Supply3

Based on available information, U.S. PSP tape producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced PSP tape to the U.S. market. 

The main contributing factor to the high degree of responsiveness of supply is the availability of unused

capacity, especially in 2009, and inventories of PSP tape. 

Industry capacity

During 2006-08, U.S. industry capacity utilization rates ranged from a low of 70.5 percent in

2007 to a high of 77.0 percent in 2006. During January-September 2009, the industry capacity utilization

rate was 61.1 percent compared to 75.8 percent during January-September 2008.4

Alternative markets

During 2006-08, exports as a percentage of total industry shipments ranged from 5.3 percent in

2006 to 6.5 percent in 2008. During January-September 2009, they accounted for 5.1 percent of total

shipments, compared to 6.6 percent in January-September 2008. 

When U.S. producers were asked whether their exports are subject to tariffs or non-tariff barriers

to trade in other countries, two producers answered yes, and five answered no. *** reported that high

tariffs in Brazil are a barrier to exports to that country. *** also stated that costs of shipping and standard

tariffs are a barrier to trade in Asian countries. Another producer, ***, reported tariff rates on PSP tape of

10 percent in both Argentina and Brazil, 20 percent in Colombia, 6.3 percent in the European Union, and

3.8 percent in Japan.

When U.S. producers were asked how easily they could shift sales between the United States and

alternative markets, all seven producers reported that it would be difficult. The reasons frequently cited

were high shipping costs and competition from Asian suppliers.

Inventory levels

During 2006-08, end-of-period inventories relative to total industry shipments ranged from a low

of 9.9 percent in 2008 to a high of 11.4 percent in 2007. During January-September 2009, inventories

were equivalent to 11.4 percent of shipments, compared to 10.6 percent in January-September 2008.

Production alternatives

Three of the seven U.S. producers reported that they produce other products on the equipment

and machinery used to produce PSP tape. Alternative products included film and paperboard. 
 5

 Data on foreign PSP production, capacity, inventories, and alternative markets are presented in detail in Part IV.

 6

 In their prehearing and posthearing briefs, the domestic interested parties have argued that subject Italian

capacity utilization rates is low, ***. Domestic interested parties’ prehearing brief pp. 18-19 and posthearing brief,

pp. 1-3. 

 7

 Apparent U.S. consumption is understated due to incomplete information on nonsubject imports.

II-4

Supply of PSP Tape from Italy to the U.S. Market5

Subject Imports 

Based on available information, Italian PSP tape producers may have the ability to respond to

changes in demand with changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced PSP tape to the U.S.

market. The main contributing factor to the responsiveness of supply is the availability of unused

capacity, especially in 2009.

Industry capacity

During 2006-08, combined capacity utilization rates for the responding subject Italian producers,

3M Italia and Sicad, ranged from a low of *** percent in *** to a high of *** percent in ***. During

January-September 2009 however, the rate was only *** percent, compared *** percent in JanuarySeptember 2008.6

Alternative market 

Home market shipments accounted for *** percent of total shipments in 2006, *** percent in

2007, and *** percent in 2008. During January-September 2009, home market shipments accounted for

*** percent of total shipments as compared to *** percent in January-September 2008. The majority of

subject Italian exports of PSP tape consistently went to EU markets throughout the period for which data

were collected, with much smaller amounts going to Asia and other markets during this period. 

Inventory levels

During 2006-08, the ratio of inventories in Italy to total shipments ranged between *** percent

and *** percent. During January-September 2009, the ratio was *** percent, compared to *** percent in

January-September 2008. 

Production alternative

One firm, ***, reported that it produces paper backing masking tape, self adhesive plastic tape,

and double sided self adhesive tape, on the equipment used to produce PSP tape. 

U.S. Demand

Demand Characteristics

The demand for PSP tape is a derived demand that depends upon the demand for boxes and other

products where its use is required. The demand for PSP tape as measured by apparent U.S. consumption,7

was stable between 2006 and 2008 at 2.6 billion square yards. During January-September 2009, apparent

U.S. consumption was 1.7 billion yards, compared with 2.0 billion yards during January-September 2008.

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked whether demand in the United States had

increased, decreased, fluctuated, or remained unchanged following the imposition of the finding in 1977. 
 8

 Producers, importers, and purchasers were also asked whether demand outside the United States had increased,

decreased, fluctuated, or remained the same since the imposition of the finding in 1977. While responses to this

question were limited, some respondents reported that demand and production had grown rapidly in Asian markets. 

On a related topic, producers and importers were asked whether nonsubject imports had increased following the

imposition of the finding in 1977. All seven producers and some importers answered yes, noting a large expansion

in production in Asian countries, and increased imports from those countries into the United States. 

 9

 Wayne Helton, vice president of manufacturing for Shurtape Technologies, particularly noted the decline in

Shurtape’s PSP sales in 2009. Hearing transcript, p. 98 (Helton).

 10 At the hearing, Richard Anderson, global business manager for 3M, argued that neither staples nor hot-melt

glue are close substitutes for PSP tape. He said that staples have safety issues and are difficult to open, while hotmelt glue does not protect from dust, which is a problem in food packaging lines, and requires a large capital

investment. Hearing transcript, pp. 133-134 (Anderson). 

 11 Five of the purchasers rank among ***’s ten largest purchasers. These include ***. 

II-5

Among responding producers, three firms reported that demand had increased, one reported that it had

fluctuated, one reported that it had decreased, and one reported that it had decreased and fluctuated. 8 9

Among responding importers, two reported that demand had increased, one reported that it had fluctuated,

and five reported that there had been no change. Among responding purchasers, six reported an increase

in demand and one reported no change. When asked about the factors affecting demand, the U.S.

economy was frequently cited by U.S. producers and importers. In addition, three U.S. producers that

reported increases in demand cited changes in technology and the gradual replacement by PSP tape of

glue, staples, foil backed tape, and gummed and flatback paper. 

Substitute Products

When asked to list substitutes for PSP tape, questionnaire respondents identified a number of

substitutes including adhesives, hot melt glue, water-activated tape, double-sided tape, foil-backed tape,

duct tape, masking tape, staples, and mechanical closures.10 In most cases, the respondents reported that

changes in the prices of these substitutes do not affect the price of PSP tape. However, one firm reported

that changes in the price of hot melt glue do affect the price of the subject product. 

Cost Share

Questionnaire respondents were asked to estimate the percentage of the total cost of end-use

products that is accounted for by PSP tape. The estimates varied depending upon the application. One

producer estimated that PSP tape accounts for less than two percent of packaging costs and costs in

industrial uses. One importer and one purchaser both estimated that it accounts for about two percent of

the cost of sealing boxes. Another purchaser estimated that it accounts for six to seven percent of the cost

of ***. 

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitutability between domestic products and subject imports, between domestic

products and nonsubject imports, and between subject and nonsubject imports is examined in this section. 

Much of the discussion is based on information obtained from questionnaire responses.

Ten purchasers, including five end users, one retailer, two distributors, one firm that functions as

both an end user and distributor, and one firm that is a reseller to wholly owned subsidiaries provided

questionnaires.11 During the period 2006-08 and January-September 2009, seven of these firms

purchased PSP tape entirely from domestic sources, two purchased from both domestic sources and

imports from nonsubject countries, and one purchased entirely from nonsubject sources. The nonsubject
 12 One purchaser, ***, reported purchasing a small quantity of PSP tape from a nonsubject Italian company in

2008.

 13 At the hearing, Richard Anderson, global business manager for 3M, stated that the cost to maintain a brand is

one to two percent of sales. Hearing transcript, p. 112 (Anderson). ***.

 14 The one purchaser that answered “never”, *** reported that it buys all of its PSP tape from one supplier, ***. 

It prefers the *** tape because of its tensile quality and tensile strength. 

II-6

countries included Argentina, Brazil, China, Germany, Japan, and Taiwan. None of the responding

producers reported purchases of subject imports from Italy.12

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

When asked to rank the three most important factors involved in purchasing decisions, the 10

purchasers that responded most frequently reported availability, price or cost, and quality as the most

important factors (table II-2). Other factors mentioned included meeting specifications, preexisting

contracts, product consistency, and reliability. 

Table II-2

PSP tape: Ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Number one factor Number two factor Number three factor

Availability 2 2 2

Price or cost 3 1 2

Quality 2 2 1

Other1 34 4

 1 Other factors included delivery, meeting specifications, preexisting contracts, lead time, reliability, product

consistency, and being a *** distributor. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were also asked whether their firm purchases PSP tape at the lowest possible price.13

When nine responding purchasers were given a choice of answering “always,” “usually,” “sometimes,” or

“never,” two purchasers answered “usually,” six answered “sometimes,” and one answered “never.”14

To further examine the importance of different factors in purchasing decisions, purchasers were

asked to indicate whether the 15 factors listed in table II-3 were “very important,” “somewhat important,”

or “not important” in their purchasing decisions. The factors ranked “very important” most frequently

were availability (ten purchasers), reliability of supply (nine purchasers), and price, product consistency,

and quality meeting industry standards (eight purchasers each). 
II-7

Table II-3

PSP tape: Importance of purchasing factors, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Very important

Somewhat

important Not Important

Number of firms responding

Availability 10 0 0

Delivery terms 6 3 1

Delivery time 5 5 0

Discounts offered 2 7 1

Extension of credit 1 6 3

Price 8 2 0

Minimum quantity requirements 3 5 2

Packaging 1 8 1

Product consistency 8 1 1

Quality meets industry standards 8 1 1

Quality exceeds industry standards 2 7 1

Product range 1 8 1

Reliability of supply 9 1 0

Technical support/service 2 6 2

U.S. transportation costs 2 5 2

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

When purchasers were asked whether their suppliers were required to become certified or

prequalified with respect to the quality, chemistry, strength or other characteristics of the PSP tape sold to

their firm, six purchasers answered “yes” and four answered “no.” Among purchasers answering yes,

four reported that certification or prequalification applies to all purchases, one reported that it applies to

60 percent of purchases, and one reported that it applies to samples. When asked to provide a general

description of the qualification process, one purchaser, ***, reported that it performs its own lab testing

and then performs operational testing of varying sample sizes. Another purchaser, ***, reported that

suppliers must go through a financial review, a continuity of supply audit, and product testing to

determine whether the supplier meets *** requirements for tensile and adhesive strength. Another

purchaser, ***, reported that it has a three stage process of product validation, qualification, and

confirmation that takes six to twelve months. Other purchasers require plant certification, certified testing

results, and independent testing conducted by packaging engineers. 

Comparisons of Domestic Products and Subject Imports and Nonsubject Imports

To determine whether U.S.-produced PSP tape generally can be used in the same applications as

subject imports from Italy and nonsubject sources, producers, importers, and purchasers were asked

whether the product can “always,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “never” be used interchangeably. The

results are shown in table II-4. The majority of questionnaire respondents reported that PSP tape

produced in the United States and subject imports from Italy can be used interchangeably, although there

were only two importer responses and no purchaser responses. One U.S. producer, ***, reported that
II-8

most U.S. producers and Italian producers of PSP tapes utilize equipment that coats synthetic rubber

based on BOPP (bi-axially oriented polyproplene) backings, and the similarity in these products can lead

to frequent substitutions. One importer, ***, stated that given the same specifications, products’

interchangeability is determined by the producer’s quality and service. One purchaser, ***, reported that

it always specifies 3M tape and is not aware of comparisons with other country tape offerings. Another

purchaser, ***, reported that non-standard supplier assets and differing global *** designs are two factors

that limit or preclude interchangeable use. Another purchaser, ***, reported that it has evaluated tapes in

Asia and has determined that some products may meet *** specifications. However, pricing and

transport to the United States are a concern. 

Table II-4

PSP tape: Perceived degree of interchangeability of product produced in the United States and in

other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers Purchasers

A F S N A F S N A F SN

U.S. vs. Italy (subject) 4 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0

U.S. vs. Italy (nonsubject) 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0

U.S. vs. Other countries 3 2 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 2 0

Italy (subject) vs. Italy (nonsubject) 3 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0

Italy (subject) vs. Other countries 3 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0

Italy (nonsubject) vs. Other countries 3 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

 1 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if PSP tape produced in the United States and in other countries is used

interchangeably.

Note.-- “A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, and “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

In addition to questions concerning interchangeability, producers and importers were also

asked to compare U.S.-produced products with subject imports from Italy and nonsubject imports in terms

of product differences other than price (such as quality, availability, product range, and other

characteristics) as a factor in their sales of PSP tape. Responses are shown in table II-5. *** reported that

brand, quality, and sustainability are factors in product selection. Another producer, *** reported that it

has one source of natural rubber carton sealing tape in the United States, and that it turns to Italy or other

European countries to secure sourcing if needed. One importer, ***, reported that differences exist more

for individual producers than for country of origin. 
II-9

Table II-5

PSP tape: U.S. producers’ and importers’ perceived importance of factors other than price in sales

of products produced in the United States and in other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers

AFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. Italy (subject) 1 1 2 0 0101

U.S. vs. Italy (nonsubject) 1120 0101

U.S. vs. Other countries 1140 0121

Italy (subject) vs. Italy (nonsubject) 1120 0101

Italy (subject) vs. Other countries 1120 0101

Italy (nonsubject) vs. Other countries 1120 0101

 1 Producers, and importers were asked if differences other than price between PSP tape produced in the United

States and in other countries are a significant factor in their firms’ sales of PSP tape. 

Note.-- “A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, and “N” = Never. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers also were asked to compare U.S.-produced PSP tape and imported PSP tape from Italy

and nonsubject imports with respect to the 15 selected characteristics listed in table II-6, noting whether

the domestic product was superior, comparable, or inferior to the imported product. No firms provided

any comparisons between the United States and Italy. However, three firms provided a total of four

comparisons between the United States and nonsubject imports. One purchaser *** compared the U.S.

product with imports from Taiwan. Another purchaser *** compared the U.S. product with imports from

Asia in general. A third purchaser, *** compared the U.S. product separately with imports from

Germany and imports from China. In most of the categories, all, or a majority, or a plurality of

purchasers ranked the products as comparable. The only exceptions were: price (where the United States

received two rankings of inferior and two rankings of comparable) and delivery time (where the United

States was given two rankings (i.e. higher) of superior and two rankings of comparable).
II-10

Table II-6

PSP tape: Comparisons between U.S.-produced and products from nonsubject countries as

reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

U.S. vs. nonsubject countries

S CI

Number of firms responding 

Availability 0 31

Delivery terms 1 21

Delivery time 2 2 0

Discounts offered 0 40

Extension of credit 0 40

Price1 0 22

Minimum quantity requirements 0 31

Packaging 0 3 1

Product consistency 0 31

Product range 0 40

Quality meets industry standards 0 4 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 0 40

Reliability of supply 1 30

Technical support/service 1 3 0

U.S. transportation costs1 1 30

 1 A rating of superior on price and U.S. transportation costs indicates that the first country generally has lower

prices/U.S. transportation costs than the second country.

