exceed the ‘imminent’ time frame applicable in a threat of injury analysis in antidumping and
countervailing duty investigations.”

Although the standard in five-year reviews is not the same as the standard applied in original
antidumping or countervailing duty investigations, 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 order is revoked or the suspended investigation
is terminated.” 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 finding or the suspension agreement under
review, whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the finding is revoked or the suspension
agreement is terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
§ 1675(a)(4).*

B. Facts Available

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.’ We generally give credence to the facts supplied by the participating
parties and certified by them as true, but base our decision on the evidence as a whole, and do not
automatically accept the participating parties’ suggested interpretation of the record evidence.
Regardless of the level of participation and the interpretations urged by participating parties, the
Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factors and may not
draw adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. In general, the Commission makes
determinations by “weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to
the domestic industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most
persuasive.”"° In this case, not all interested parties participated in this review. Accordingly, we have
relied on the facts available in this review, which consist primarily of the report and opinion in the
original determinations, the report and opinions in the first five-year review, information collected by the

© 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.

7 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

® 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the
Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s
determination. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). While the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is
necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886. We note that no duty absorption findings have been made by Commerce.

> 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B); 19 C.F.R. § 207.62(e). Section 751(c)(3) of the Act and the Commission’s
regulations provide that in an expedited five-year review the Commission may issue a final determination “based on
the facts available, in accordance with section 776 of the Act.” Section 776 of the Act, in turn, 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 section 782(i) of the Act. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a).

1 SAA at 869.

14


June 1976). Three other firms — Nastri Adhesive Stampati (“NAS”); Autoadesivi, S.p.A.; and Vibac,
S.p.A. (“Vibac”) — exported “insignificant quantities” of PSP tape to the United States in the same
period.”*

In the Commission’s previous review, 3M submitted the following list of Italian companies
believed to be producing PSP tape at the time: 3M/Italia, S.p.A. (“3M/Italia”);”” Manuli Tapes, S.p.A.
(“Manuli”); Sicad, S.p.A.; Syrom 90, S.p.A.; NAR, S.p.A. (“NAR”); Vibac; and NAS. In its response to
the Commission’s notice of institution in the present review, 3M again identified Sicad, Vibac, and NAR,
and added three companies, “Magri,” “Fabo,” and “Tyco Adhesives,” to the list of Italian companies
believed to have exported PSP tape to the United States “after 1997." 3M also reported participation in
a joint venture with Italian producer Sicad in a company called BST, S.p.A. (“BST”). BST produces PSP
tape subject to the present antidumping finding, but does not export any subject product to the United
States.”

The staff report in the original investigation contains no trade data for the PSP tape industry in
Italy. In 1998, 3M provided estimates, based on the activities of its Italian subsidiary at the time, of
production quantity, production capacity, and capacity utilization for the Italian industry. Similarly, in
the present review, 3M provided estimates for the Italian industry’s trade data, based on the activity of its
joint venture company producing PSP tape in Italy. These data are summarized in table I-5.

Table I-5
PSP tape: Italian producers’ capacity, production, and shipments to the United States, 1997 and
2003

Item 1997" 2003”
Capacity (1,000 square yards) hailed 7,176,000
Production (1,000 square yards) hal 4,306,000
Capacity utilization (percent) oe 60.0
U.S. shipments (1,000 square yards) - NIA
Ratio of U.S. shipments to production (percent) ial NIA

‘1997 data are based on estimates submitted by 3M in response to the Commission's notice of institution in
the previous review.

? 2003 data are calculated from estimates submitted by 3M in response to the Commission’s notice of
institution in the present review. Based on industry data, 3M estimates that Italian manufacturers produced about
3.6 billion square meters (4.3 billion square yards) of PSP tape in 2003, and that the production capacity for these
producers in 2003 was about 6 billion square meters (7.2 billion square yards).

Source: Staff Report of January 8, 1999, p. I-8; and 3M’s Response, p. 7.

5 As stated earlier, the antidumping finding was revoked by Commerce with respect to Autoadesivi, S.p.A. in
1988,

* Id.

27 3M/Italia was reported in 1998 to be a wholly owned subsidiary of U.S. producer 3M. Pressure Sensitive
Plastic Tape from Italy, Investigation No. AA1921-167 (Review), USITC Pub. 3157, February 1999, p. I-6. 3M did
not include this subsidiary in the list of Italian companies currently believed to be producing PSP tape in Italy that it
submitted to the Commission in the present review.

28 3M’s Response, p. 5.
2° 3M’s Response, p. 7.

Ell


financial indicators exhibited a declining trend in the period, however, as costs and expenses rose, while
operating income turned negative. Detailed U.S. industry trade and financial data for more recent
periods are not available.

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.”” No capacity utilization data were included in submissions made to the
Commission in response to its notices of institution in the previous or present five-year review.

Table I-1
PSP tape: U.S. producers’ trade and financial data, 1973-76, 1997, and 2003

* * * * * * *

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the present review, 3M submitted
production and shipments data for four U.S. producers. These data are summarized in table I-2.

Table 1-2
PSP tape: Responding U.S. producers’ 2003 production and shipments

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTS AND CONSUMPTION
U.S. Imports

Official import statistics for the subject product in this second five-year review are not available
as the applicable HTS subheading under which it is classified includes products other than PSP tape.
Import data collected in the original investigation, and in the Commission’s first five-year review, are
presented in table I-3.

Data from the original investigation show that imports of PSP tape from Italy grew in line with
imports from all countries from 1973 to 1976, increasing by just over 200 percent. In 1976, imports from
Italy represented 42.9 percent of total U.S. imports of PSP tape. Data submitted to the Commission by
3M in the first five-year review suggested that imports from Italy had declined to a level representing just
4 percent of total U.S. imports in 1997. No more current estimates or data relating to U.S. imports of
PSP tape were provided by 3M in its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the present
review.

? Staff Report of August 15, 1977, p. A-23.

17


102

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 1/Friday, January 2, 2004/Notices

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 February 23, 2004.
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 March 16,
2004. 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.

ay The name and address of your firm
or entity (including World Wide Web
address if available) 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.

°ts) A statement of the likely effects of

the revocation of the antidumping
finding on the Domestic Industry in
general and/or your firm/entity

» specifically. In your response, please

liscuss 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
1997.

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the
Domestic Like Product, provide the
following information on your firm's
operations on that product during

calendar year 2003 (report quantity data
in square yards and value data in U.S.
dollars, f.0.b. plant). If you are a union/
worker group or trade/business
association, provide the information, on
an aggregate basis, for the firms in
which your workers are employed/
which are members of your association.

{a) Production (quantity) and, if
known, an estimate of the percentage of
total U.S. production of the Domestic
Like Product accounted for by your
firm’s(s’) production;

(b) the quantity and value of U.S.
commercial shipments of the Domestic
Like Product produced in your U.S.
plant(s); and

(c) the quantity and value of U.S.
internal consumption/company
transfers of the Domestic Like Product
produced in your U.S. plant(s).

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a
trade/business association of U.S.
importers of the Subject Merchandise
from the Subject Country, provide the
following information on your firm’s(s’)
operations on that product during
calendar year 2003 (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 includii
antidumping or countervailing 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.0.b. U.S.
port, including antidumping and/or
countervailing duties) of U.S.
commercial shipments of Subject
Merchandise imported from the Subject
Country; and

(c) the quantity and value (£.0.b. U.S.
port, including antidumping and/or
countervailing duties) of U.S. internal
consumption/company transfers of
Subject Merchandise imported from the
Subject Country.

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter,
or a trade/business association of
producers or exporters of the Subject
Merchandise in the Subject Country,
provide the following information on
your firm’s(s’) operations on that
product during calendar year 2003
(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 or
countervailing duties). If you are a
trade/business association, provide the
information, on an aggregate basis, for
the firms which are members of your
association.


first five-year review, 3M’s share of domestic production had ***.° We noted further that the domestic
market for PSP tape had grown significantly since imposition of the original finding in 1977. Apparent

U.S. consumption of PSP tape had increased from *** square yards in 1976, to *** billion square yards
in 1997. At the same time, the market share held by imports had declined, from *** percent in 1976 to

*** percent in 1997."

With regard to demand, we observed that since most PSP tape is used to seal cartons or
corrugated boxes, demand for PSP tape appears to be derived from the demand for cartons and boxes.
Because there were apparently no good commercial substitutes for the use of PSP tape in these
applications, and because the tape accounts for only a small share of the value of the delivered cartons
and boxes, demand for PSP tape appeared to be inelastic.* We further noted that PSP tape appears to be
a commodity-like product, with a high degree of substitutability between imported and domestic PSP
tape.

We have received no information in this expedited review that these conditions of competition
have changed, with one exception. According to 3M, there has been substantial consolidation through
acquisitions in both the U.S. and worldwide PSP tape industries since the Commission’s first five-year
review. 3M maintains that this consolidation has given acquiring firms, including PSP tape producers in
Italy, enhanced distribution systems, and allows these firms to source their products from multiple
countries, depending on cost and availability.

Cc. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the finding under review is
revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of imports would be
significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.> 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.**

As discussed below, we conclude from the limited facts available’” that subject import volume is
likely to increase significantly and would be significant if the finding is revoked. This conclusion is
based largely on the records from the original investigation and the first five-year review, and the
information submitted by the domestic industry in this review. As noted above, no respondent interested
parties responded to the Commission’s notice of institution.

*° Confidential First Five-Year Review Determination at 10.
1d.
32 la
31d.
34 3M Response at 9.
35 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).
© 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A)-(D).
_ 7 See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a).






In the present review, 3M identified eleven companies currently producing PSP tape in the
United States, four (***) of which accounted for *** percent of domestic production in 2003.% Only one
company from the first review, Central Products Co., was not identified by 3M as a producer of PSP tape
in the current review.”” Thus, six new firms have entered the industry since the last review: Canadian
Technical Tapes Cantech Industries, Inc); Manco; Nitto Denko (Permacel); Tyco Adhesives; Tara Tape;
and Tesa Tape, Inc. Additionally, 3M acknowledges the possible existence of additional, smaller PSP
tape producers in the United States that produced minimal amounts of PSP tape in 2003.¥ Since the
original investigation, the record reflects that 3M has been the largest producer in the U.S. industry.”

As indicated in the original investigation, the primary use for PSP tape is to seal cartons or
corrugated boxes in medium-to low-volume applications. Demand for PSP tape is therefore primarily
derived from the demand for cartons and boxes. Generally, for carton sealing, the three types of PSP
tape can be used interchangeably, and are, for the most part, in direct competition with one another.”
The record does not indicate any viable substitutes for PSP tape. Notwithstanding that fact, price appears
to be the most important factor in purchasing decisions.” Domestic and imported subject product are
largely interchangeable and considered “commodity products.”

Demand for PSP tape has grown significantly since the original investigation. Between the
original investigation and the first review (i.e., 1976-1997), U.S. apparent consumption had increased
more than 30 fold, from *** square yards to *** square yards.” No current estimates of U.S. apparent
consumption or market shares can be made based on available data. During the same time period,
domestic production increased nearly 60 fold, from *** square yards in 1976 to *** square yards in
199725 Between 1997 and 2003, U.S. production further increased *** percent to approximately ***
square yards.

Domestic producers’ share of the U.S. market also increased significantly since the original
investigation, from *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 1976 to *** percent in 1997.* The
record indicates that the increase in domestic producers’ market share was at the expense of both subject
and nonsubject imports. In 1976, total imports accounted for *** percent of apparent consumption, of
which subject imports comprised *** percent and nonsubject imports comprised *** percent. By
contrast, in 1997, subject imports comprised *** percent of apparent consumption and nonsubject
comprised *** percent.

26 3M Submission at 4.

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

28 CR at I-7.

29 USITC Pub. 3157 at I-5; Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from West Germany, Inv. No. AA1921-167, USITC
Pub. 831 (Sept. 1977) at A-11.

CR at 1-5.

31 CRat 1-5.

32 USITC Pub. 831 at A-43.
33 USITC Pub. 831 at A-5.
CR at Table I-4.

35. CR at Table I-1.

3° CR at Table I-4.

18


According to the estimates provided by 3M in the present sunset review, the Italian PSP tape
industry was operating at 60 percent capacity utilization in 2003. This rate, 3M argues, represents a
“significant underutilization” of capacity, and would result in an increase in exports to the United States
by Italian producers were the antidumping finding on PSP tape to be revoked.” An increase in imports
from Italy, 3M contends, would lead directly to a decrease in the U.S. industry’s sales volume,
production, capacity utilization, employment, and wages.*!

3M also notes that the PSP tape industry, both in Italy and in the United States, has undergone
substantial consolidation in recent years. They point, in particular, to Tyco Italia’s aggressive purchases
of companies in the industry, including the acquisition of Manuli, the largest Italian producer of PSP
tape.” 3M contends that this consolidation has provided acquiring companies with enhanced distribution
and sourcing systems, providing them with the means, as well as an incentive, to sell PSP tape in the
United States at “any price above variable cost.”

3° 3M’s Response, p. 3.

9 Td.

32 3M’s Response, pp. 8 and 9.
3d.

1-12


CONTENTS

Page

Determination 2.0... 0... cece cece eet en ee eeeeen enn eee nnn ene en en eenee 1

Views of the Commission ......... 0... c cece eee cece eee teen eee nent eee e eee eaes 3
Dissenting views of Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun, Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane, and

Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson ......... 0c e cece ener ete e cnet e teen eee eeeneaes 13

Ll

13

Background beeeee bene 13

The original investigation and first five-year review . 13

Commerce’s final results of expedited sunset review . 4

15

15

Description and uses .. 1-5

The industry in the United States 16

US. producers 1-6

US. production, capacity, and shipments 16

U.S. imports and consumption ........ 1-7

US. imports 17

Apparent U.S. consumption 19

The industry in Italy 1-10

Appendices
A. Federal Register notices ©0262... 66.0. e cece cece een cen e een n nen e eee eee ences A-l
B. Statement on adequacy .......... cece eee ecenee ee r eee ee teen eee t eee ee eens B-1

Note.—Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be published
and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.