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed

country’s product is inferior.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

In a separate question concerning quality comparisons, purchasers were also asked to

report separately whether U.S.-produced PSP tape, subject imports from Italy, and nonsubject imports

“always,” “usually,” “sometimes,” “rarely” or “never” meet minimum quality specifications for their uses

or their customers uses. Of the nine purchasers commenting on the U.S. product, five answered “always”

and four answered “usually”. Of the two purchasers commenting on the subject imports from Italy, one

answered “always/usually” and one answered “usually.” Of the purchasers that commented on

nonsubject imports, one reported that the imported products from Argentina, Brazil, China, Germany,

Japan “always/usually”meet minimum quality specifications. Another purchaser reported that imports

from China and Taiwan “usually” meet these specifications, and a third reported that imports from

Taiwan “usually” meet specifications. Another purchaser reported that imports from Asia “usually” meet

specifications. 
 15 A supply function is not defined in the case of a non-competitive market.

 16 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject

imports and the domestic like products to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switch

from the U.S. product to the subject products (or vice versa) when prices change.

II-11

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

This section discusses elasticity estimates; domestic interested parties were encouraged

to comment on these estimates in their briefs. However, no comments were submitted. 

U.S. Supply Elasticity15

The domestic supply elasticity for PSP tape measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied by

U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of PSP tape. The elasticity of domestic supply

depends on several factors, including the level of excess capacity, the ease with which producers can alter

capacity, producers’ ability to shift to production of other products, the existence of inventories, and the

availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced PSP tape. Analysis of these factors, including the

fairly large amount of excess production capacity, indicates that the elasticity is likely to be relatively

high. A range of 3 to 5 is estimated.

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for PSP tape measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity

demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of PSP tape. This estimate depends on factors discussed

earlier such as the existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products, as well as the

component share of this PSP tape in the production of any downstream products. Since the available

information suggest that there may be viable substitutes for this product, the demand elasticity is likely to

be in the range of -0.8 to -1.2.

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products.16 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality

(e.g., chemistry, appearance, etc.) and conditions of sale (availability, sales terms/discounts/promotions,

etc.). Because of the small quantity of imports of PSP from Italy during the period in which data were

collected, it is difficult to estimate an elasticity of substitution. Based on available information, the

elasticity of substitution between U.S.-produced PSP tape and imported PSP may be in the range of 3 to

5.
 
PART III: CONDITION OF THE U.S. INDUSTRY

OVERVIEW

Background

Since the Commission’s original 1977 investigation concerning PSP tape from Italy, the U.S. 

industry has experienced a number of changes, marked by closures, openings, and acquisitions. In the

original investigation, eight firms were identified as producers of PSP tape, with the following four firms

believed to account for at least 80 percent of domestic production during the original investigation: 3M

(identified as “by far” the largest U.S. manufacturer); Johnson & Johnson, Permacel Division; Nashua

Corp., Industrial Tape Division; and Borden Co., Mystic Tape Division. As detailed in Part I of this

report, three of these four firms (3M being the lone exception) have either exited the PSP tape market

entirely or have been acquired by other firms. 

In the current review, the Commission issued 25 U.S. producer questionnaires to firms identified

in the domestic interested parties’ response to the Commission’s notice of institution or identified by

independent staff research as possible PSP tape producers in the United States. Eight firms confirmed

that they are producers of PSP tape in the U.S. Of these eight firms, five provided the Commission with

useable data on their PSP tape operations. These five firms -- ***-- are believed to account for

approximately 70 percent of U.S. production of PSP tape in 2008.1

 

Changes Experienced in Operations

 U.S. PSP tape producers were asked to indicate whether their firm had experienced any plant

openings, relocations, expansions, acquisitions, consolidations, closures, prolonged shutdowns or

curtailment of production because of shortages of materials or other reasons including revision of labor

agreements; or any other change in the character of their operations or organization relating to the

production of PSP tape since October 21, 1977. The domestic producers’ responses to this question are

presented in table III-1. 

Table III-1

PSP tape: Changes in the character of U.S. operations since October 21, 1977

* * * * * * *

Anticipated Changes in Existing Operations

The Commission requested that domestic producers provide a copy of their business plans or

other internal documents that describe, discuss, or analyze expected future market conditions for PSP

tape. *** submitted copies of their business plans in attachments to their questionnaire responses. Table

III-2 presents U.S. producer ***’s anticipated changes to its U.S. operations. 

 1 The Commission also received questionnaire responses from U.S. PSP tape producers Berry Plastics

Corporation (“Berry”) and Cantech Industries, Inc. (“Cantech”). Responses submitted by ***, which each

accounted for a very small portion of the U.S. PSP tape industry, contained incomplete data and were not compiled

in this report. The Commission also received confirmation from Tesa that it is a *** producer of PSP tape in the

United States; however, Tesa did not submit a response to the Commission’s questionnaire, despite repeated requests

by Staff.

III-1
Table III-2

PSP tape: Anticipated changes in U.S. operations 

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

The Commission requested information on PSP tape capacity and production from PSP tape

producers. U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization data for PSP tape are presented

in table III-3. Between 2006 and 2007, total reported U.S. capacity increased by 8.0 percent before

returning to very slightly below 2006 levels in 2008. These fluctuations are attributable to *** reported

changes in capacity, which increased by *** percent between 2006 and 2007 and decreased by ***

percent between 2007 and 2008.2

 

U.S. production of PSP tape decreased by 6.7 percent between 2006 and 2008 and was 16.8

percent lower in January-September 2009 than in January-September 2008. Capacity utilization

decreased by 4.7 percentage points between 2006 and 2008 and was 14.7 percentage points lower in

January-September 2009 than in January-September 2008.3

Table III-3

PSP tape: U.S. producers’ U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2006-08, JanuarySeptember 2008, and January-September 2009

Item

Calendar year January-September

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Capacity (1,000 square yards)

1 2,982,863 3,220,949 2,963,683 2,223,161 2,295,305

Production (1,000 square yards) 2,296,750 2,270,674 2,141,994 1,684,660 1,402,001

Capacity utilization (percent) 77.0 70.5 72.3 75.8 61.1

 1 *** reported capacity (production capability) based on operating 168 hours per week and 52 weeks per year; ***

reported capacity based on operating 8 hours per week and 52 weeks per year; *** reported capacity based on

operating 168 hours per week and 50 weeks per year; *** reported capacity based on operating 168 hours per week

and 48 weeks per year; and *** reported capacity based on operating 168 hours per week and 52 weeks per year. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

The Commission requested each U.S. producer to indicate the types of PSP tape that they

produce. The categories of tape type included the following: carton sealing, electrical/electronic,

masking, medical, sanitary, or health-related, and other. According to questionnaire responses, five U.S.

producers (***) reported producing carton sealing tape. In addition to carton sealing tape, three firms

(***) reported producing masking tape, one firm (***) reported producing electrical/electronic tape; and

one firm (***) reported producing tapes from all four categories, as well as ***.4

As detailed in Part I, PSP tapes are distinguished by the types of adhesives that are applied to the

tape backing, with the three main forms being acrylic, hot melt (synthetic rubber), and natural rubber.5

Acrylic tapes tend to be used in the less sophisticated hand application market and are believed to account

 2 The increase in production capacity between 2006 and 2007 can be attributed to ***.

 3

 ***. Plant tour and interview session with ***, January 7, 2010. 

 4

 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, question II-11.

 5

 Hearing transcript, p. 10 (Anderson).

III-2
for approximately 20 percent of the U.S. market share for carton sealing tape.6

 The U.S. PSP tape

industry is primarily concentrated in the production of hot melt PSP tapes, which have better adhesion

than acrylic tapes and are more suitable for automated closing and bundling systems.7

 Hot melt PSP

tapes account for the largest portion of the carton sealing tape market in the United States.8

 Natural

rubber PSP tapes account for only a small percentage of the U.S. market for carton sealing tape. 

Currently, Intertape is the only U.S. PSP tape firm that produces natural rubber PSP tape, which it

manufactures at its Brighton, CO facility.9

 

Hot melt tapes are more expensive to produce than acrylic tapes and the selling price for the

respective tapes tends to reflect this relationship.10 Witnesses at the hearing testified that the market share

for hot melt PSP tapes is decreasing, while the market share for acrylic tapes is increasing, a shift that was

attributed largely to cost.11 As the representative from 3M observed, consumers are often willing to trade

off some of the better qualities of hot melt for a lower price acrylic.12 In response to the increasing

demand for acrylic PSP tapes, both 3M and Intertape have increased their production of these tapes in the

United States, which they had historically imported from Asian suppliers.13

Constraints on Capacity

The Commission asked domestic producers to report constraints on their capacity to produce PSP

tape. 3M reported that the primary constraint at its Greenville facility is ***, while *** is the primary

constraint at its Cynthiana facility. Avery Dennison reported ***. Intertape reported ***. Shurtape

reported ***. STA reported ***.14 

Two U.S. producers, ***, reported that they are able to produce products other than PSP tape

utilizing the same equipment or labor. ***. *** reported that it uses its PSP tape equipment to produce

such products as ***.15

 6 Posthearing brief of 3M, Intertape, and Shurtape, p. 4; hearing transcript, p. 70 (Anderson).

 7

 Hearing transcript, p. 22 (Helton). 

 8

 Hot melt tape accounts for about *** percent of the U.S. market for carton sealing tape. Plant tour and

interview session with ***, January 7, 2010. According to at least one estimate presented the hearing, hot melt PSP

tapes account for approximately 80 percent share of the U.S. market for carton sealing tape. 

 9

 Hearing transcript, p. 28 (Martin). Based on estimates from ***, natural rubber adhesive tapes account for

between *** percent of the U.S. market. Plant tour and interview session with ***, January 7, 2010.

 10 Hearing transcript, p. 81 (Serra). 

 11 Hearing transcript, p. 70 (Martin). Hearing transcript, p. 10 (Anderson). 

 12 Hearing transcript, p. 12 (Anderson).

 13 Hearing transcript, p. 30 (Martin). 

 14 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, question II-6.

 15 *** producer questionnaire response, question II-5; plant tour and interview session with ***, December 2 and

3, 2009. *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, question II-5. 

III-3
U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS

As detailed in table III-4, the quantity of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of PSP tape decreased

by 6.6 percent between 2006 and 2008, and was 15.9 percent lower in January-September 2009 than in

January-September 2008. The value of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of PSP tape decreased by 4.6

percent between 2006 and 2008 and was 11.4 percent lower in January-September 2009 than in JanuarySeptember 2008. Two producers (***) reported internal consumption during the period and no producer

reported transfers of PSP tape to related firms. U.S. commercial shipments accounted for the vast

majority of total shipments, with exports accounting for no more than 6.5 percent in any full year during

the period for which data were gathered. Five firms reported export shipments of PSP tape. *** reported

exporting to Australia, China, Japan, and South Korea. *** reported exporting to France. *** reported

exporting to Canada and Mexico. *** reported exporting to El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Singapore,

and Thailand. *** reported exporting to Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, and the United Kingdom. 

The Commission also requested U.S. producers to report the relative share of their firm’s 2008

and January-September 2009 U.S. shipments of PSP tape based on tape backing material. The categories

included: polyester, polypropylene, UPVC, and other. Based on questionnaire responses, the vast

majority of U.S. producers reported that polypropylene was the most commonly used tape backing

material, representing 96.6 percent of U.S. shipments of PSP tape in 2008 and 97.0 percent in JanuarySeptember 2009. This finding is noteworthy because during the original investigation in 1977, polyester

PSP tape constituted by far the largest share of U.S. PSP tape production and shipments. The shift away

from polyester PSP tape and towards polypropylene PSP tape began in 1974, as detailed in the original

staff report.16 According to testimony provided at the hearing, polypropylene-backed tape is cost-efficient

and possesses a number of positive properties, which make it the most popular type of tape backing.17

 16 The production of polyester PSP tape accounted for *** percent of total reported U.S. PSP tape production in

1973. By 1976, it accounted for *** percent of total reported U.S. PSP tape production. During the same period,

polypropylene PSP tape accounted for *** percent of total reported U.S. PSP tape production in 1973 and ***

percent in 1976. 

 17 Hearing transcript, p. 84 (Anderson). 

III-4
Table III-4

PSP tape: U.S. producers’ shipments,1

 by types, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and JanuarySeptember 2009 

Item

Calendar year January-September

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 square yards)

U.S. shipments 2,229,550 2,123,615 2,081,742 1,581,036 1,330,397

Export shipments 124,110 131,980 144,957 111,080 70,956

Total shipments 2,353,660 2,255,595 2,226,699 1,692,116 1,401,353

Value ($1,000)

U.S. shipments 456,880 440,417 435,653 341,018 302,194

Export shipments 30,129 30,263 31,063 23,222 16,889

Total shipments 487,009 470,680 466,716 364,240 319,083

Unit value (per square yard)

U.S. shipments $0.20 $0.21 $0.21 $0.22 $0.23

Export shipments 0.24 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.24

Total shipments 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.23

Share of shipment quantity (percent)

U.S. shipments 94.7 94.1 93.5 93.4 94.9

Export shipments 5.3 5.9 6.5 6.6 5.1

Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 U.S. shipments include small amounts of internal consumption reported by ***.

Note.--Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Table III-5, which presents end-of-period inventories for PSP tape, shows that inventories

decreased by 15.2 percent between 2006 and 2008 and were 11.6 percent lower in January-September

2009 than in September-January 2008. In the original investigation, the ratio of inventories to U.S.

shipments was markedly higher than those reported during the period for which data were collected in the

current review.18 Staff observed at ***. ***.19 Staff observed that ***.20

 18 The ratios of inventories to total shipments in the original investigation were: *** percent in 1973; *** percent

in 1974; *** percent in 1975; and *** percent in 1976. Original staff report. 