1990."° The finding remains in effect for all other producers and exporters of PSP tape from Italy."!
Commerce has conducted no administrative reviews since completion of the first sunset review in 1999.

THE PRODUCT
Scope

Commerce’s final results of its expedited sunset review provides the following definition of the
product subject to review: PSP tape measuring over one and three eighths inches in width and not
exceeding four millimeters in thickness. Subject PSP tape is classified under the HTS subheading
3919.90.50 and enters under the column 1-general rate of 5.8 percent ad valorem."

Description and Uses”

PSP tape is a plastic, film-backed tape with an adhesive on one side that remains permanently
tacky at room temperature. The tape adheres firmly to a variety of surfaces upon mere contact, without
the need of more than finger or hand pressure. No activation by water, solvent, or heat is required in
order to obtain a strong adhesive force.

At the time of the Commission’s original investigation, PSP tape utilized one of three basic types
of plastic film backing: polyester, unplasticized polyvinylchloride (“UPVC”), and propylene. In 1977,
polyester film-backed tape was produced primarily in the United States, UPVC tape was produced almost
entirely in Europe, and polypropylene tape was produced in the United States, Europe, the Far East, and
other areas. Although their chemical compositions differed, the three types of film backing were
virtually identical in appearance. On an equal thickness basis, polyester tape was considerably stronger
than the other two types.

According to the information developed in the 1977 investigation, PSP tape is available in a
variety of colors and sizes, but is generally sold to consumers in rolls of the following dimensions: 2 to 4
mils thick, 2 inches wide, and 55 yards long. PSP tape is also sold in converter rolls that range from 2 to
6 inches in width and up to 1,000 yards in length, as well as in jumbo or parent rolls 50 inches wide and
1,666 yards long.

The predominant use of PSP tape, as indicated in the 1977 investigation, is to seal cartons or
corrugated boxes in medium- to low-volume applications. In general, all three types of PSP tape may be
used interchangeably for carton sealing applications, and they compete directly with one another. There
are, however, some applications in which one type of PSP tape may be preferred over another because of
its suitability to handheld and automatic sealing devices. Additional uses for PSP tape at the time of the
Commission’s original investigation included printed labels, color coding, tabbing, and label protection.
Some converter and jumbo rolls of PSP tape were processed into freezer tapes, carpet padding tape,

1 Commerce revoked the finding with respect to Autoadesivi, S.p.A. (53 FR 16444, May 9, 1988) and Boston,
S.p.A. (55 FR 6031, February 21, 1990).

" The finding excludes Plasturopa, an Italian producer of PSP tape. Treasury found no LTFV margin for sales
of PSP tape by Plasturopa, and excluded the company from its original investigation. Pressure Sensitive Plastic
Tape from West Germany, Investigation No. AA1921-168, USITC Pub. 831, September 1977, p. A-6.

1. HTS subheading 3919.90.20 was incorrectly included by Commerce in the first five-year review. 69 FR 26068
(May 11, 2004).

13 All of the discussion in this section is from the original investigation. Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from
West Germany, Investigation No. AA1921-168, USITC Pub. 831, September 1977, p. A-5.

15


Commission since the institution of this second five-year review, and information submitted by the
domestic producers in this review.

As a preliminary matter, we note that, as was the case in the first review, we can base our
decision only on an extremely limited record. Although the Commission does not issue questionnaires in
expedited reviews, the interested parties are given the opportunity by responding to the Commission’s
Notice of Institution to provide information that is relevant to this review. In part, we lack updated data,
especially with regard to the financial condition of the domestic industry and the current pricing of PSP
tape. This data should have been readily available given the familiarity of the 3M Company (“3M”) (the
responding producer) with the data as they relate to its operations in the PSP tape industry. In this
review, moreover, updated data are particularly vital, given the substantial and not inconsequential
structural changes that have occurred in the domestic industry since the original investigation. In
particular, the record lacks updated trade and financial data for 2003 beyond production volumes," as
well as subject import data and apparent consumption data, which do not extend beyond 1997.” 3 4

We recognize that in expedited reviews, the Commission generally is faced with more limited
data on the record than in a full review, but limited data do not relieve the Commission of its statutory
obligation to examine the record evidence in support of its finding. In the current review, we evaluate the
impact of removing a finding that is more than a quarter of a century old. Many shifts in global trade
patterns have occurred during this time period, including the creation of the European Union and the
conclusion of several multilateral trade rounds, which have affected the market for PSP tape. Therefore,
we examine the original record in the context of the dramatically changed market for PSP tape based on
the limited updated information on the record.

Cc. The “Likely” Standard

As noted above, the legal standard the Commission is to apply is whether revocation of an
finding “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably
foreseeable time.”* In reviewing the Commission’s application of the “likely” standard, the U.S. Court
of International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the sunset review provisions of the Act, means
“probable,” and that a Commission affirmative determination in such a review would be deemed by the

" Confidential Report (“CR”) at Table I-1.
? CR at Table I-3.
"3 CR at Table 1-4.

4 We recognize that official import statistics for the subject product in this review are not available because PSP
tape is classified under a basket HTS subheading. CR at I-9.

5 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

15


*** square yards in 1976 to *** billion square yards in 1997. In 1997, the most recent year for which
data are available, U.S. producers held *** percent of the U.S. market. Between 1976 and 1997, U.S.
producers were able to capture market share from nonsubject imports, as well as subject imports.
Nonsubject imports in 1997 held *** percent of the market, while subject imports held a mere ***
percent.”

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.”

F. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the antidumping finding is revoked, the
Commission considers whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the subject imports as
compared to domestic like product, and if the subject imports are likely to enter the United States at
prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or supressing effect on the price of domestic
like products."

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,
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.”

No pricing data are available on the record in this review. We therefore have no information that
compares current prices of the domestic like product with those of subject imports in the U.S. market.
We acknowledge Commerce’s determination that dumping is likely to continue or recur if the
antidumping finding is revokedTM as well as the commodity nature of PSP tape.* However, our
conclusions regarding the likely price effects if the antidumping finding is revoked are drawn largely
from our conclusions on likely subject volumes. As discussed in our volume analysis, subject import
market share is not likely to increase significantly if the antidumping finding is revoked. In fact, we find

“CR at Table I-4.
“° Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Inv. No. AA1921-167 (Review), USITC Pub. 3157 (confidential
version) at 24 (Dissenting Views of Chairman Bragg and Commissioners Crawford and Askey).