 19 Plant tour and interview session with ***, December 2 and 3, 2009.

 20 Plant tour and interview session with ***, January 7, 2010.

III-5
Table III-5

PSP tape: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and

January-September 2009

Item

Calendar year January-September

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Inventories (1,000 square yards) 259,348 257,225 220,029 240,234 212,388

Ratio to production (percent) 11.3 11.3 10.3 10.7 11.4

Ratio to U.S. shipments (percent) 11.6 12.1 10.6 11.4 12.0

Ratio to total shipments (percent) 11.0 11.4 9.9 10.6 11.4

Note.–Partial-year ratios are based on annualized production and shipments.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

 U.S. producers’ imports and purchases of PSP tape are presented in table III-6. As detailed in

table III-6, subject imports and/or purchases of imports of PSP tape from Italy are limited when compared

to the ratio of total U.S. production. Five U.S. producers reported importing PSP tape and two U.S.

producers reported purchases of imports from subject and nonsubject countries during the period for

which data were collected. The domestic interested parties maintain that the nature of the relationship to

subject imports for 3M, Shurtape, and Intertape is one of small importations of niche products and that

each company remains primarily a U.S. producer and that their economic interests are overwhelmingly

with U.S. production and not with imports from Italy.21 

As noted earlier, 3M and Intertape had historically imported their acrylic-based adhesive PSP

tape from suppliers in Asia; however, both firms have begun to in-source these tapes at their U.S.

facilities.22 ***. Similarly, ***.23 

Table III-6

PSP tape: U.S. producers’ imports and purchases, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and

January-September 2009

* * * * * * *

 

 21 Domestic interested parties’ response to the notice of institution, June 1, 2009; Domestic interested parties’

supplemental response to the notice of institution, June 12, 2009.

 22 The representative from 3M observed that “we did so despite the fact that the cost of producing product in the

United States is actually higher than purchasing from Asia.” Among the reasons cited by 3M to bring back some of

the production of acrylic products to the United States from Asia were the availability of excess coating and

converting capacity at its U.S. facilities and the fact that U.S. production allows 3M to be closer to customers that

are very sensitive to not having excessive inventory levels during the recession. Hearing transcript, p. 12

(Anderson). Similarly, Intertape decided to move its acrylic tape production back to the United States from China to

help cover its fixed costs for capacity utilization. Hearing transcript, p. 30 (Martin). 

 23 Plant tour and interview session with ***, December 2 and 3, 2009. 

III-6
U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Data provided by U.S. producers on the number of production and related workers (“PRWs”)

engaged in the production of PSP tape, the total hours worked by such workers, and wages paid to such

PRWs during the period for which data were collected in this review are presented in Table III-7. 

Employment, in terms of both PRWs and hours worked, declined between 2006 and 2008 by 4.3 percent. 

The number of PRWs employed in the production of PSP tape in January-September 2009 was 6.9

percent lower than in January-September 2008, while the number of hours worked was 11.0 percent

lower. These declines primarily reflected labor force reductions by ***. ***.24 ***.25

Hourly wages paid increased nominally between 2006 and 2007. A reduction in the aggregate

number of hours worked in 2008 was offset by higher hourly wages, primarily as reported by ***,

resulting in higher total wages paid in 2008 (although still reflecting a net decline in wages paid between

2006 and 2008). In January-September 2009, the substantially lower level of PRW hours worked offset

higher hourly wages and resulted in lower total wages paid relative to the same period in 2008. PRW

productivity declined by 2.5 percent between 2006 and 2008, and was 6.5 percent lower in JanuarySeptember 2009 than in the comparable period in 2008. Lower productivity, combined with the moderate

increases in hourly wage rates discussed above, resulted in an increase in unit labor costs of 3.9 percent

between 2006 and 2008, and 10.9 percent higher unit labor costs in January-September 2009 relative to

January-September 2008.

Table III-7

PSP tape: U.S. producers’ employment-related data, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and

January-September 2009 

Item

Calendar year January-September

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Production and related workers (PRWs) 623 611 596 596 555

Hours worked by PRWs (1,000 hours) 1,127 1,083 1,078 810 720

Hours worked per PRW 1,809 1,773 1,809 1,359 1,297

Wages paid to PRWs (1,000 dollars) 29,076 27,996 28,168 21,366 19,716

Hourly wages $25.81 $25.85 $26.14 $26.39 $27.36

Productivity (square yards produced per

hour) 2,038.5 2,096.8 1,987.6 2,081.1 1,945.9

Unit labor costs (per square yard) $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 $0.01

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 24 Plant tour and interview session with ***, January 7, 2010. 

 25 Plant tour and interview session with ***, January 7, 2010. 

III-7
FINANCIAL CONDITION OF U.S. PRODUCERS

Background

Of the seven U.S. PSP tape producers that responded to the Commission’s questionnaires, five26

provided usable financial data for their operations on PSP tape. These firms accounted for the vast

majority of the domestic industry’s production/sales volume during 2008.27 *** reported internal

consumption that accounted for less than *** percent of 2008 combined net sales values. Internal

consumption reflected packing tape produced and used to seal their own boxes of products in their

production facilities in the United States.28

Operations on PSP Tape

Results of operations of the U.S. producers on their PSP tape operations are presented in table III8, which includes data on a per-unit basis as well as operating income (loss) to net sales ratio. 

The financial results of the producers on their PSP tape operations deteriorated between 2006 and

2008, as net sales quantities and values, as well as operating income, decreased overall. However, in

absolute terms and relative to net sales, operating income improved in January-September (interim) 2009

compared to interim 2008, reflecting both higher unit net sales values and lower per-unit total costs (due

to a drop in oil prices) in January-September 2009.29 While net sales values only decreased slightly

between the full-year periods, as the increase in the per-unit sale values (from $0.207 to $0.209 per square

yard) somewhat offset the larger decrease in sales quantities,30 they were 12.4 percent lower in interim

2009 than in interim 2008. Operating income decreased from $53.5 million in 2006 to $38.1 million in

2008. The decrease in the operating income between 2006 and 2008 resulted primarily from a $0.002

per square yard increase in unit sales values that was $0.006 per square yard lower than the increase in

unit total costs. The unit cost of goods sold (“COGS”) increased by $0.009 per square yard (led primarily

by the increase of raw material costs) while unit selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses

decreased slightly by $0.001 per square yard, combining for a net total cost increase of $0.008 per square

yard. 

Unit sales values were $0.012 per square yard (5.6 percent) higher in interim 2009 than interim

2008, while unit total costs were $0.006 per square yard (3.1 percent) lower, resulting in an operating

income of approximately $55.0 million in interim 2009 compared to an operating income of $35.1 

million in interim 2008. *** producers experienced positive operating income during interim 2009 while

*** reported operating losses in interim 2008 and 2008. The operating margin of 17.3 percent in interim

2009 was the highest during the entire period for which data were collected, reflecting relatively lower

unit COGS and relatively higher unit net sales value. 

 26 *** producers’ fiscal years end on December 31.

 27 ***.

 28 Email from ***, November 12, 2009, submission from ***, November 20, 2009, and staff interview and plant

tour at ***, December 2 and 3, 2009.

 29 Hearing transcript, p. 11 (Anderson); posthearing brief, p. 7 (Barnes, Richardson & Colburn).

 30 Throughout this section, the per-unit values are presented in three decimal points rather than in the usual two

decimal points because two decimal points might not reflect changes in the per-unit values due to rounding. 

III-8
Table III-8

PSP tape: Results of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-08, January-September 2008,

and January-September 2009

Item

Fiscal year January-September

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 square yards)

Net sales1 2,353,660 2,255,585 2,226,699 1,692,116 1,401,353

Value ($1,000)

Net sales1 486,229 469,893 465,949 363,652 318,718

COGS 371,123 355,660 372,250 285,812 224,868

Gross profit 115,106 114,233 93,699 77,840 93,850

SG&A expenses 61,617 58,171 55,605 42,698 38,862

Operating income 53,489 56,062 38,094 35,142 54,988

Interest expense 3,016 2,661 2,805 2,122 2,426

Other expense 5,497 6,193 6,090 4,746 6,488

CDSOA funds received 419 2 521 0 0

Other income 99 8 39 35 32

Net income 45,494 47,218 29,759 28,309 46,106

Depreciation/amortization 24,706 24,719 24,120 17,896 18,763

Cash flow 70,200 71,937 53,879 46,205 64,869

Value (per square yard)

Net sales $0.207 $0.208 $0.209 $0.215 $0.227

COGS 0.158 0.158 0.167 0.169 0.160

Gross profit 0.049 0.051 0.042 0.046 0.067

SG&A expenses 0.026 0.026 0.025 0.025 0.028

Operating income 0.023 0.025 0.017 0.021 0.039

Ratio to net sales (percent)

COGS 76.3 75.7 79.9 78.6 70.6

Gross profit 23.7 24.3 20.1 21.4 29.4

SG&A expenses 12.7 12.4 11.9 11.7 12.2

Operating income 11.0 11.9 8.2 9.7 17.3

Number of firms reporting

Operating losses 0 0 1 1 0

Data 5 5 5 5 5

 1 ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

III-9
Selected financial data, by firm, are presented in table III-9. While *** producers generated

operating income in 2008 and interim 2008, *** producers generated operating income in interim 2009. 

*** experienced operating losses in 2008 and interim 2008, ***, respectively. However, ***. As

indicated in the per-unit sales values and per-unit COGS in table III-9, the unit sales values differ widely

among producers, ranging from $*** per square yard *** to $*** per square yard *** in 2008, largely as

a result of differences in product mix among domestic producers. ***. Therefore, product mix among

domestic producers should be considered when the trends of per-unit sales values and total costs over the

period are analyzed. ***.31

Table III-9

PSP tape: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by firm, fiscal years 2006-08, JanuarySeptember 2008, and January-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Selected aggregate per-unit cost data of the producers on their operations, i.e., COGS and SG&A

expenses, are presented in table III-10. Raw material costs increased somewhat from 2006 to 2008 but

were substantially lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008. Factory overhead increased from 2007 to

2008 and continued to rise in interim 2009. COGS and total cost (which included SG&A expenses) were

higher in 2008 compared to 2007, while per-unit COGS and total cost were lower in interim 2009, due

mainly to the decrease in raw material costs. SG&A expenses also increased from interim 2008 ($0.025

per square yard) to interim 2009 ($0.028 per square yard), the result of lower production/sales quantities

as the absolute dollar amounts of SG&A expenses between the two interim periods decreased from $42.7

million in interim 2008 to $38.9 million in interim 2009. As explained previously, product mix among

domestic producers may play a role in the changes of cost structures.

Table III-10

PSP tape: Per-unit costs of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-08, January-September 2008, and

January-September 2009

Item

Fiscal year January-September

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

COGS: Value (per square yard)

 Raw materials $0.096 $0.100 $0.103 $0.105 $0.088

 Direct labor 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.025 0.029

 Factory overhead 0.037 0.033 0.040 0.039 0.043

 Total COGS 0.158 0.158 0.167 0.169 0.160

SG&A expenses 0.026 0.026 0.025 0.025 0.028

 Total cost 0.184 0.183 0.192 0.194 0.188

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

 31 Email from ***, December 6, 2009.

III-10
A variance analysis showing the effects of prices and volume on the producers’ sales of PSP tape,

and of costs and volume on their total cost, is shown in table III-11. The analysis is summarized at the

bottom of the table. The analysis indicates that the decrease in operating income ($15.4 million) between

2006 and 2008 was attributable mainly to the negative effect of increased costs/expenses ($18.5 million)

and decreased sales volumes ($2.9 million) which was partially offset by the positive effect of increased

price ($5.9 million). The increase in operating income in interim 2009 relative to interim 2008 was

attributable to a positive price variance in conjunction with a favorable cost/expenses variance. 

Table III-11

PSP tape: Variance analysis of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-08, JanuarySeptember 2008, and January-September 2009

Item

Between fiscal years

JanuarySeptember

2006-08 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

Value ($1,000)

Net sales:

 Price variance 5,948 3,925 2,074 17,554

 Volume variance (26,228) (20,261) (6,018) (62,488)

 Total net sales variance (20,280) (16,336) (3,944) (44,934)

Cost of sales:

 Cost variance (21,146) (1) (21,145) 11,832

 Volume variance 20,019 15,464 4,555 49,112

 Total cost variance (1,127) 15,463 (16,590) 60,944

Gross profit variance (21,407) (873) (20,534) 16,010

SG&A expenses:

 Expense variance 2,688 878 1,821 (3,501)

 Volume variance 3,324 2,568 745 7,337

 Total SG&A variance 6,012 3,446 2,566 3,836

Operating income variance (15,395) 2,573 (17,968) 19,846

Summarized as:

 Price variance 5,948 3,925 2,074 17,554

 Net cost/expense variance (18,458) 877 (19,324) 8,331

 Net volume variance (2,885) (2,229) (718) (6,039)

Note.--Unfavorable variances are shown in parentheses; all others are favorable. The data are comparable to

changes in operating income as presented in table III-8.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

III-11
Capital Expenditures and Research and Development Expenses

The responding firms’ aggregate data on capital expenditures and research and development

(“R&D”) expenses are presented in table III-12. *** accounted for a majority of the domestic industry’s

capital expenditures during the period for which data were collected. Capital expenditures increased

continuously from 2006 to 2008 due to ***32 but was lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008 due

mainly to ***.33 Some details of the major capital expenditures of certain producers are described in table

III-13.34 *** producers reported R&D expenses. R&D expenses decreased slightly from 2006 to 2007

and then increased between 2007 and 2008 and were somewhat lower in interim 2009 than in interim

2008. ***.35 Capital expenditures, by firm, are presented in table III-13. 

Table III-12

PSP tape: Capital expenditures and R&D expenses by U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-08,

January-September 2008, and January-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Table III-13

PSP tape: Capital expenditures by U.S. producers, by firms, fiscal years 2006-08, JanuarySeptember 2008, and January-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Assets and Return on Investment

U.S. producers were requested to provide data on their assets used in the production and sales of

PSP tape during the period for which data were collected to assess their return on investment (“ROI”). 

Although ROI can be computed in different ways, a commonly used method is operating income earned

during the period divided by the total assets utilized for the operations. Therefore, staff calculated ROI as

operating income divided by total assets used in the production and sales of PSP tape. Data on the U.S.

producers’ total assets and their ROI are presented in table III-14. 

The value of total assets decreased between 2006 and 2008 as net accounts receivable, other

current and non-current assets, and net book value of property, plant, and equipment (PPE) decreased

over the period. The trend of ROI over the period was the same as the trend of the operating loss margin

to net sales in table III-8 over the same period.

 32 Email from ***, December 6, 2009.

 33 Email from ***, December 3, 2009.

 34 Email from ***, November 23, 2009.

 35 Email from ***, December 6, 2009.

III-12
Table III-14

PSP tape: Value of assets and return on investment of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-08

Item

At end of fiscal year

2006 2007 2008

Value of assets: Value ($1,000)

1. Current assets:

 A. Cash and equivalents 5,197 4,160 6,578

 B. Trade receivables (net) 47,088 51,552 43,761

 C. Inventories 55,082 57,305 56,756

 D. All other current 14,307 9,553 9,744

 Total current 121,674 122,570 116,839

2. Non-current assets:

 A. Productive facilities1 342,655 379,378 396,476

 B. Productive facilities (net)2

 141,097 137,286 133,608

 C. Other non-current 40,477 39,054 21,491

 Total non-current 181,574 176,340 155,099

 Total assets 303,248 298,910 271,938

 Value ($1,000)

Operating income (loss) 53,489 56,062 38,094

Ratio of operating income to total assets (percent)

Return on investment 17.6 18.8 14.0

 1 Original cost of property, plant, and equipment (PPE).

 2

 Net book value of PPE (original cost less accumulated depreciation). 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

III-13
 
PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS AND THE FOREIGN INDUSTRY

U.S. IMPORTS

Overview

The Commission sent questionnaires to 96 firms believed to have imported PSP tape between

2006 and 2009.1

 Nineteen firms provided data and information in response to the questionnaires, while

25 firms indicated that they had not imported PSP tape during the period for which data were collected. 

Staff believes that data reported by responding U.S. importers comprises the vast majority of subject

imports of PSP tape from Italy. Given the large volume of nonsubject imports of PSP tape believed be

entering the United States, staff believes that the data reported by responding U.S. imports of PSP tape

from nonsubject countries are under-represented.2

 

Data regarding U.S. imports appear in table IV-1. Only one U.S. importer, ***, reported entering

or withdrawing PSP tape from a foreign trade zone or bonded warehouse. No importer reported imports

of PSP tape under the temporary importation under bond program. 

Imports from Subject and Nonsubject Countries

Table IV-1 presents data for U.S. imports of PSP tape from Italy and all other sources.3

 The

major nonsubject countries that are believed to account for most of the U.S. imports of PSP tape are

China, Indonesia, and Taiwan. PSP tape imports from Italy accounted for a small proportion of total

reported U.S. imports, with U.S. imports from nonsubject sources accounting for no less than *** percent,

by quantity and no less than *** percent, by value. Reported average unit values for PSP tape imports

from Italy were higher than PSP tape imports from all other countries, a difference which could be

explained by the fact that PSP tape imports from Italy generally use hot melt and rubber-based adhesives,

while PSP tapes from Asia generally use acrylic based adhesives.4

 According to testimony presented at

the hearing, hot melt tapes are more expensive to produce than acrylic tapes and the selling price for the

respective tapes reflects the same relationship.5

 In addition, ***.6 

 1 A large number of questionnaires were returned as undeliverable either because the firm no longer existed or

had moved without leaving a forwarding address. 

 2

 Staff received data from *** that are believed to be among the largest PSP tape producers in Asia. One firm,

***, reported imports from its related PSP tape producers in China, Taiwan (***), and Malaysia. ***. The other

firm, ***. ***. Email from ***, January 28, 2010.

 3

 The Commission requested U.S. importers to distinguish between PSP tape produced by Italian firms subject to

the antidumping duty finding and those that are not subject to the antidumping duty finding. The latter category

includes one firm that was excluded from the original finding (Plasturopa) and two other firms (Boston and 

Autoadesivi) for which the findings had been revoked. The domestic interested parties maintain that Autodesivi,

acquired by 3M Italia in 1985, has concentrated on different markets and specialty products so as not to compete

with 3M U.S. production. Posthearing brief of 3M, Intertape, and Shurtape, Response to questions of Chairman

Aranoff regarding the status of Autodesivi and Plasturopa. According to testimony provided at the hearing, Boston

and Plasturopa produce tapes that are largely outside the scope of this review. Hearing transcript, p. 41 (Anderson).

 4

 ***. Plant tour and interview session with ***, January 7, 2010. 

 5

 Hearing transcript, p. 81 (Serra). 

 6

 Plant tour and interview session with ***, December 2, 2009. 

IV-1
Table IV-1

PSP tape: U.S. imports, by sources, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and January-September

2009

Source

Calendar year January-September

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 square yards)

Italy (subject) 11,851 38,234 16,874 13,057 7,665

Italy (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

Other (nonsubject) countries *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject sources 448,185 476,192 449,178 343,862 337,293

Total 460,036 514,427 466,052 356,920 344,957

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

Italy (subject) 4,600 7,040 3,870 2,628 2,713

Italy (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

Other (nonsubject) countries *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject sources 48,043 53,712 55,880 43,146 37,079

Total 52,643 60,753 59,750 45,775 39,793

Unit value (per square yard)

Italy (subject) $0.39 $0.18 $0.23 $0.20 $0.35

Italy (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

Other (nonsubject) countries *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject sources 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.11

Total 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.12

Share of quantity (percent)

Italy (subject) 2.6 7.4 3.6 3.7 2.2

Italy (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

Other (nonsubject) countries *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject sources 97.4 92.6 96.4 96.3 97.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

Italy (subject) 8.7 11.6 6.5 5.7 6.8

Italy (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

Other (nonsubject) countries *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject sources 91.3 88.4 93.5 94.3 93.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Ratio of import quantity to U.S. production (percent)

Italy (subject) 0.5 1.7 0.8 0.8 0.5

Italy (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

Other (nonsubject countries) *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject sources 19.5 21.0 21.0 20.4 24.1

Total 20.0 22.7 21.8 21.2 24.6

 1 Landed, duty-paid.

 2

 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

IV-2
The Commission requested U.S. importers to indicate the types of tape their firm imports. The

categories provided in the questionnaire were: carton sealing, electrical/electronic, masking, sanitary,

medical, or health-related, and other. Similar to the reported findings in the U.S. producers’

questionnaires, carton sealing tapes were the most commonly cited tapes by U.S. importers.7

 The

Commission also requested U.S. importers to report the relative share of their firm’s 2008 and JanuarySeptember 2009 U.S. shipments of PSP tape, by tape backing material (polyester, polypropylene, UPVC,

and other) and by source (Italy (subject); Italy (nonsubject); and all other sources). According to the

questionnaire responses, polypropylene PSP tapes made up the vast majority of U.S. imports in 2008 and

January-September 2009 from Italy and from all other sources.8

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Table IV-2 presents data for inventories of U.S. imports of PSP tape from Italy and all other

sources held in the United States. 

Table IV-2

PSP tape: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2006-08, JanuarySeptember 2008, and January-September 2009

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN ITALY

Overview

At the time of the Commission’s original investigation, there were seven Italian producers that

exported PSP tape to the United States. Four Italian companies, accounting for *** percent of Italian

exports of PSP tape to the United States during the period examined (December 1, 1975-June 30, 1976),

were investigated by Treasury: Manuli,9

 Boston,10 Comet,11 and Plasturopa.12 Three other Italian firms

that exported PSP tape to the United States during the period examined were determined by Treasury to

have done so in “insignificant quantities.” These firms were: Nastri Adhesive Stampati, Autoadesivi,

S.p.A., and Vibac, S.p.A.13 The staff report in the original investigation does not contain detailed trade

data for the PSP tape produced in Italy.

In the first five year-review, no foreign producers responded to the Commission’s notice of

institution; however, 3M submitted a list of Italian producers of PSP tape in Italy that included 3M Italia,

 7 U.S. Importers’ Questionnaire, question II-11.

 8

 U.S. Importers’ Questionnaire, question II-12.

 9

 On March 25, 2004, Commerce determined that Tyco was the successor-in-interest to Manuli. Final results of

Antidumping Changed Circumstances Review: Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, 69 FR15297 (March 25,

2004).

 10 Boston was purchased by a Canadian company and is operating in the U.S. under the management of Novacel,

a manufacturer of special protective film with very little capacity or production of the subject merchandise. Hearing

transcript, p. 18 (Anderson) and p. 41 (Serra). 

 11 Comet was acquired by Tesa AG,

http://www.tesa.com/company/worldwide/concagno/tesa-plant-in-concagno,4207,1.html, retrieved February 1, 2010.

 12 Manuli accounted for 45.4 percent of the sales examined by Treasury, Boston for 20.2 percent, Comet for 23.1

percent, and Plasturopa for 11.4 percent. Original Staff Report, p. A-10.

 13 Original Staff Report, p. A-11.

IV-3
a subsidiary of 3M. In its response to the notice of institution, 3M submitted data regarding 3M Italia’s

production in 1997 and estimates of total Italian production and capacity in 1997. According to the data

submitted, 3M Italia produced *** square yards of PSP tape in 1997. According to estimates provided by

3M, total Italian production of PSP tape in 1997 reached *** square yards and total Italian productive

capacity was *** square yards. These estimates yield a capacity utilization rate of about *** percent and

an excess capacity of *** square yards.

In the second five-year review, no foreign producer of PSP tape in Italy responded to the

Commission’s notice of institution.14 In its response to the notice of institution, 3M again submitted a list

of Italian companies believed to have exported PSP tape to the United States. 3M also reported

participation in a joint venture with Italian producer Sicad, S.p.A (“Sicad”) in a company called BST

S.p.A. (“BST”), that produces PSP tape subject to the antidumping duty finding, but did not export any

subject project to the United States.

In the current review, the Commission received usable data from two Italian PSP tape producers

(3M Italia and Sicad) subject to the current antidumping duty finding and Plasturopa, which has never

been subject to the antidumping duty finding.15 These data are provided in tables IV-3 and IV-4. Based

on 3M Italia’s and Sicad’s data, the Italian market constituted the largest market share for PSP tape

produced in Italy, accounting for no less than *** percent of all shipments, followed closely by the EU

market, which represented no less than *** percent during the period for which data were collected. 

Capacity utilization decreased by *** percentage points during between 2006 and 2008, and was ***

percentage points lower in January-September 2009 than in January-September 2008. Data for

Plasturopa, though not subject to the outstanding antidumping duty finding, similarly reflect a *** of

sales to the EU market and a similar lower level of capacity utilization in January-September 2009. 

Since the original investigation, a number of political and economic developments have taken

place that have changed the character and composition of the European Union. For instance, since 1977,

the European Union has grown from nine member states to 27 member states. Moreover, historic pieces

of legislation like the Single European Act, which created a common market, and the Treaty of Maastrict, 

which created a common currency, have served to foster economic and political integration and facilitate

trade between member states.16 

Table IV-3

PSP tape: Subject Italian producers *** PSP tape capacity, production, shipments, and inventories,

2006-08, January-September 2008, and January-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Table IV-4

PSP tape: Nonsubject Italian producer Plasturopa’s PSP tape capacity, production, shipments,

and inventories, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and January-September 2009

* * * * * * *

 14 Tyco Adhesives Italia S.p.A. (“Tyco”), an Italian producer of PSP tape, and successor-in-interest to Manuli

filed, and subsequently withdrew, an entry of appearance in the second five-year review. 

 15 ***. ***. 

 16 “The History of the European Union,” http://europa.eu/abc/history/index_en.htm, retrieved December 18, 2009.

IV-4
PSP Tape Operations

According to testimony provided at the hearing, there are approximately 30 PSA tape producers

in Italy. Of these, the domestic industry listed the following nine leading producers: NAR, Sicad,

Evotape, Vibac, Syrom, MAGRI, FABO, IRPLAST, and TESA.17 According to the domestic interested

parties, these firms have the production capacity of about 5 billion square meters and the capacity

utilization rates of the Italian industry are between 55-60 percent, leaving at least 2 billion square meters

in excess capacity available.18 

According to a 2009 industry study conducted by the Freedonia Group, Inc., Italy is the dominant

European supplier of corrugated case sealing tapes.19 The study points out that Italy possesses the ***

largest trade surplus in pressure sensitive tapes in the world after ***; however, it projects this surplus to

decline through 2012 and beyond as lower-end tape production continues to move to Asia. The study

estimates that although Italian tape shipments are likely to decline, Italy will remain the world’s ***

largest tape producer behind China and the United States with Taiwan overtaking Italy for the ***

position by 2012.20

As detailed in table IV-5, carton sealing tapes comprise the majority of tape sales produced by

Italian firms for the Italian market, accounting for *** percent of total sales in 2007. Table IV-5 also

presents the Industry study’s findings concerning the most commonly used material for Italian tapes,

polypropylene. 

Table IV-5 

Pressure sensitive tape: Italian home market sales, by type and material, 1997, 2002, 2007, and

estimated 2012 

* * * * * * *

According to the Freedonia study, Italy possesses a “technologically advanced, heavily exportoriented pressure sensitive,” which supply much of Western Europe with commodity items such as

polypropylene packaging.21 As detailed in table IV-6, exports comprise the vast majority of Italian

pressure sensitive tape shipments, accounting for *** percent of total shipments in 2007. The study cites

the European market as the largest destination for Italian tapes with *** accounting for roughly half of

 17 On October 17, 2008, Afera, the European Association for the Self Adhesive Tape Industry, held a conference

entitled “Outlook for the Tape Industry 2010.” At this conference, industry experts had varying opinions about the

benefits of consolidation in the European tape industry. According to some experts, greater industry consolidation

leads to greater efficiency and a broader range of product offerings. However, experts also pointed out the benefits

inherent to small and medium companies, which may possess more flexibility than large multinational firms. A

notable example cited at the conference was the Italian tape industry, which is composed of approximately 30 firms. 

According to one industry expert at the conference, half of those firms were expected to have gone bancrupt over the

past ten to fifteen years, yet none of them have. 

http://www.afera.com/files_content/Afera%20Tape%20Industry%20Experts%20Debate.pdf, retrieved February 5,

2010. 

 18 This estimate is based on three methodologies. The first methodology is based on the capacity and production

data from the Exxon/Mobil 2007 study, the second utilizes a buildup of the capabilities of 3M Italia’s knowledge of

the Italian industry and the third uses a different Exxon/Mobil study. Posthearing brief of 3M, Intertape, and

Shurtape, pp. 2-3. Staff has attempted to verify this excess capacity by contacting ***; however, it received no

response from the Italian firms. 

 19 World Pressure Sensitive Tapes, Industry Study 2451, The Freedonia Group, Inc. February 2009, p. 112. This

industry study includes a wide range of pressure sensitive tapes that are outside the narrow scope of this review. 

 20 World Pressure Sensitive Tapes, Industry Study 2451, The Freedonia Group, Inc. February 2009, p. 110.

 21 World Pressure Sensitive Tapes, Industry Study 2451, The Freedonia Group, Inc., February 2009, p. 113. 

IV-5
total exports in value terms. Outside of EU Member States and ***, the study identifies such export

markets as the ***.22 

Table IV-6

Pressure sensitive tape: Italian shipments, by types, 1997, 2002, 2007, and estimated 2012

* * * * * * *

According to the domestic interested parties, Evotape S.p.A. (“Evotape”) is a major producer of

PSP tape in Italy. The company operates via two principal subsidiaries, both of which are headquartered

in Italy: Evotape Masking, Srl and Evotape Packaging, Srl. Evotape produces masking, filament and

strapping, appliance, speciality and packaging tapes. The firm has the annual capacity to produce 800

million square meters of tapes and is engaged in the manufacture of standard packaging tapes, printed and

printable packaging tapes, and filament and strapping tapes. The company makes standard packaging

tapes with natural rubber, hot-melt, and acrylic adhesives, while its tape backing material offerings

include polyvinyl chloride (PVC) film, biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP) film and flat-back

paper.23 According to the Freedonia report, in 2007, Evotape had sales of $***. Evotape Packaging Srl

conducts its production operations in Latina, Italy, where it employs approximately *** individuals.24

Commerce is currently conducting a changed circumstances review to determine whether it is the

successor-in-interest to Tyco.25

Another large Italian PSP tape producer, NAR, manufactures a variety of self-adhesive packaging

and masking tapes as well as specialty tapes for technical and industrial tapes at its five plants in

northeastern Italy. NAR offers a wide variety of plain, colored, or printable PSP packaging tapes on

polyvinyl chloride and polypropylene backing with natural rubber, hot melt, and acrylic adhesives. 