5° The record contains no current information with regard to the other statutory factors such as: existing
inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in inventories; the existence of barriers to the importation
of the subject merchandise in countries other than the United States; and 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.

5 19US.C. § 1675(a)(3).

* Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Inv. No. AA1921-167, USITC Pub. 830 (Aug. 1977) (“Original
Determination”) at 5-6.

53 69 Fed. Reg. 26, 068 (May 11, 2004).

* We note, however, that the level of dumping margins, per se, tells us nothing about whether there is likely to be
significant price underselling by subject imports or whether subject imports are likely to be sold at prices that
depress or suppress U.S. prices for PSP tape.

21


level of certainty, there may be reviews in which there could be “more than one likely outcome,”” but the
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury is not more likely than any other outcome.

For the reasons stated below, we determine that revocation of the finding on pressure sensitive
plastic 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. While it may be possible that
revocation of the finding could lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury, a standard that the
Commission has never applied under any interpretation of “likely,” revocation of the finding is not likely
to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

D. Conditions of Competition

In evaluating the impact of subject imports on the domestic industry if the finding is revoked, the
statute directs the Commission to evaluate all the relevant economic factors “within the context of the
business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.""" The
conditions of competition that inform our determination that revocation of the finding is not likely to lead
to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the PSP tape industry within a reasonably foreseeable
time follow.

3M was the only domestic producer to provide a response to the Commission’s notice of
institution in either the first or this second review. In the first review, 3M stated that the conditions of
competition remained unchanged, or changed in certain marginal ways, between the original
investigation and the first review, making the domestic industry more susceptible to injury if the finding
were to be revoked.” In the current review, 3M states that conditions of competition have changed to a
certain degree from the first review. In particular, 3M highlights industry consolidation since the first
teview, which 3M argues leaves the industry more susceptible to injury if the finding were to be
revoked.”

Based on the record, we find that the PSP tape market has changed both from the original
investigation and since the first review beyond those described by 3M. We conclude that these changes
have been substantial and render the domestic industry less, not more, susceptible to injury if the finding
were to be revoked.

Since 1976, the domestic PSP tape industry has changed with regard to the number of firms,
composition of firms, and concentration of production. In 1976, there were eight domestic firms
producing PSP tape in the United States. Four of these firms accounted for at least 80 percent of U.S.
production.TM In the first review investigation, there were six producers of PSP tape. Only one of the six,
3M, produced PSP tape at the time of the original investigation. The remaining five firms accounted for
*** percent of U.S. production.*

SAA at 883.
21 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4)

2 Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Inv. No. AA1921-167 (Review), USITC Pub. 3157 at 11
(Dissenting Views of Chairman Bragg and Commissioners Crawford and Askey), citing 3M’s Response to Notice of
Institution, filed Oct. 21, 1998, at 6, and 3M’s Comments Filed in Support of Continuation of Order, filed Jan. 13,
1999, at 6-8.

2 Submission of 3M to the Commission, Feb. 24, 2004 (3M Submission) at 8-9.
* CR at I-6.
25 Confidential Staff Report of January 8, 1999, at I-6.

17


security tape, and package carrying handles, All three types of PSP tape were used interchangeably for
most of these applications, although UPVC tape was generally preferred for applications in which
information had to be printed on the tape, such as in the production of labels.

No more current information on the description or uses of PSP tape is available.

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES
U.S. Producers

In 1976, there were eight firms producing PSP tape in the United States, most of which were
located in the midwestern and northeastern parts of the country.'* Four producers — 3M; Johnson &
Johnson, Permacel Division; Nashua Corp., Industrial Tape Division; and Borden Co., Mystic Tape
Division — accounted for at least 80 percent of U.S. production of PSP tape in the period examined in the
original investigation.'* Only one other U.S. producer, ***, was named in the 1977 staff report. In the
Commission’s 1998 sunset 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.; Bemis Co., Inc.; Sekisui TA Industries, Inc.
(“Sekisui”); and Shurtape Technologies, Inc. (“Shurtape”).'*

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the present review, 3M identified the
following ten companies as those also currently producing PSP tape in the United States: Bemis Co.
(MACtac); Canadian Technical Tapes (Cantech Industries, Inc.); Intertape; Manco; Nitto Denko
(Permacel); Shurtape; Sekisui; Tyco Adhesives; Tara Tape; and Tesa Tape, Inc.'7 3M further
acknowledged that there may be additional, smaller producers of PSP tape in the United States, but stated
that, to the best of its knowledge, such companies produced minimal amounts of PSP tape in 2003. To
the best of 3M’s knowledge, only Tyco Adhesives is a related party within the meaning of 19 U.S.C.
1677(4)(B). '§ ?

U.S. Production, Capacity, and Shipments

Trade and financial data reported by U.S. producers of PSP tape in the Commission’s original
investigation, and in response to its sunset review institution notices, are presented in table I-1. 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 significantly, almost tripling in each case. The industry’s

\ Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from West Germany, Investigation No. AA1921-168, USITC Pub. 831,
September 1977, p. A-11.

'S The original staff reported identified 3M as the largest U.S. manufacturer of PSP tape “by far.” Id.

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

17 3M’s Response, p. 4. 3M’s submission included certified trade information for Intertape, Sekisui, and
Shurtape, all of whom indicated support for continuation of the antidumping finding on imports of pressure sensitive
plastic tape from Italy.

TM Tyco Adhesives Italia S.p.A., an Italian producer of PSP tape, filed, and subsequently withdrew, an entry of
appearance in the present review.

9 3M is presently engaged in a joint venture agreement with Italian PSP tape producer Sicad. Although the joint

company, known as BST, is a producer of subject merchandise in Italy, none of its production is exported to the
United States. 34’s Response, p. 7.

16


Specifically, most PSP tape is used to seal cartons and boxes, and that tape represents only a
small share of the value of the cartons and boxes. Thus, decreased prices for PSP tape would not
stimulate additional demand but would likely result in changes in market share of suppliers as purchasers
switch to lower-priced subject imports of PSP tape. Even if some market share gained by the increased
volume of imports from Italy comes at the expense of fairly traded imports and not only the domestic
product, given current market shares, a significant portion of the lost sales would be incurred by the
domestic industry. This lost market share in turn would adversely impact industry revenues, production,
capacity utilization, and employment, and result in significant adverse effects on the industry’s financial
condition. Accordingly, we conclude that if the antidumping finding is revoked, subject imports would
bé likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable
time.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping finding on pressure

sensitive plastic tape from Italy would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to
the U.S. pressure sensitive plastic tape industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

12


In this review the Commission received one submission in response to its notice of institution, which was
filed on behalf of the domestic PSP tape producer 3M Co. (“3M”) (formerly known as Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company), the petitioner in the original investigation (“3M Response”). Three other
domestic PSP tape producers — Intertape Polymer Group, Inc.; Shurtape Technologies, Inc.; and Sekisui
TA Industries, Inc. — cooperated with 3M and provided information in the 3M Response. On April 6,
2004, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party response was adequate, but that the
respondent interested party response was inadequate. It determined that it would conduct an expedited
review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.’ *

On May 13, 2004, 3M filed comments (“3M Comments”) pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 207.62(d)
urging that the antidumping finding be continued.

i. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY
A. Domestic Like Product

In making its determination under section 751(c), the Commission defines “the domestic like
product” and the “industry.” 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.” In its second five-year review determination, the Department of Commerce
(“Commerce”) defined the imported product covered by the existing antidumping finding as “PSPT
measuring over one and three-eighths inches in width and not exceeding four millimeters in thickness.”"°

PSP tape is a plastic film-backed tape with an adhesive on one side that remains permanently
tacky at room temperatures, which is used primarily to seal cartons or corrugated boxes."