NAR’s Film Division operates out of the Gorizia province, where it began manufacturing polypropylene

film in 1989. NAR’s website emphasizes the company’s high production capacity, organizational

flexibility, and use of state-of-the-art equipment, all of which enable NAR to meet the needs of its

clientele in more than 70 countries around the world.26

Vibac, another Italian PSP tape producer, offers a variety of standard and printable carton sealing

tapes on polyvinyl chloride and polypropylene backing with natural rubber, hot melt, and acrylic

adhesives, which it manufactures at its Tape Division facilities in Ticineto and Termoli. Vibac’s Film

Division handles the company’s production of polypropylene film, which is manufactured at three

locations in Italy, one location in Canada and one location in the United States. According to Vibac’s

website, the company is one of the world’s largest polypropylene manufacturers with a worldwide

production capacity of 150,000 metric tons per year.27

 22 World Pressure Sensitive Tapes, Industry Study 2451, The Freedonia Group, Inc., February 2009, p. 110-111.

 23 Evotape’s website, http://www.evotape.com/inglese/packaging/famigliediprodotti.htm, retrieved February 1,

2010.

 24 World Pressure Sensitive Tapes, Industry Study 2451, The Freedonia Group, Inc., February 2009, p. 270.

 25 Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Changed Circumstances Review: Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from

Italy, 74 FR 47555, September 16, 2009. On March 25, 2004, Commerce determined that Tyco was the successorin-interest to Manuli. Final results of Antidumping Changed Circumstances Review: Pressure Sensitive Plastic

Tape from Italy, 69 FR15297, March 25, 2004.

 26 NAR website. http://www.nar-spa.com/english/e_narsetframe.html, retreived on February 5, 2010.

 27 Of this total, its Italian facilities account for 100,000 metric tons per year and its North American facilities

account for the 50,000 metric tons per year. Vibac website. http://www.vibacgroup.com/, retrieved February 10,

2010.

IV-6
GLOBAL MARKET

As a practical matter, there is limited information available with respect to the subject

merchandise as defined by Commerce’s scope. However, as noted earlier, the Freedonia Group, Inc.,

 recently published an industry study on world pressure sensitive tapes, the most narrow product category

available. Freedonia’s analytical approach was described as economic and trend analysis by countries

and regions using macroeconomic variables (e.g., GDP, personal income) and industry output, value

added, etc., as sector variables. For the carton sealing tape demand, Freedonia cited Food and Beverage

Value Added in 2006 dollars and an increasing number of square meters per dollar of value-added.

Demand

As shown in table IV-7, the Freedonia carton sealing tape market estimates and projections show

the United States as a large, but relatively slow growing, market; Asia/Pacific, particularly China, as very

large and fast growing, probably due to increased sourcing of consumer products.28 The report also cites 

Latin America, Eastern Europe, and Africa/Mideast as much smaller, but fast growing markets. The

main factors contributing to the growth in carton sealing pressure sensitive tapes are ***.29

Table IV-7

Pressure sensitive plastic carton sealing tape: Estimated world demand, by region, 1997-2017

* * * * * * *

Supply

The leading source of packaging tapes, including PSP tape, is China, which is reportedly the

largest producer of both BOPP and PVC tapes. According to the Freedonia study, China’s pressure

sensitive adhesive tape production is projected to grow by *** percent annually through 2012, reaching

*** square meters. Although this measure is for a broader category of product than PSP tape, the study

observes that “China’s exports are concentrated among lower-end products such as commodity

polypropylene packaging tapes, a segment where Chinese producers compete with their counterparts in

Taiwan, Indonesia, and (to a lesser extent) other East Asian producers.”30

Detailed information on Chinese suppliers is limited. However, table IV-8 is an extract of

pressure sensitive adhesive tape producers provided in the Freedonia Group report. This table extract

covers producers of all pressure sensitive adhesive tapes, a much larger aggregation than carton sealing

tapes and the subject product of this review. Ranked in order of estimated PSA sales (or market share),

this table provides a sense of the leading suppliers of pressure sensitive adhesive tape.

 28 A notable exception in the Asia Pacific region is Japan. Between 1960 and 1991, total tape shipments by

Japanese tape manufacturers increased; however, after the collapse of the Japanese economy in the 1990s, tape

shipments began declining and have yet to recover. “JATMA Organization and (the) Japanese Tape Market and

Trends,” presented by Akira Katakura, JATMA Information Committee Chair. JATMA is the Japan Adhesive Tape

Manufacturers Association, a coalition of 18 pressure sensitive adhesive tape manufacturers and 69 support

companies. 

 29 World Pressure Sensitive Tapes, Industry Study 2451, The Freedonia Group, Inc., February 2009, p. 43. 

However, the study notes that infant diapers represent “a notable exception” to this trend, and reports that in this

application tapes are expected “to lose significant market share to competitive technologies in the coming years.” 

Ibid. at 32.

 30 World Pressure Sensitive Tapes, Industry Study 2451, The Freedonia Group, Inc., February 2009, p. 146.

IV-7
Table IV-8

Pressure sensitive adhesive tape: Sales world-wide by company, fiscal year 2007

* * * * * * *

Prices

When asked to compare prices in the United States and other countries, all four responding

producers reported that United States prices are higher.31 One firm reported that producer prices are 5 to

10 percent higher in the United States than in the European Union and Asian markets. Three other

producers also reported that U.S. prices are higher than in other countries with two citing Asian countries

in particular. The high cost of raw materials in the United States was cited as a factor accounting for the

higher U.S. prices. 

 31 Of the two importers that compared U.S. prices with prices in other markets, one reported that the prices are the

same, and the other reported that prices in Europe are higher than in the United States, while prices in Central and

South America, Southeast Asia, and Russia are lower. 

IV-8
 1

 Staff telephone interview with ***, December 10, 2009.

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICING

Raw Material Costs

Raw material costs account for a substantial share of the cost of goods sold for PSP tape. Raw

material costs ranged from 61.1 percent of the cost of goods sold in 2006 to 63.7 percent in 2008. During

January-September 2009, raw material costs accounted for 55.1 percent of the cost of goods sold. Major

raw materials are the plastic polymer films used as mechanical backing for PSP tape and adhesives. Costs

of oil and natural gas have a major influence on the cost of these raw materials.1

 Figure V-1 shows that

monthly prices of oil and natural gas both increased irregularly from January 2006 through June 2008,

and then generally declined during the remainder of 2008. The price of oil recovered somewhat during

2009, while the price of natural gas has generally continued to decrease. 

Figure V-1

Crude oil and natural gas: Monthly indexed prices, January 2006-December 2009 for oil and

January 2006-October 2009 for natural gas

Source: Energy information Administration, crude oil spot prices and monthly summary of natural gas prices and

volumes.
 2

 Real exchange rates are calculated by adjusting the nominal rates for movements in producer prices in the

United States and other countries. 

V-2

Exchange Rates

Nominal and real2

 exchange rates for the euro in relation to the U.S. dollar are shown quarterly in

figure V-2 for the period January-March 1999 through July-September 2009 and in figure V-3 for the

period January-March 2006 through July-September 2009. The data in figure V-2 show that the euro has

fluctuated widely over the period beginning in 1999. The euro depreciated by more than 20 percent

between the first quarter of 1999 and the second quarter of 2001 and then appreciated irregularly relative

to the dollar in the following years to a peak level in the second quarter of 2008 before declining during

the remainder of the year and then partially recovering in 2009. Overall, the euro appreciated by 27

percent in nominal terms between the first quarter of 1999 and the third quarter of 2009. The data in

figure V-3 indicates that the euro appreciated by 19 percent in nominal terms between the first quarter of

2006 and the third quarter of 2009.

 

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

When asked to estimate shipping costs as a percentage of the delivered price of PSP tape,

estimates by the seven U.S. producers ranged from 2.0 percent to 5.5 percent. Four of the producers

estimated a value of *** percent. Among the six responding importers, estimates ranged from 2.0 percent

to 8.0 percent. The majority of the importer estimates were near the high end of the range. All producers

and importers reported that they arrange transportation for their customers. 

Questionnaire responses show that sales by both U.S. producers and importers typically involve

shipping 101 miles or more. For the seven producers, 85 to 98 percent of sales involve distances of 101

miles or more from their storage or production facilities. For the eight responding importers, six reported

that 65 to 98 percent of their sales involved distances of 101 miles or more from their storage facilities. 

For the other two importers, one reported that 100 percent of its sales are for distances of 100 miles or

less and the other reported that 50 percent are for distances of 100 miles or less. 

PRICING PRACTICES

Prices of PSP tape are determined by transaction-by-transaction negotiations, set price lists, and

contracts. Two U.S. producers reported that they rely entirely on transaction-by-transaction negotiations

and one uses only set price lists in determining prices. The other four producers use varying

combinations of transaction-by-transaction negotiations, set price lists, and contracts in arriving at prices. 

Among the nine responding importers, three rely entirely on transaction-by-transaction negotiations, one

uses set price lists, and the other five use at least two of the methods in determining prices.

Producers and importers commonly quote prices on either an f.o.b. or delivered basis. Among the

seven producers, four reported that they quote on a delivered basis, and three reported that they quote on

an f.o.b. basis. Among responding importers, three reported that they quote on an f.o.b. basis, four

reported quoting on a delivered basis, and one reported that it varies by customer. 
V-3

Figure V-2

Exchange rates: Indexes of the nominal and real rate of the euro relative to the U.S. dollar, by

quarters, January-March 1999-July-September 2009

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics online, http://imfstatistics.org/imf.

Figure V-3

Exchange rates: Indexes of the nominal and real rate of the euro relative to the U.S. dollar, by

quarters, January-March 2006-July-September 2009

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics online, http://imfstatistics.org/imf.
V-4

PSP tape pricing frequently reflects quantity discounts. All seven U.S. producers reported that

they provide quantity discounts, and five of these firms reported that they provide additional annual total

volume discounts. Among ten responding importers, seven reported that they provide quantity discounts,

and four of these firms also provide annual total volume discounts. One of the importers also reported

that it deviates from its policies in the case of competitive situations. Three importers reported that they

do not have a discount policy.

Discounts for early payments of accounts are more common for U.S. producers than for

importers. Among producers, six of seven firms reported that they offer discounts of 1 to 2 percent for

early payments and one reported that its policy varies. Among six responding importers, one reported a

one percent discount for early payment, one reported a 2-percent discount, and one reported that it varies

by customer. The other three importers reported that they do not provide discounts for early payments. 

Most sales of PSP tape are on a spot basis. Among responding producers, spot sales as a

percentage of the total sales ranged from 68 to 100 percent. Among producers that use contracts, contract

periods range in length from 90 days to two years with prices and/or quantities fixed during the contract

period. Meet-or-release provisions are typically used. Among eight responding importers, four firms

reported that all of their sales are on a spot basis, two reported that 95 percent are on a spot basis and one

reported that 90 percent are on a spot basis. One importer reported that 95 percent of its sales are on a

contract basis and 5 percent are on a spot basis. Among importers reporting the use of contracts, reported

contract lengths range from six months to four years, with prices and, in some cases, quantities fixed

during the contract period. The use of meet-or-release provisions varies. 

PRICE DATA

The Commission asked U.S. producers and importers of PSP tape to provide quarterly data for

the total quantity and value of four products that were shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S. market

for the period January-March 2006 through July-September 2009. The products for which pricing data

were requested are as follows:

Product 1.– Pressure sensitive plastic tape with a thickness of 1.6 to 1.7 mil (inclusive), a width

of 42 to 75 millimeters (inclusive), and a length of less than 200 meters. Similar to TartanTM box

sealing tape 369 produced by 3M. 

 Product 2.–Pressure sensitive plastic tape with a thickness of 1.8 to 2.0 mil (inclusive), a width of

42 to 75 millimeters (inclusive), and a length of less than 200 meters. Similar to ScotchTM box

sealing tape 371 produced by 3M.

Product 3.–Pressure sensitive plastic tape with a thickness of 1.8 to 2.0 mil (inclusive), a width of

42 to 75 millimeters (inclusive), and a length of 900 to 2,000 meters (inclusive). Similar to

ScotchTM box sealing tape 371 produced by 3M.

Product 4.–Pressure sensitive plastic tape with a thickness of 2.4 to 2.6 mil (inclusive), a width of

42 to 75 millimeters (inclusive), and a length of less than 200 meters. Similar to ScotchTM box

sealing tape 373 produced by 3M. 

Four U.S. producers of PSP tape and two importers of subject PSP tape from Italy provided

usable pricing data for sales of the requested products, although none reported pricing for all products for

all quarters. Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for approximately 49.2 percent of reported

overall U.S. producers’ shipments of subject PSP tape and *** percent of reported overall U.S. shipments

of subject imports from Italy during January 2006 through September 2009.
 3

 One importer, ***, reported that the variability in the price is due to extreme variations in raw material costs,

energy costs, and the impact of varying volumes. 

 4

 One import series for subject Italian imports for product 1 was not included. These data, provided by ***, met

the technical definition for product. However, the item at issue is a specialty product that is much more expensive

than the domestic product or other subject imports from Italy. Staff telephone interview with ***, December 10,

2009. The quarterly prices of this product ranged from $*** to $*** per square yard during January 2006 through

September 2009. 

V-5

Price Trends

Quarterly weighted-average prices for all four products for the United States and subject imports

from Italy are presented in tables V-1 through V-4 and figure V-2 for the period January 2006 through

September 2009.3

 The data show that U.S. producer prices were fairly stable over the period, while prices

of subject imports from Italy often fluctuated widely. A summary of price trends is shown in table V-5.4

The quarterly shipment quantities for the imports from Italy were very small in comparison to shipments

by U.S. producers for the three products for which there was selling price data for both the domestic

product and subject imports. 

Table V-1

PSP tape: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic and imported product

1 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-2

PSP tape: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic and imported product

2 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-3

PSP tape: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic product 3, by

quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-4

PSP tape: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic and imported product

4 and margins of underselling, by quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-2

PSP tape: Weighted-average selling prices and quantities of domestic and imported product, by

quarters, January 2006-September 2009

* * * * * * *
 5

 In the original investigation, price data were collected on PSP tape in the form of rolls rather than in thousands

of square yards. U.S. producers’ prices for PSP tape product made from polypropylene and from unplasticized

polyvinylchloride (UPC) were compared with prices of imported PSP tape products from Italy on a monthly basis

during January 1975 through May 1977. The weighted-average prices of imports from Italy were lower than prices

of the U.S.-produced product in 46 out of 50 comparisons covering the two products. Pressure Sensitive Plastic

Tape from Italy and West Germany, Inv. Nos. AA1921-167 and 168, original staff report, August 15, 1977, pp. A62-

A63. 

V-6

Table V-5

PSP tape: Summary of U.S. weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices for products 1-4 from the United

States and Italy

Item

Number of

quarters of data

Low price 

(per square

yard)

High price

(per square yard)

Change in price1

(percent)

Product 1 

United States 15 *** *** ***

Italy 11 *** *** ***

Product 2 

United States 15 *** *** ***

Italy 11 *** *** ***

Product 3

United States 15 *** *** ***

Product 4

United States 15 *** *** ***

Italy 9 *** *** ***

 1 Percentage change from the first quarter in which price data were available to the last quarter in which price data

were available, based on unrounded data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Price Comparisons

Margins of underselling and overselling for the period are presented in table V-6. As can be seen

from the table, prices for PSP tape imported from Italy were below those for U.S.-produced PSP tape in

18 of 31 instances; margins of underselling ranged from *** to *** percent. In the remaining 13

instances, prices for pressure sensitive plastic tape imported from Italy were between *** and *** percent

above prices for the domestic product.5
V-7

Table V-6

PSP tape: Summary of quarterly weighted-average f.o.b. selling price comparisons between the

domestic and subject imported Italian products, January 2006-September 2009

Country

Underselling (Overselling)

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Italy 18 *** *** 13 *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 
APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES AND THE COMMISSION’S STATEMENT ON

ADEQUACY
 
20286 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 83 / Friday, May 1, 2009 / Notices 

minnow traps, and backpack 

electrofishing. Fish would be captured, 

removed from nets or traps quickly and 

temporarily retained in cool, aerated 

water. Time spent handling fish would 

be kept to a minimum to limit stress. 

After handling, all fish would be 

allowed to recover in cool, aerated 

water, and released. When necessary, 

fish would be anaesthetized. The 

KCDNRP does not propose to kill any 

listed fish but a small number may die 

as an unintended result of the activities. 

Permit 14271 

The Washington State Department of 

Ecology (ECY) is requesting a 2–year 

scientific research permit to take 

juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon, 

PS steelhead, and HC chum salmon. The 

purpose of the project is to develop a 

sampling plan that reports on the status 

of watershed health and salmon 

recovery efforts at three spatial scales: 

Water Resource Inventory Area, Salmon 

Recovery Region, and statewide. The 

goal is to develop a quality assurance 

monitoring plan for statewide 

probability-based sampling of aquatic 

habitat conditions and species diversity 

and abundance. The ECY’s research 

application is for the pilot project which 

would take place in the Puget Sound, 

Hood Canal, and Strait of Juan de Fuca. 

The information gathered by this 

research would benefit listed salmonids 

by helping resource managers evaluate 

the effectiveness of habitat restoration 

efforts and the status and trends of 

aquatic species. The applicant proposes 

to capture fish with backpack and boat 

electrofishing equipment in at least fifty 

sites within the Puget Sound, Hood 

Canal, and Strait of Juan de Fuca. Listed 

fish would be enumerated and 

immediately released. The applicant 

does not propose to kill any listed fish 

species, but a small number may die as 

an unintended result of the activities. 

Permit 14283 

Environmental Assessment Services 

(EAS) is requesting a scientific research 

permit sample fish in the Columbia 

River in support of the U.S. Department 

of Energy’s Hanford Site Cleanup 

Mission and regulatory drivers under 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA). The research would take 

place in four areas the Columbia River 

waters extending from upstream of 

Wanapum Dam to McNary Dam. The 

researchers are targetting non-listed 

resident fish but may also capture UCR 

steelhead and Chinook, MCR steelhead, 

and SR fall Chinook, spr/sum Chinook, 

and Steelhead. The research would 

benefit listed fish by helping monitor 

and reduce contamination from the 

Hanford Nuclear Reservation. The 

researchers would capture the fish using 

electrofishing, hook and line, and longline techniques. Any captured listed 

fish would immediately be released. 

The researchers do not propose to kill 

any listed fish but a small number may 

die as an unintended result of the 

activities. 

Permit 14290 

The NWFSC is seeking a permit to 

examine fish behavior and develop 

criteria to be used in designing effective 

screening and bypass systems at dams 

on the Columbia River (and elsewhere). 

Researchers would videotape juvenile 

SR fall Chinook salmon to determine if 

their behavior is altered in regard to 

velocity gradient changes in a test flume 

at McNary Dam. The research would 

benefit the fish by helping managers 

design safer, more efficient bypass units 

for fish to use when moving past 

hydroelectric facilities. 

The fish would be collected from 

orifice traps installed within the bypass 

channel at McNary Dam and transferred 

to the test flume. They would then be 

video-taped as they approach and either 

pass through or reject an orifice in the 

McNary flume. Different flow 

conditions would be created by 

changing the head on the orifice. The 

researchers would then overlay a flow 

profile of the test area on the videos and 

determine specific areas and movements 

for the test fish. After testing, the fish 

would be returned to the bypass 

channel. The researchers do not propose 

to kill any of the fish being tested, but 

a small number may die as an 

unintended result of the activities. 

Permit 14457 

The Columbia River Estuary Study 

Taskforce (CREST) is seeking to renew 

research previously done under Permit 

13508, while increasing the numbers of 

locations and fish to be taken. Under the 

new permit they would annually 

capture, handle, and release juvenile SR 

sockeye salmon, SR fall Chinook 

salmon, SR spring/summer Chinook 

salmon, UCR Chinook salmon, LCR 

Chinook salmon, UWR Chinook salmon, 

SR steelhead, UCR steelhead, MCR 

steelhead, LCR steelhead, UWR 

steelhead, LCR Coho, CR chum salmon, 

OC coho salmon, and green sturgeon. 

The research would take place in Baker 

Bay, Grays Bay, Washington and Youngs 

Bay, Oregon in the Columbia River 

estuary, and Ecola Creek, just south of 

the Columbia River confluence. The 

purpose of the research is to evaluate 

estuarine habitat restoration efforts. 

Specific objectives are to (1) determine 

species composition, relative 

abundance, and residence time of 

various listed fish by using pre-restored 

and restoration project habitats and 

adjacent references sites; (2) determine 

prey utilization by juvenile salmon; and 

(3) determine prey availability. The 

research would benefit listed salmonids 

by determining how effectively 

currently altered habitats support 

salmonids and using that information to 

guide future habitat modifications. 

The CREST would capture the fish 

using fyke nets, trap nets, and beach 

seines. Salmonids would be 

anesthetized, identified, counted, 

measured, weighed, checked for tags 

and hatchery marks, and released. Some 

of the fish may be tagged with passive 

integrated transponders, or injected 

with dye or visible implant elastomers. 

Fin or scale samples for genetic or age 

analysis would be taken from a portion 

of the captured juvenile Chinook 

salmon. Some of the captured juvenile 

salmonid would be sampled for stomach 

contents. The CREST does not propose 

to kill any of the fish being captured, 

but a small number may die as an 

unintended result of the activities. 

This notice is provided pursuant to 

section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will 

evaluate the applications, associated 

documents, and comments submitted to 

determine whether the applications 

meet the requirements of section 10(a) 

of the ESA and Federal regulations. The 

final permit decisions will not be made 

until after the end of the 30–day 

comment period. NMFS will publish 

notice of its final action in the Federal 

Register. 

Dated: April 28, 2009. 

Susan Pultz, 

Acting Chief, Endangered Species Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–10057 Filed 4–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–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 duty orders listed below. 

The International Trade Commission 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 83 / Friday, May 1, 2009 / Notices 20287 

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. 

(‘‘the Commission’’) is publishing 

concurrently with this notice its notice 

of Institution of Five-Year Review which 

covers the same order. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230. For 

information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) 

and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). 

Guidance on methodological or 

analytical issues relevant to the 

Department’s conduct of Sunset 

Reviews is set forth in the Department’s 

Policy Bulletin 98.3—Policies Regarding 

the Conduct of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

duty orders: 

DOC case No. ITC case No. Country Product Department contact 

A–475–059 ............ AA1921–167 ......... Italy ....................... Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape (3rd 

Review).

Brandon Farlander, (202) 482–0182. 

A–570–884 ............ 731–TA–1034 ....... PRC ...................... Color Television Receivers .................. Hallie Zink, (202) 482–6907. 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statute and Department’s 

regulations, the Department schedule 

for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past 

revocations and continuations, and 

current service lists, available to the 

public on the Department’s sunset 

Internet Web site at the following 

address: ‘‘http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.’’ 

All submissions in these Sunset 

Reviews must be filed in accordance 

with the Department’s regulations 

regarding format, translation, service, 

and certification of documents. These 

rules can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews 

can be very short, we urge interested 

parties to apply for access to proprietary 

information under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The Department’s regulations on 

submission of proprietary information 

and eligibility to receive access to 

business proprietary information under 

APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304– 

306. 

Information Required From Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties defined in 

section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)) wishing 

to participate in a Sunset Review must 

respond not later than 15 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

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 24, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–10069 Filed 4–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Science Advisory Board 

AGENCY: Office of Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Research (OAR), National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), Department of 

Commerce (DOC). 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the 

schedule and proposed agenda of a 

forthcoming meeting of the NOAA 

Science Advisory Board. The members 

will discuss and provide advice on 

issues outlined in the agenda below. 

DATES: The meeting is scheduled for: 

Monday, May 18, 2009, 10:30–11:30 

a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. 

20340 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 83 / Friday, May 1, 2009 / Notices 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 09–5–194, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

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

20436. 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. AA1921–167 (Third 

Review)] 

Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From 

Italy 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty 

finding on pressure sensitive plastic 

tape from Italy. 

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 finding on pressure 

sensitive plastic tape from Italy 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 1, 2009. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

July 14, 2009. For further information 

concerning the conduct of this review 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207), as most recently amended at 74 FR 

2847 (January 16, 2009). 

DATES: Effective Date: May 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On October 21, 1977, the 

Department of the Treasury issued an 

antidumping finding on imports of 

pressure sensitive plastic tape from Italy 

(42 FR 56110). Following first five-year 

reviews by Commerce and the 

Commission, effective February 17, 

1999, Commerce issued a continuation 

of the antidumping duty finding on 

imports of pressure sensitive plastic 

tape from Italy (64 FR 51515, September 

23, 1999). Following second five-year 

reviews by Commerce and the 

Commission, effective June 25, 2004, 

Commerce issued a second continuation 

of the antidumping duty finding on 

imports of pressure sensitive plastic 

tape from Italy (69 FR 35584). The 

Commission is now conducting a third 

review to determine whether revocation 

of the finding 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 Italy. 

(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. The Commission 

did not make a like product 

determination per se in its original 

determination; however, the 

Commission considered the U.S. 

industry to consist of all domestic 

facilities that were devoted to the 

production of pressure sensitive plastic 

tape. In its expedited first and second 

five-year review determinations, the 

Commission found that the appropriate 

definition of the Domestic Like Product 

was the same as Commerce’s scope: 

Pressure sensitive plastic tape 

measuring over 1–3⁄8 inches in width 

and not exceeding 4 mils in thickness. 

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

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determination 

and its expedited first and second fiveyear review determinations, the 

Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry as all producers of pressure 

sensitive plastic tape. 

(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 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the review. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

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

‘‘same particular matter’’ as the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 

207, the post employment statute for 

Federal employees, and Commission 

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

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are no 

longer required to seek Commission 

approval to appear in a review under 

Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if 

the corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy 

Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205– 

3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list. Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 83 / Friday, May 1, 2009 / Notices 20341 

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 1, 2009. Pursuant 

to section 207.62(b) of the Commission’s 

rules, eligible parties (as specified in 

Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also 

file comments concerning the adequacy 

of responses to the notice of institution 

and whether the Commission should 

conduct an expedited or full review. 

The deadline for filing such comments 

is July 14, 2009. All written submissions 

must conform with the provisions of 

sections 201.8 and 207.3 of the 

Commission’s rules and any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

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

accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each 

document filed by a party to the review 

must be served on all other parties to 

the review (as identified by either the 

public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the review you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information. Pursuant to section 

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

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determination in the review. 

Information to be Provided In 

Response to this Notice of Institution: 

As used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ includes 

any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address) and name, telephone number, 

fax number, and E-mail address of the 

certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

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

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

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

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in this review by providing information 

requested by the Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

finding 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 2008, except as noted 

(report quantity data in square yards 

and value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. 

plant). If you are a union/worker group 

or trade/business association, provide 

the information, on an aggregate basis, 

for the firms in which your workers are 

employed/which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., 

the level of production that your 

establishment(s) could reasonably have 

expected to attain during the year, 

assuming normal operating conditions 

(using equipment and machinery in 

place and ready to operate), normal 

operating levels (hours per week/weeks 

per year), time for downtime, 

maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a 

typical or representative product mix); 

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

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(d) The quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

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

(e) The value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of the Domestic Like Product 

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

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

20342 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 83 / Friday, May 1, 2009 / Notices 

1 No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 09–5–193, 

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. 

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

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2008 (report quantity data 

in square yards and value data in U.S. 

dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from the Subject 

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

imports; 

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

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country; and 

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

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from the Subject Country. 

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

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2008 

(report quantity data in square yards 

and value data in U.S. dollars, landed 

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

including antidumping duties). If you 

are a trade/business association, provide 

the information, on an aggregate basis, 

for the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in the 

Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) The quantity and value of your 

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

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject Country 

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

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country after 2003, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Country, and such merchandise from 

other countries. 

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

Issued: April 24, 2009. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–9769 Filed 4–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1034 (Review)] 

Certain Color Television Receivers 

From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on certain color television receivers 

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 certain color 

television receivers 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 1, 2009. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

July 14, 2009. For further information 

concerning the conduct of this review 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207), as most recently amended at 74 FR 

2847 (January 16, 2009). 

DATES: Effective Date: May 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On June 3, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce issued an 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

certain color television receivers from 

China (69 FR 31347), as amended (69 FR 

35583, June 25, 2004). The Commission 

is conducting a review to determine 

whether revocation of the order would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to the 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 155 / Thursday, August 13, 2009 / Notices 40811 

Scoping Process 

This notice of intent initiates the 

scoping process, which guides the 

development of the environmental 

impact statement. To assist the Forest 

Service in identifying and considering 

issues and concerns about the proposed 

action, public comment opportunities 

will continue to be provided throughout 

the EIS process. In addition to taking 

written comments, the Forest Service 

will hold a series of public meetings 

across the Forest during the late 

summer/early fall of 2009 to ensure that 

those who are interested have every 

opportunity to provide additional 

information or comments and to 

identify any issues or concerns they 

may have relative to the proposed 

action. 