Under then applicable statutory provisions, the Commission did not make a like product
determination per se in its original determination. Instead, the Commission “considered the U.S. industry
to consist of the facilities in the United States devoted to the production of PSP tape.”!? Thus, the
Commission essentially treated all PSP tape as a single product. In the first five-year review, the

7 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3).

® 69 Fed. Reg. 21159 (April 20, 2004); see also Explanation of Determination on Adequacy, Confidential Staff
Report (“CR”) at Appendix B, Public Staff Report (“CR”) at Appendix B.

9 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v,
United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-
49 (Ct. Intl Trade 1990), affd, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong,, Ist Sess. 90-
91 (1979).

1° 69 Fed. Reg. 26068, 26069 (May 11, 2004). We note that there is an inconsistency between the scope of the
original Treasury Department determination of sales at less than fair value (“LTFV”) and Commerce’s definition of
the scope in this five-year review. The original LTFV determination refers to four “mils” (i.e., four 1/1000s of an
inch), and Commerce’s scope definition in this review refers to four “millimeters” (i.e., four 39/1000s of an inch).
As there is no evidence that Commerce changed the scope of the PSP tape finding since it was originally made, we
assume that the reference to “millimeters” in Commerce’s scope definition in this review is in error and possibly
reflects the mistaken assumption that “mils” was an abbreviation for “millimeters.” This inconsistency in the scope
determination does not appear to have any practical implications for this review determination.

"' Confidential Report (“CR”) at I-5, Public Report (“PR”) at I-4.
2 Original Determination at 4.



INTRODUCTION
Background

On January 2, 2004, the Commission gave notice that it had instituted a second five-year
(“sunset”) review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping finding on imports of pressure
sensitive plastic tape (“PSP tape”) from Italy would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of
material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.' On April 6, 2004, the Commission determined that
the domestic interested party response to its notice of institution was adequate;” the Commission also
determined that the respondent interested party response was inadequate. The Commission found no
other circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review. Accordingly, the Commission
determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of
1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)).? The Commission voted on this review on May 27, 2004, and notified
Commerce of its determination on June 7, 2004. Information relating to the background of the review is
presented below.*

Federal Register
Effective date Action citation
Oct. 21, 1977 Treasury's antidumping finding issued 42 FR 56110
Feb. 17, 1999 Commerce's continuation of antidumping finding after first five-year | 64FR51515
review (Sept. 23, 1999)
Jan. 2, 2004 Commission’s institution of second five-year review 69 FR 101
Apr. 6, 2004 Commission's determination to conduct expedited second five-year | 69 FR 21159
review (Apr. 20, 2004)
May 11, 2004 Commerce's final results of expedited sunset review 69 FR 26068
May 27, 2004 Commission's expedited review determination NA
June 7, 2004 Commission's determination to Commerce NA

The Original Investigation and First Five-Year Review

The Commission completed the original investigation in August 1977, determining that an
industry in the United States was being, or likely to be, injured by reason of the importation of PSP tape

| All interested parties were invited to respond to the notice by submitting information requested by the
Commission.

? The Commission received one submission in response to its notice of institution for the subject review. It was
filed on behalf of 3M Co. (“3M”) (formerly known as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.); Intertape Polymer
Group, Inc.; Shurtape Technologies, Inc.; and Sekisui TA Industries, Inc. The four responding firms are believed to
represent over 70 percent of U.S. production of PSP tape in 2003. 3M’s February 23, 2004 Response to the notice
of institution (“3M’s Response”), p. 2 and 3M’s March 5, 2004 Addendum to Response, p. 1.

3 See the Commission’s web site (http://vww.usitc.gov) for Commissioner votes on whether to conduct an
expedited or full review.

‘ Cited Federal Register notices since Commerce’s first five-year review finding are presented in app. A. The
Commission’s statement on adequacy is presented in app. B.

13




UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. AA-1921-167 (Second Review)

PRESSURE SENSITIVE PLASTIC TAPE FROM ITALY

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record! developed in the subject five-year review, the United States
International Trade Commission determines,’ pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. § 1675(c)) (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping 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.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this review on January 2, 2004 (69 FR 101), and determined on April
6, 2004, that it would conduct an expedited review (69 FR 21159, April 20, 2004).

' The record is defined in sec. 207:2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR §
207.2(f).

? Chairman Okun, Commissioner Lane, and Commissioner Pearson dissenting.

1


GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Cost of goods sold

U.S. Department of Commerce

US. International Trade Commission

U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
Federal Register

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
Less than fair value

Pressure sensitive plastic tape

Selling, general and administrative expenses
USS. Department of the Treasury
Unplasticized polyvinylchloride

Commission .

GLOSSARY OF FIRMS

3M Company

3Mritalia, S.p.A.

BST, S.p.A.

Intertape Polymer Group, Inc.
Manuli Tapes, S.p.A.

NAR, S.p.A.

Nastri Adhesive Stampati
Sekisui Technologies, Inc.

.  Shurtape Technologies, Inc.
Tyco Adhesives . Tyco Adhesives Italia, S.p.A.
Vibac, S.p.A.

ii


DISSENTING VIEWS OF CHAIRMAN DEANNA TANNER OKUN, COMMISSIONER
CHARLOTTE R. LANE, AND COMMISSIONER DANIEL R. PEARSON

Section 751(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires that the U.S.
Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) revoke a countervailing duty or an antidumping duty finding in
a five-year (“sunset”) review unless Commerce determines that dumping or a countervailable subsidy
would be likely to continue or recur and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”)
determines that material injury to a U.S. industry would be likely to continue or recur within a reasonably
foreseeable time.’ Based on the record in this second five-year review, we determine that material injury
is not likely to continue or recur within a reasonably foreseeable time if the finding on pressure sensitive
plastic tape (“PSP tape”) from Italy is revoked.

We join our colleagues’ discussion regarding domestic like product and domestic industry. We
write separately to discuss the legal standard governing sunset reviews, conditions of competition, and to
provide our analysis of the statutory factors.