It is important that reviewers provide 

their comments at such times and in 

such a way that they are useful to the 

Agency’s preparation of the EIS. 

Therefore, comments should be 

provided prior to the close of the 

comment period and should clearly 

articulate the reviewer’s concerns and 

contentions. The submission of timely 

and specific comments can affect a 

reviewer’s ability to participate in 

subsequent administrative review or 

judicial review. 

Comments received in response to 

this solicitation, including names and 

addresses of those who comment, will 

be considered part of the public record 

on this proposed action and will be 

available for public inspection. 

Comments submitted anonymously will 

be accepted and considered; however, 

respondents who submit anonymous 

comments will not be granted standing 

to appeal the subsequent decision under 

36 CFR Part 215 or judicial review. 

Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), 

any person may request the agency to 

withhold a submission from the public 

record by showing how the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) permits such 

confidentiality. Persons requesting such 

confidentiality should be aware that, 

under the FOIA, confidentiality may be 

granted in only very limited 

circumstances, such as to protect trade 

secrets. The Forest Service will inform 

the requester of the agency’s decision 

regarding the request for confidentiality, 

and where the request is denied; the 

agency will return the submission and 

notify the requester that the comments 

may be resubmitted with or without 

name and address within a specified 

number of days. 

Dated: August 7, 2009. 

Stuart Woolley, 

Acting Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. E9–19451 Filed 8–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Eastern Arizona Counties Resource 

Advisory Committee 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Eastern Arizona Counties 

Resource Advisory Committee will meet 

in Show Low, Arizona. The purpose of 

the meeting is to review organizational 

processes, operating guidelines, and 

legal requirements of Resource Advisory 

Committee members in accordance with 

Public Law 110–343 (the Secure Rural 

Schools and Community Self 

Determination Act). 

DATES: The meeting will be held August 

24, 2009 starting at 1 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in 

the conference room at the Holiday Inn 

Express, 151 West Deuce of Clubs, Show 

Low, Arizona 85901. Send written 

comments to Robert Dyson, Eastern 

Arizona Counties Resource Advisory 

Committee, c/o Forest Service, USDA, 

P.O. Box 640, Springerville, Arizona 

85938 or electronically to 

rdyson@fs.fed.us. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Dyson, Public Affairs Officer, 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, 

(928)333–4301. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

meeting is open to the public. This is an 

administrative and organizational 

meeting only and no project proposals 

will be reviewed. Committee discussion 

is limited to Forest Service staff and 

Committee members. However, persons 

who wish to bring Public Law 110–343 

related matters to the attention of the 

Committee may file written statements 

with the Committee staff before or after 

the meeting. Opportunity for public 

input will be provided. 

Dated: August 6, 2009. 

Chris Knopp, 

Forest Supervisor, Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests. 

[FR Doc. E9–19287 Filed 8–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–475–059] 

Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From 

Italy: Final Results of Expedited 

Sunset Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On May 1, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated a sunset review of 

the antidumping duty finding on 

pressure sensitive plastic tape (PSP 

Tape) from Italy pursuant to section 

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

amended (the Act). The Department 

conducted an expedited (120-day) 

sunset review of this finding. As a result 

of this sunset review, the Department 

finds that revocation of the antidumping 

duty finding 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. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 13, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terre Keaton Stefanova or Brandon 

Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1280 or (202) 482– 

0182, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 1, 2009, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

sunset review of the antidumping duty 

finding on PSP Tape from Italy pursuant 

to section 751(c) of the Act. See 

Initiation of Five-Year Sunset Review, 

74 FR 20286 (May 1, 2009). The 

Department received a Notice of Intent 

to Participate on behalf of 3M Company 

(3M), a domestic producer of PSP Tape, 

within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). 3M claimed interested 

party status, under section 771(9)(C) of 

the Act, as a producer of a domestic like 

product in the United States. We 

received a complete substantive 

response from 3M within the 30-day 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department did 

not receive substantive responses from 

respondent interested parties. As a 

result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department 

conducted an expedited (120-day) 

sunset review of this finding. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
40812 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 155 / Thursday, August 13, 2009 / Notices 

Scope of Review 

The products covered in this review 

are shipments of PSP Tape measuring 

over one and three-eighths inches in 

width and not exceeding four 

millimeters in thickness. The above 

described PSP Tape is classified under 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) subheadings 

3919.90.20 and 3919.90.50. The HTS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for 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 for the Final Results of 

the Expedited Sunset Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Finding on Pressure 

Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy’’ 

(Decision Memo), which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. The issues 

discussed in the Decision Memo include 

the likelihood of continuation or 

recurrence of dumping and the 

magnitude of the margins likely to 

prevail if the finding were to be 

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, room 1117 of the 

main Commerce building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/ 

index.html. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision Memo 

are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

finding on PSP Tape from Italy would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of dumping at the following 

weighted-average percentage margins: 

Manufacturers/exporters/producers 

Weighted-average margin 

(percent) 

Comet SARA, S.p.A ............. 10 

Tyco Adhesives Italia S.p.A1 10 

All Others .............................. 10 

1Tyco Adhesives Italia S.p.A is the successor-in-interest to Manuli Tapes S.p.A. 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective orders 

is hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

The Department is issuing and 

publishing the results and notice in 

accordance with sections 751(c), 752, 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: August 7, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–19430 Filed 8–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–950] 

Wire Decking from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination in the Countervailing 

Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 13, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Copyak, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 3, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone 202– 

482–2209. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 2, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) initiated 

the countervailing duty investigation of 

wire decking from the People’s Republic 

of China. See Wire Decking From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Countervailing Duty Investigation, 74 FR 

31700 (July 2, 2009). 

Postponement of Due Date for 

Preliminary Determination 

Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), requires the 

Department to issue the preliminary 

determination in a countervailing duty 

investigation within 65 days after the 

date on which the Department initiated 

the investigation. However, the 

Department may postpone making the 

preliminary determination until no later 

than 130 days after the date on which 

the administering authority initiated the 

investigation if, pursuant to section 

703(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department 

concludes that the parties concerned in 

the investigation are cooperating and 

determines that the investigation is 

extraordinarily complicated and that 

‘‘additional time is necessary to the 

make the preliminary determination.’’ 

The Department is currently 

investigating a number of complex 

alleged subsidy programs, including 

various loan programs, grants, income 

tax incentives, and the provision of 

goods and services for less than 

adequate remuneration. Due to the 

number and complexity of the alleged 

subsidy programs being investigated, we 

find that this investigation is 

extraordinarily complicated and that 

additional time is necessary to make the 

preliminary determination. Therefore, 

in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(B) 

of the Act, we are fully extending the 

due date for the preliminary 

determination to no later than 130 days 

after the day on which the investigation 

was initiated. The deadline for 

completion of the preliminary 

determination is now November 2, 

2009. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act. 

Dated: August 7, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–19429 Filed 8–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

SUMMARY: The ONMS is extending the 

deadline for applications for the 

following vacant seat on the Monterey 

Bay National Marine Sanctuary 

Advisory Council: Education. 

Applicants are chosen based upon their 

particular expertise and experience in 

relation to the seat for which they are 

applying; community and professional 

affiliations; philosophy regarding the 

protection and management of marine 

resources; and possibly the length of 

residence in the area affected by the 

sanctuary. Applicants who are chosen 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 155 / Thursday, August 13, 2009 / Notices 40845 

1Commissioners Irving A. Williamson and Dean 

A. Pinkert dissenting. 

concerning the Commission may also be 

obtained by accessing its Internet server 

(http://www.usitc.gov). The public 

record for this investigation may be 

viewed on the Commission’s electronic 

docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 

28, 2008, the Commission instituted an 

investigation under section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based 

on a complaint filed by Tessera, Inc. of 

San Jose, California (‘‘Tessera’’), alleging 

a violation of section 337 in the 

importation, sale for importation, and 

sale within the United States after 

importation of certain semiconductor 

chips with minimized chip package size 

and products containing same that 

infringe certain claims of U.S. Patents 

Nos. 5,852,326; 6,433,419; and 

5,679,977. 73 FR 30628 (May 28, 2008). 

The complaint named numerous entities 

as respondents. Subsequently, the 

complaint and Notice of Investigation 

were amended to add U.S. Patent No. 

5,663,106, and the target date for 

completion of this investigation was 

extended. 

On March 12, 2009, complainant 

Tessera moved to terminate the 

investigation based on withdrawal of 

the complaint. On July 17, 2009, the ALJ 

issued Order No. 25 granting the 

motion. No petitions for review were 

filed. The Commission has determined 

not to review the ID. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in 

section 210.42(h) of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42(h)). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: August 7, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–19411 Filed 8–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

Investigation No. AA1921–167 (Third 

Review); Pressure Sensitive Plastic 

Tape From Italy 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determination to conduct a full five-year 

review concerning the antidumping 

finding on pressure sensitive plastic 

tape from Italy. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with a full 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

finding on pressure sensitive plastic 

tape from Italy would be likely to lead 

to continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. A schedule for the review will be 

established and announced at a later 

date. For further information concerning 

the conduct of this review and rules of 

general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: August 4, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edward Petronzio (202–205–3176), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

4, 2009, the Commission determined 

that it should proceed to a full review 

in the subject five-year review pursuant 

to section 751(c)(5) of the Act. The 

Commission found that the domestic 

interested party group response to its 

notice of institution (74 FR 20340, May 

1, 2009) was adequate but that the 

respondent interested group response 

was inadequate. The Commission also 

found that other circumstances 

warranted conducting a full review.1 A 

record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements will be available from the 

Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

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. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: August 7, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–19410 Filed 8–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–06–P 

SUMMARY: The 2009 report can now be 

accessed and downloaded from the 

Commission’s Web site at http:// 

www.usitc.gov/research_and_analysis/ 

trade_shifts.htm. The format used by the 

Commission since 2004 includes links 

to Commission research and other 

resources including data, as well as 

links to other organizations with related 

information. User feedback on the 

revised format is encouraged by 

providing access to the ITC online 

Reader Satisfaction Survey (http:// 

reportweb.usitc.gov/reader_survey/ 

readersurvey.html). A CD–ROM version 

of the 2008 report may be requested by 

contacting the Office of the Secretary at 

202–205–2000 or by fax at 202–205– 

2104. Readers of the report may also 

provide comments by downloading the 

survey form and business reply mailer 

for this publication from the 

Commission’s Web site. 

ADDRESSES: All Commission offices, 

including the Commission’s hearing 

rooms, are located in the United States 

International Trade Commission 

Building, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. All written 

submissions should be addressed to the 

Secretary, United States International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. The public 

record for this investigation may be 

viewed on the Commission’s electronic 

docket (EDIS) at http://www.usitc.gov/ 

secretary/edis.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Project leader, Jeremy Wise, Office of 

Industries (202–205–3190 or 

jeremy.wise@usitc.gov) or deputy project 

leader Brendan Lynch (202–205–3313 or 

brendan.lynch@usitc.gov). For 

information on the legal aspects, please 

contact William Gearhart, Office of 

General Counsel (202–205–3091 or 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 26, 2009 / Notices 43155 

conserving, and utilizing the water and 

natural resources as other submitted 

proposals and that the preference entity 

is well qualified. Preference entities 

would be allowed 90 days to improve 

their proposals, if necessary, to be made 

at least equal to a proposal(s) that may 

have been submitted by a nonpreference entity. 

Power Purchasing and/or Marketing 

Considerations 

The lessee would be responsible for 

transmission and marketing of the 

power generated by the proposed 

project. 

Notice and Time Period To Enter Into 

Lease of Power Privilege 

Reclamation will notify, in writing, all 

entities submitting proposals of 

Reclamation’s decision regarding 

selection of the potential lessee. The 

selected potential lessee will have two 

years from the date of such notification 

to accomplish NEPA compliance and 

enter into a lease of power privilege for 

the proposed development of 

hydropower at South Canal. The lessee 

will then have up to two years from the 

date of execution of the lease to 

complete the designs and specifications 

and an additional year to begin 

construction. Such timeframes may be 

adjusted for just cause resulting from 

actions and/or circumstances that are 

beyond the control of the lessee. 

Dated: July 24, 2009. 

Larry Walkoviak, 

Regional Director—UC Region. 

[FR Doc. E9–20652 Filed 8–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. AA1921–167 (Third 

Review)] 

Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From 

Italy 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of a full five-year 

review concerning the antidumping 

duty finding on pressure sensitive 

plastic tape from Italy. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of a full review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) 

(the Act) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

finding on pressure sensitive plastic 

tape from Italy would be likely to lead 

to continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. For further information 

concerning the conduct of this review 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: August 20, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edward Petronzio (202–205–3176), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On August 4, 2009, the 

Commission determined to conduct a 

full review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) 

of the Act (74 FR 40845, August 13, 

2009). A record of the Commissioners’ 

votes, the Commission’s statement on 

adequacy, and any individual 

Commissioner’s statements are available 

from the Office of the Secretary and at 

the Commission’s Web site. 

Participation in the review and public 

service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in this review as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11 of the 

Commission’s rules, by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. A party that 

filed a notice of appearance following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the review need not file 

an additional notice of appearance. The 

Secretary will maintain a public service 

list containing the names and addresses 

of all persons, or their representatives, 

who are parties to the review. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in this review available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the review, provided that the 

application is made by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

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

who are parties to the review. A party 

granted access to BPI following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the review need not 

reapply for such access. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Staff report.—The prehearing staff 

report in the review will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on December 21, 

2009, and a public version will be 

issued thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.64 of the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing.—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the review 

beginning at 9:30 a.m. on January 14, 

2010, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Requests to 

appear at the hearing should be filed in 

writing with the Secretary to the 

Commission on or before January 8, 

2010. A nonparty who has testimony 

that may aid the Commission’s 

deliberations may request permission to 

present a short statement at the hearing. 