IL REVOCATION OF THE FINDING ON PSP TAPE IS NOT LIKELY TO LEAD TO
CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY WITHIN A
REASONABLY FORESEEABLE TIME

A. Legal Standard

Ina five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Act, Commerce will revoke a
countervailing or antidumping duty order or terminate a suspended investigation unless: (1) it makes a
determination that dumping is likely to continue or recur, and (2) the Commission makes a determination
that 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 Statement of
Administrative Action (SAA) states that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a
counter-factual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an
important change in the status quo — the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of
its restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”? Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in
nature.‘ 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.
According to the SAA, a ““‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally will

9s

119 U.S.C. § 1675(d)(2).

? 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

3 SAA, HLR. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at 883-84 (1994). The SAA states that “[t]he likelihood of injury standard
applies regardless of the nature of the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of material injury,
or material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that were never
completed.” SAA at 883.

4 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.

5 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).
13


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 finding concerning 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.'

I. BACKGROUND

In August 1977, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was being or
was likely to be injured by reason of dumped imports of PSP tape from Italy pursuant to the Antidumping
Act, 1921 Subsequently, the Department of Treasury issued an antidumping finding covering these
imports.? In February 1999, the Commission completed an expedited review in its first five-year review,
and, on the basis of the facts available, 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.*

In five-year reviews, the Commission first determines whether to conduct a full review (which
would include a public hearing, the issuance of questionnaires, and other procedures) or an expedited
review. Specifically, the Commission determines whether individual responses to the notice of
institution are adequate and, based on these individually adequate responses, whether the collective
responses submitted by two groups of interested parties — domestic interested parties (such as producers,
unions, trade associations, or worker groups) and respondent interested parties (such as importers,
exporters, foreign producers, trade associations, or subject country governments) — show a sufficient
willingness among each group to participate and provide information requested in a full review, and if
not, whether other circumstances warrant a full review.

On January 2, 2004, the Commission instituted the present review, pursuant to section 751(c) of
the Act, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping finding on PSP tape from Italy would be
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.®

' Chairman Okun and Commissioners Lane and Pearson determined that revocation of the finding in this review
would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States. See
their dissenting views. They join in Sections I, II and III A. (but not the concluding paragraph of Section III A.) of
these views.

? 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 investigation regarding
imports from Italy, the Commission made a negative injury determination in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from
Germany, Inv. No. AA1921-168, USITC Pub. 831 (Sept. 1977). The staff report for both investigations is included
in USITC Pub. 831. All references to the Original Determination Staff Report are to USITC Pub. 831.

> 42 Fed, Reg. 56110 (Oct. 21, 1977).

4 Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Inv. No. AA1921-167, USITC Pub. 3157 (Feb. 1999) (“First Five-
Year Review Determination”). Chairman Bragg and Commissioners Crawford and Askey dissented and made
negative determinations.

5 See 19 CFR. § 207.62(a); 63 Fed. Reg. 30599, 30602-05 (June 5, 1998).

© 69 Fed. Reg. 101 (Jan. 2, 2004).


Additionally, imports from Italy have, over time, become increasingly less significant relative to
total U.S. imports of PSP tape.” Subject imports from Italy accounted for *** percent of total imports in
1976, whereas in 1997, all imports from Italy (whether subject or not) accounted for only *** percent of
total U.S. imports of PSP tape, and subject imports accounted for an even smaller share of total imports,
as the record indicates that subject import share in 1997 was approximately *** percent.* 3M further
estimates that in 2003, total imports from Italy (whether subject or not) comprised an even smaller share,
about 1 percent, of U.S. imports than they did in 1997.

E. 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
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.”

Our focus in this review is whether subject import volume is likely to be significant in the
reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping finding is revoked."' 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
*** percent in 1975 to *** percent in 1976, by quantity. As we indicated earlier, the PSP market has
changed considerably, therefore, our analysis concentrates on the changes since the original findings and
the current market.

While the record in this review indicates that the Italian PSP tape industry has significantly
increased production from an estimated *** square yards in 1997 to an estimated 4.3 billion square yards
in 2003, and that estimated Italian capacity utilization stood at 60 percent in 2003, there is no indication
that subject producers intend to or even have the ability to reenter the U.S. market.” To the contrary, the

37 As a preliminary matter in reference to imports from Italy, it is important to distinguish subject from nonsubject
imports. In 1976, imports from Italy (other than that produced by Plasturopa-SIPA) were subject, but over the next
21 years, the antidumping finding was revoked by Commerce with respect to two Italian producers of PSP tape:
Autoadesivi, S.p.A. in 1988 and Boston S.p.A in 1990. 1997 is the last year for which yearly import data are
available for subject and nonsubject imports from Italy. Therefore, current import data from Italy likely represent
both subject and nonsubject imports. Thus, when we refer to imports from Italy, we are likely overstating subject

imports.

38 Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Inv. No. AA1921-167 (Review), USITC Pub. 3157 at (confidential
version) at 24 (Dissenting Views of Chairman Bragg and Commissioners Crawford and Askey).

2° 3M Submission at 3.

19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).
4 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

® CR at Table 1-5.

19


Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape
From Italy

Investigation No. AA1921-167 (Second Review)

‘Publication 3698 June 2004

U.S. International Trade Commission

iy J

Washington, DC 20436


Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 76/Tuesday, April 20, 2004/ Notices

21159

by June 21, 2004, to be assured of
consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to
John A. Trelease, Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,
1951 Constitution Ave., NW., Room
210—SIB, Washington, DC. 20240.
Comments may also be submitted
electronically to jtreleas@osmre.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
request a copy of the information
collection request, explanatory
information and related form, contact
John A, Trelease, at (202) 208-2783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office
of Management and Budget (OMB)
regulations at § CFR 1320, which
implement provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104—13),
require that interested members of the
public and affected agencies have an
opportunity to comment on information
collection and recordkeeping activities
(see 5 CFR 1320.8 (d)).

This notice identifies information
collections at 30 CFR 816.116 and
817.116 that OSM will be submitting to
OMB.

OSM previously received approval for
collection activities for 30 CFR part 816
and part 817. They were assigned
clearance number 1029-0047. However,
OSM inadvertently failed to include in
the clearance request existing collection
requirements for §§ 816.116 and
817.116. These sections require State

tory authorities to develop

statistically valid sampling techniques,
and for operators to document
revegetation information during Phase 3
bond release. OSM requested and
received an emergency clearance from
OMB for the collection activities in
§§ 816.116 and 817.116. They were
assigned clearance number 1029-0124.
Now, OSM is seeking a 3-year term of
approval for these collections.

jomments are invited on: (1) The
need for the collection of information
for the performance of the functions of
the agency; (2) the accuracy of the
agency’s burden estimates; (3) ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity
of the information collection; and (4)
ways to minimize the information
collection burden on respondents, such
as use of automated means of collection
of the information. A summary of the
public comments will accompany
OSM’s submission of the information
collection request to OMB.

This notice provides the public with
60 days in which to comment on the
following information collection
activi

Title: Revegetation: Standards for
Success, 30 CFR 816.116 and 817.116.