All parties and nonparties desiring to 

appear at the hearing and make oral 

presentations should attend a 

prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 

a.m. on January 11, 2010, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building. Oral testimony and written 

materials to be submitted at the public 

hearing are governed by sections 

201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, and 

207.66 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Written submissions.—Each party to 

the review may submit a prehearing 

brief to the Commission. Prehearing 

briefs must conform with the provisions 

of section 207.65 of the Commission’s 

rules; the deadline for filing is January 

5, 2010. Parties may also file written 

testimony in connection with their 

presentation at the hearing, as provided 

in section 207.24 of the Commission’s 

rules, and posthearing briefs, which 

must conform with the provisions of 

section 207.67 of the Commission’s 

rules. The deadline for filing 

posthearing briefs is January 25, 2010; 

witness testimony must be filed no later 

than three days before the hearing. In 

addition, any person who has not 

entered an appearance as a party to the 

review may submit a written statement 

of information pertinent to the subject of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
43156 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 26, 2009 / Notices 

the review on or before January 25, 

2010. On February 12, 2010, the 

Commission will make available to 

parties all information on which they 

have not had an opportunity to 

comment. Parties may submit final 

comments on this information on or 

before February 16, 2010, but such final 

comments must not contain new factual 

information and must otherwise comply 

with section 207.68 of the Commission’s 

rules. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of section 

201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even 

where electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in II 

(C) of the Commission’s Handbook on 

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 

68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

Issued: August 21, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–20555 Filed 8–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Clean Air Act 

Notice is hereby given that on August 

20, 2009, a proposed Consent Decree in 

United States v. First Chemical 

Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:09-cv00637–LG–RHW was lodged with the 

United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Mississippi, 

Southern Division. 

In this action, the United States 

sought civil penalties and injunctive 

relief against First Chemical Corporation 

(‘‘FCC’’) for alleged violations of the 

general duty of care under Section 

112(r)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 

7412(r)(1) with respect to a chemical 

manufacturing complex, located in 

Pascagoula, Mississippi. FCC failed to 

identify the hazards associated with 

distilling mononitrotoluene (‘‘MNT’’), 

and failed to maintain a safe facility by 

reducing the risks associated with MNT. 

The United States has agreed to 

resolve these claims under the proposed 

Consent Decree wherein FCC has agreed 

to pay $731,000 in civil penalties, and 

perform injunctive relief in terms of 

completing a process hazards analysis 

relative to the MNT distillation process. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of thirty (30) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

relating to the Consent Decree. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, and either e-mailed to 

pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or 

mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, and should refer to United 

States v. First Chemical Corporation, 

D.J. Ref. 90–5–2–1–08312. 

The Consent Decree may be examined 

at the Office of the United States 

Attorney, 1575 20th Ave., 2d Floor, 

Gulfport, MS 39501, ATTN: Crockett 

Lindsey, and at U.S. EPA Region 4, 61 

Forsyth Street, SE., Atlanta, GA 30303, 

ATTN: Ellen Rouch. During the public 

comment period, the Consent Decree, 

may also be examined on the following 

Department of Justice Web site, to 

http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

Consent Decree may also be obtained by 

mail from the Consent Decree Library, 

P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611 or 

by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia 

Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), 

fax no. (202) 514–0097, phone 

confirmation number (202) 514–1547. In 

requesting a copy from the Consent 

Decree Library, please enclose a check 

in the amount of $10.75 (25 cents per 

page reproduction cost) payable to the 

U.S. Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax, 

forward a check in that amount to the 

Consent Decree Library at the stated 

address. 

Maureen M. Katz, 

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. E9–20526 Filed 8–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Clean Water Act 

Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby 

given that on August 20, 2009, a 

proposed Modification to Settlement 

Agreement and Final Order 

(‘‘Modification’’) in United States and 

State of California ex rel. California 

Regional Water Quality Control Board, 

Los Angeles Region v. City of Los 

Angeles, Civil Action No. 01–191– 

RSWL, was lodged with the United 

States District Court for the Central 

District of California, Western Division. 

The United States and the State’s action 

is consolidated with Santa Monica 

Baykeeper v. The City of Los Angeles, 

Civil Action No. 98–9039–RSWL. 

Under the proposed Modification, the 

Odor Control provisions of the 

Settlement Agreement and Final Order, 

entered by the Court on October 28, 

2004, will be amended. The City of Los 

Angeles (‘‘the City’’) will take new and/ 

or modified actions to control odors 

from the City’s sewers and to involve 

affected communities in the planning 

process for these actions. The 

Modification also replaces two 

Supplemental Environmental Projects 

specified in the Settlement Agreement 

and Final Order with a new project, the 

Garvanza Park Water Quality 

Enhancement BMP Project, at the same 

cost to the City. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of thirty (30) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

relating to the Modification. Comments 

should be addressed to the Assistant 

Attorney General, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division, and either 

e-mailed to pubcommentees.enrd@usdoj.gov or mailed to P.O. 

Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC 20044–7611, and 

should refer to the Modification 

between the United States, the State of 

California and the City of Los Angeles, 

DOJ Ref. No. 90–5–1–1–809/1. 

The Modification may be examined at 

EPA’s office, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
1

 Commissioners Williamson and Pinkert voted to conduct an expedited review, citing both the

lack of adequate respondent participation and their finding that the record in this adequacy phase did not

indicate sufficient changes in the conditions of competition since the original investigation and the first

and second five-year reviews to warrant conducting a full review.

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Inv. No. AA1921-167 (Third Review)

On August 4, 2009, the Commission determined that it should proceed to a full review in the

subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. §1675(c)(5)).

The Commission received a single response filed by 3M Company (“3M”), a domestic producer

of pressure sensitive plastic tape (PSPT); 3M’s response also contains information submitted on behalf of

two other U.S. producers of PSPT, Shurtape Technologies, LLC and Intertape Polymer Group, Inc. The

Commission found the individual response of each of these domestic PSPT producers, which contained

company-specific data, to be adequate. Because the three producers that provided company-specific data

collectively account for a substantial proportion of domestic production of PSPT, the Commission further

determined that the domestic interested party group response was adequate.

The Commission did not receive a response to the notice of institution from any respondent

interested party. The Commission determined that the respondent interested party group response was

inadequate in this review.

Notwithstanding the Commission’s determination that the respondent interested party group

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

regarding possible changes in conditions of competition.1

 These include trends in U.S. demand; the

nature of U.S. supply, particularly concerning the presence in the U.S. market of nonsubject imports from

China and Taiwan; and the structure and market orientation of the Italian PSPT industry.

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and the

Commission’s web site (www.usitc.gov).
 
APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES

B-1
 
CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade

Commission’s hearing:

Subject: Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy

Inv. No.: AA1921-167 (Third Review)

Date and Time: January 14, 2010 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with this review in the Main Hearing Room (room 101),

500 E Street (room 101), SW, Washington, D.C.

OPENING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of Orders (Jeffrey S. Neeley, 

Barnes, Richardson & Colburn)

 

In Support of the Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Order:

Barnes, Richardson & Colburn

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

3M Company (“3M”)

Shurtape Technologies LLC (“Shurtape”)

Intertape Polymer Corp. (“Intertape”)

Rich Anderson, Global Business Manager, Packaging, 3M

Wayne Helton, Vice President, Manufacturing, Shurtape

Craig Martin, Senior Vice President, Marketing, Intertape

Glen Anderson, Executive Vice President, Pressure Sensitive Tape Council

Jerry Serra, Consultant, Pressure SensitiveTape Council

Jeffrey S. Neeley )

) – OF COUNSEL

Stephen W. Brophy )

CLOSING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of Orders (Jeffrey S. Neeley, 

Barnes, Richardson & Colburn)

B-3
 
C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA
C-2
Table C-1

PSP tape: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-September 2008, and January-September 2009

(Quantity=1,000 square yards, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per square yard; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-September Jan.-Sept.

Item 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2006-08 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,646,891 2,635,666 2,554,033 1,955,945 1,675,770 -3.5 -0.4 -3.1 -14.3

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . 84.2 80.6 81.5 80.8 79.4 -2.7 -3.7 0.9 -1.4

 Importers' share (1):

 Italy (subject) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 1.2 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.8 -0.4 -0.4

 Italy (nonsubject) . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.8 19.4 18.5 19.2 20.6 2.7 3.7 -0.9 1.4

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527,762 521,441 516,265 400,955 363,630 -2.2 -1.2 -1.0 -9.3

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . 86.6 84.5 84.4 85.1 83.1 -2.2 -2.1 -0.1 -1.9

 Importers' share (1):

 Italy (subject) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.8 -0.1 0.2 -0.3 -0.1

 Italy (nonsubject) . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4 15.5 15.6 14.9 16.9 2.2 2.1 0.1 1.9

U.S. shipments of imports from:

 Italy (subject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,154 32,374 21,528 17,675 7,864 77.1 166.4 -33.5 -55.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,248 6,446 4,781 3,444 2,874 -8.9 22.8 -25.8 -16.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.43 $0.20 $0.22 $0.19 $0.37 -48.6 -53.9 11.5 87.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Italy (nonsubject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417,341 512,051 472,291 374,909 345,373 13.2 22.7 -7.8 -7.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70,882 81,024 80,612 59,937 61,436 13.7 14.3 -0.5 2.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.17 $0.16 $0.17 $0.16 $0.18 0.5 -6.8 7.9 11.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 52,759 55,057 41,958 30,381 48,356 -20.5 4.4 -23.8 59.2

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . 2,982,863 3,220,949 2,963,683 2,223,161 2,295,305 -0.6 8.0 -8.0 3.2

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . . 2,296,750 2,270,674 2,141,994 1,684,660 1,402,001 -6.7 -1.1 -5.7 -16.8

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . 77.0 70.5 72.3 75.8 61.1 -4.7 -6.5 1.8 -14.7

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,229,550 2,123,615 2,081,742 1,581,036 1,330,397 -6.6 -4.8 -2.0 -15.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456,880 440,417 435,653 341,018 302,194 -4.6 -3.6 -1.1 -11.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.20 $0.21 $0.21 $0.22 $0.23 2.1 1.2 0.9 5.3

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124,110 131,980 144,957 111,080 70,956 16.8 6.3 9.8 -36.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,129 30,263 31,063 23,222 16,889 3.1 0.4 2.6 -27.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.24 $0.23 $0.21 $0.21 $0.24 -11.7 -5.5 -6.5 13.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . 259,348 257,225 220,029 240,234 212,388 -15.2 -0.8 -14.5 -11.6

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . 11.0 11.4 9.9 10.6 11.4 -1.1 0.4 -1.5 0.7

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . 623 611 596 596 555 -4.3 -1.9 -2.5 -6.9

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . . 1,127 1,083 1,078 810 721 -4.3 -3.9 -0.5 -11.0

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . 29,076 27,996 28,168 21,366 19,716 -3.1 -3.7 0.6 -7.7

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $25.81 $25.85 $26.14 $26.39 $27.36 1.3 0.2 1.1 3.7

 Productivity (square yards/hour) 2,038.5 2,096.8 1,987.6 2,081.1 1,945.9 -2.5 2.9 -5.2 -6.5

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.013 $0.012 $0.013 $0.013 $0.014 3.9 -2.6 6.7 10.9

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,353,660 2,255,585 2,226,699 1,692,116 1,401,353 -5.4 -4.2 -1.3 -17.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486,229 469,893 465,949 363,652 318,718 -4.2 -3.4 -0.8 -12.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.21 $0.21 $0.21 $0.21 $0.23 1.3 0.8 0.4 5.8

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . 371,123 355,660 372,250 285,812 224,868 0.3 -4.2 4.7 -21.3

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . 115,106 114,233 93,699 77,840 93,850 -18.6 -0.8 -18.0 20.6

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61,617 58,171 55,605 42,698 38,862 -9.8 -5.6 -4.4 -9.0

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . . 53,489 56,062 38,094 35,142 54,988 -28.8 4.8 -32.1 56.5

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.16 $0.16 $0.17 $0.17 $0.16 6.0 0.0 6.0 -5.0

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . $0.03 $0.03 $0.02 $0.03 $0.03 -4.6 -1.5 -3.2 9.9

 Unit operating income or (loss) . $0.02 $0.02 $0.02 $0.02 $0.04 -24.7 9.4 -31.2 88.9

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.3 75.7 79.9 78.6 70.6 3.6 -0.6 4.2 -8.0

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.0 11.9 8.2 9.7 17.3 -2.8 0.9 -3.8 7.6

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not applicable.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding,

figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-3
 
APPENDIX D

RESPONSES OF U.S. PRODUCERS, U.S. IMPORTERS, FOREIGN PRODUCERS, AND

U.S. PURCHASERS CONCERNING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ANTIDUMPING

DUTY FINDING AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

D-1
D-2
U.S. PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING DUTY FINDING AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any changes in the character of their

operations or organizations relating to the production of PSP tape in the future if the antidumping

duty finding on PSP tape from Italy were to be revoked. (Question II-4). The following are

quotations from the responses of producers.

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe the significance of the existing antidumping

finding covering imports of PSP tape from Italy in terms of its effect on their firm’s production

capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues, costs, profits,

cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development expenditures, and asset values.

(Question II-17.) The following are quotations from the responses of producers.

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any anticipated changes in their production

capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues, costs, profits,

cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development expenditures, and asset values relating

to the production of PSP tape in the future if the antidumping duty finding on PSP tape were

revoked. (Question II-18.) The following are quotations from the responses of producers. 

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe any anticipated changes to the character of

their operations or organizations relating to the importation of PSP tape in the future. (Question

II-3.) The following are quotations from the responses of U.S. importers.

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe any anticipated changes to the character of

their operations or organizations relating to the importation of PSP tape in the future if the

antidumping duty finding were to be revoked. (Question II-4.) The following are quotations from

the responses of U.S. importers.

* * * * * * *

D-3
The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe the significance of the existing antidumping

duty finding covering imports of PSP tape from Italy in terms of their effect on their imports, U.S.

shipments of imports, and inventories. (Question II-13). The following are quotations from the

responses of importers.

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe any anticipated changes in their imports,

U.S. shipments of imports, or inventories of PSP tape in the future if the existing antidumping duty

finding was revoked. (Question II-14). The following are quotations from the responses of

importers.

* * * * * * *

U.S. PURCHASER COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE 

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

The Commission asked U. S. purchasers to comment on the likely effect of any revocation of the

antidumping duty order covering PSP tape from Italy. They were asked to discuss the potential

effects of revocation of the antidumping duty order in terms of (1) the future activities of their firm

and (2) the U.S. market as a whole. Their responses are as follows.

* * * * * * *

FOREIGN PRODUCERS’/EXPORTERS COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY FINDING AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

The Commission requested foreign producers/exporters to describe any anticipated changes to the

character of their operations or organizations relating to the importation of PSP tape if the

antidumping duty finding covering imports of PSP tape were revoked. (Question II-3). The

following are quotations from the responses of foreign producers.

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested foreign producers/exporters to describe the significance of the existing

antidumping duty finding covering imports of PSP tape in terms of its effects on your firm’s

production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other markets, and

inventories. (Question II-12). The following are quotations from the responses of foreign

producers.

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested foreign producers/exporters to describe any anticipated changes in their

production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other

markets, or inventories relating to the production of PSP tape in the future if the antidumping duty

finding on PSP tape were revoked. (Question II-13.) The following are quotations from the

responses of producers.

* * * * * * *

D-4