OMB Control Number: 1029-0124.

Summary: Section 515 and 516 of the
Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 provides that
permittees conducting coal minin;
operations shall meet all applicable
performance standards of the Act. The
information collected is used by the
regulatory authority in inspecting
surface and underground coal mining
reclamation activities to ensure that
they are revegetated in accordance with
applicable State requirements.

Bureau Form Number: None.

Frequency of Collection: Once.

Description of Respondents: Coal
mining operators and State regulatory
authorities.

Total Annual Responses: 882.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 70,600.

Total Annual Non-Wage Costs:
$44,000.

Dated: April 14, 2004.

Sarah E, Donnelly,

Acting Chief, Division of Regulatory Support.
[FR Doc. 04-8902 Filed 4-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M

INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION

[Investigation No. AA-1921~167 (Review)]
Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From
Italy

AGENCY: United States International
Trade Commission.

ACTION: Scheduling of an expedited five-
year review concerning the antidumping
finding on pressure sensitive plastic
tape from Italy.

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives
notice of the scheduling of an expedited
review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of
the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine
whether revocation of the antidumping
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).

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jai
Motwane (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 April 6, 2004, the
Commission determined that the
domestic interested party group
response to its notice of institution (69
FR 101, January 2, 2004) of the subject
five-year review was adequate and that
the respondent interested party group
response was inadequate. The
Commission did not find any other
circumstances that would warrant
conducting a full review. Accordingly,
the Commission determined that it
would conduct an expedited review
pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.
Staff report. A staff report containing
information concerning the subject
matter of the review will be placed in
the nonpublic record on May 10, 2004,
and made available to persons on the
Administrative Protective Order service
list for this review. A public version
will be issued thereafter, pursuant to §
207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules.
Written submissions. As provided in
§ 207.62(d) of the Commission’s rules,
interested parties that are parties to the
review and that have provided
individually adequate responses to the
notice of institution,? and any party
other than an interested party to the
review may file written comments with
the Secretary on what determination the
Commission should reach in the review.
Comments are due on or before May 13,
2004, and may not contain new factual
information. Any person that is neither
a party to the five-year review nor an
interested party may submit a brief
written statement (which shall not
contain any new factual information)
pertinent to the review by May 13, 2004.
However, should the Department of
Commerce extend the time limit for its

+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.

2The Commission has found the response
submitted by 3M Co. (including those submitted on
bebalf of Intertape Polymer Group, Inc.; Shurtape
‘Technologies, Inc.; and Sekisui TA Industries, Inc.)
to be individually adequate. Comments from other
interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR
207.62(d)(2)).


Il. REVOCATION OF THE FINDING ON PSP TAPE IS LIKELY TO LEAD TO
CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY WITHIN A
REASONABLY FORESEEABLE TIME

A. Legal Standard

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Act, Commerce will revoke a
countervailing or antidumping duty order or terminate a suspended investigation unless: (1) it makes a
determination that dumping is likely to continue or recur, and (2) the Commission makes a determination
that 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 Statement of
Administrative Action (“SAA”) states that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in
a counter-factual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an
important change in the status quo — the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of
its restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”!* Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in
nature.”°”! 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.”
According to the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case to case, but normally will
exceed the ‘imminent’ time frame applicable in a threat of injury analysis [in antidumping and
countervailing duty investigations].””*

© 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

SAA, HR. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at 883-84 (1994). The SAA states that “[t]he likelihood of injury
standard applies regardless of the nature of the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of
material injury, or material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations
that were never completed.” SAA at 883.

20 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.

2 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’1 Trade 2003); Nippon Steel
Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-153 at 7-8 (Ct. Int’] Trade, Dec. 24, 2002); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United
States, Slip Op. 02-152 at 6 n.6 (Ct. Int’l Trade, Dec. 20, 2002); Indorama Chemicals Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op.
02-105 at 20-21 (Ct. Int’l Trade, Sept. 4, 2002); Usinor v. United States, Slip Op. 02-70 at 43-44 (July 19, 2002).

2 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

23 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,

% Tp analyzing what constitutes a reasonably foreseeable time, Commissioner Koplan examines all the current
and likely conditions of competition in the relevant industry. He defines “reasonably foreseeable time” as the length
of time it is likely to take for the market to adjust to a revocation or termination. In making this assessment, he
considers all factors that may accelerate or delay the market adjustment process including any lags in response by
foreign producers, importers, consumers, domestic producers, or others due to: lead times; methods of contracting;

(continued...)



Commission defined the domestic like product as all PSP tape measuring over one and three-eighths
inches in width and not exceeding four mils in thickness, coextensive with Commerce’s scope.'*

3M stated in its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this second review that it
agrees with the definition of the domestic like product in the notice of institution, namely PSP tape
measuring over one and three-eighths inches in width and not exceeding four mils in thickness.'* No new
facts have arisen in this review to warrant an approach different from that followed by the Commission in
its original finding and first five-year review. Accordingly, we find, based on the facts available, that the
appropriate definition of the domestic like product in this expedited five-year review is the same as
Commerce’s scope: PSP tape measuring over one and three-eighths inches in width and not exceeding
four mils in thickness.

B. Domestic Industry

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the relevant industry as the “domestic producers as a whole
of a like product, or those producers whose collective output of the like product constitutes a major
proportion of the total domestic production of that product.”"* In its original determination and in the
first five-year review, the Commission defined the domestic industry as all U.S. producers of PSP tape.'®
No party raised any objections to this domestic industry definition, and no new facts have been presented
to warrant a conclusion different from that reached by the Commission in the original investigation and
the first five-year review.'’ Accordingly, we define the domestic industry to encompass all U.S.
producers of PSP tape.

3 First Five-Year Review Determination at 4.
14 3M Response at 9.

5 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). In defining the domestic industry, the Commission's general practice has been to
include in the industry producers of all domestic production of the like product, whether toll-produced, captively
consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market, provided that adequate production-related activity is conducted
in the United States. See United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 673, 682-83 (Ct. Int’] Trade
1994), aff'd, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir, 1996).

16 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. First Five-Year Review Determination at 5.

17 Ip defining the domestic industry in this review, we consider whether any producers of the domestic like
product should be excluded from the domestic industry pursuant to the related parties provision in section 771(4)(B)
of the Act. There is one possible related party in this review. 3M reported that Tyco Adhesives is a related party,
presumably because it owns one of the Italian PSP tape producers, Tyco Adhesives Italia S.p.A. 3M Response at 4.
The statute provides in relevant part that “a producer and an exporter or importer shall be considered to be related
parties, if. . . the producer directly or indirectly controls the exporter or importer.” 19 U.S.C. §1677(4)(B)(ii)(D).
As there is no information in the record as to whether Tyco Adhesives Italia S.p.A. is (or would be in the reasonably
foreseeable future) an “exporter” of the subject merchandise, it is unclear whether Tyco Adhesives is in fact a related
party. Further, there is no information in the record that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude the company
from the domestic industry. Finally, because the company did not respond to the Commission’s notice of institution,
there are no data to exclude. Therefore, we do not exclude Tyco Adhesives from the domestic industry.

5






21160

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 76/Tuesday, April 20, 2004/ Notices

completion of the final results of its
review, the deadline for comments
(which may not contain new factual
information) on Commerce's final
results is three business days after the
issuance of Commerce’s results. If
comments contain business proprietary
information (BPI), they must conform
with the requirements of §§ 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
§ 201.8 of the Commission's rules, as
amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8,
2002).
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and
207. 3 of the rules, each document filed
arty to the review must be served

wer 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.

Determination. The Commission has
determined to exercise its authority to
extend the review period by up to 90
days pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
1675(c)(5)(B).

Authority: This review is being conducted
under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act
of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to
§ 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

Issued: April 14, 2004.

By order of the Commission.

Marilyn R. Abbott,

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04-8882 Filed 4-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION

[Investigation No, AA-1921-188 (Review)]

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire
Strand From Japan

AGENCY: International Trade
Commission.

ACTION: Scheduling of an expedited five-
year review concerning the antidumping
finding on prestressed concrete steel
wire strand from Japan.

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives
notice of the scheduling of an expedited
review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of
the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine
whether revocation of the antidumping
finding on prestressed concrete steel
wire strand from Japan 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).

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jai
Motwane (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 hitp://edis.usitc.gov.

‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background.—On April 6, 2004, the
Commission determined that the
domestic interested party group
response to its notice of institution (69
FR 101, January 2, 2004) of the subject
five-year review was adequate and that
the respondent interested party group
response was inadequate. The
Commission did not find any other
circumstances that would warrant
conducting a full review. Accordingly,
the Commission determined that it
would conduct an expedited review
pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.

Staff report.—A staff report
containing information concerning the
subject matter of the review will be
placed in the nonpublic record on May
10, 2004, and made available to persons
on the Administrative Protective Order
service list for this review. A public
version will be issued thereafter,

pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the
Commission’ 's tules.

Written submissions.—As provided in
section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s
rules, interested parties that are parties
to the review and that have provided
individually adequate responses to the
notice of institution,? and any party

+ 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.

2 The Commission has found the responses
submitted on behalf of American Spring Wire Corp.,
Insteel Wire Products Co., and Sumiden Wire Corp.
tobe individually adequate. Comments from other

other than an interested party to the
review may file written comments with
the Secretary on what determination the
Commission should reach in the review.
Comments are due on or before May 13,
2004, and may not contain new factual
information. Any person that is neither
a party to the five-year review nor an
interested party may submit a brief
written statement (which shall not
contain any new factual information)
pertinent to the review by May 13, 2004.
However, should the Department of
Commerce extend the time limit for its
completion of the final results of its
review, the deadline for comments
(which may not contain new factual
information) on Commerce’s final
results is three business days after the
issuance of Commerce's results. If
comments contain business proprietary
information (BPI), they must conform
with the requirements of sections 201.6,
207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's
rules. The Commission’s rules do not
authorize filing of submissions with the
Secretary by facsimile or electronic
means, except to the extent permitted by
section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules,
as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8,
2002).

In accordance with sections 201.16(c)
and 207.3 of the rules, each document
filed by a party to the review must be
served on all other parties to the review
(as identified by either the public or BPI
service list), and a certificate of service
must be timely filed. The Secretary will
not accept a document for filing without
a certificate of service.

Determination.—The Commission has
determined to exercise its authority to
extend the review period by up to 90
days pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
1675(c)(5)(B).

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: April 14, 2004.

By order of the Commission.

Marilyn R. Abbott,

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04-8883 Filed 4-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[AAGIA Order No. 003-2004]

Privacy Act of 1974: System of
Records

Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5
U.S.C. 52a), the Department of Justice,

interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR.
207.62(d)(2)).


INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE REVIEW

il




Court to be in error absent application of this standard.'* Pursuant to the Usinor Industeel and Usinor
remand orders, the Commission issued remand determinations that applied the “probable” standard.!” *
Subsequently, the Court has stated that it “has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any degree of
‘certainty,’” but it has indicated that the Court views “likely” to equal a standard of “more likely than
not.” Usinor Industeel Il, Slip. Op. 02-152 at 6n.6. While we do not concur with the Court’s
interpretation, we will apply the Court’s standard in this review and all subsequent reviews until either
Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addresses this issue.'®
The Court’s standard means that the Commission must revoke an order unless the continuation or
recurrence of material injury is “more likely than not.” While this standard may not equate to a high

1S See NMB Singapore Ltd. V, United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (2003) (“‘likely’ means probable
within the context of 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675©) and 1675a(a)”); Nippon Steel Corp.., et al. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-
153 at 7-8 (Dec. 24, 2002) (same) (Nippon); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-152 at 6 n.6 (Dec.
20, 2002) (‘“‘the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty””) (Usinor Industeel II);
and Usinor v. United States, Slip Op. 02-70 at 43-44 (July 19, 2002) (‘“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not
merely ‘possible’”) (Usinor).

17 In its remand determination in Usinor Industeel (Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium,
Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, The Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain,
Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom (Views on Remand), Invs. Nos. AA1921-197 (Review), 701-TA-231,
319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, and 348-350 (Review), and 731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 604, 607-608, 612,
and 614-618 (Review) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3526 (July 2002) at 6), the Commission (Chairman Okun and
Commissioners Bragg and Miller) stated that the Commission, in rendering its initial determination in those reviews,
did not equate “likely” with “probable” or “possible” for purposes of its determination of whether material injury
was likely to recur. The Commission stated its view of the meaning of the word “likely” is found in the statutory
language itself and the relevant explication of that text found in the SAA. The Commission noted that the SAA
explains that a determination by the Commission in a five-year review “is inherently predictive.” SAA at 883. Asa
result of the inherently predictive nature of the inquiry, the SAA explains that “[t]here may be more than one likely
outcome following revocation.” SAA at 883 (emphasis added). Thus, the Commission stated that reading the term
“likely” in conjunction with the SAA led it to conclude that “likely” captures a concept that falls in between
“probable” and “possible” on a continuum of relative certainty.

Vice Chairman Hillman stated her separate view that “likely” means “more likely than not,” which is the
standard she understood the Court to prescribe when it used the term “probable.” Separate Views of Vice Chairman
Jennifer A. Hillman Regarding The Interpretation of the Term “Likely” at 2. Commissioner Koplan, in dissent,
found no error in the Court’s construction of the term. Dissenting Views of Commissioner Stephen Koplan
Regarding the Interpretation of the Term “Likely” at 1 (“were I to select a synonym for ‘likely,’ 1 would accept the
Court’s conclusion that ‘likely’ is best equated with ‘probable’”).

'8 In reviewing the Commission’s remand determination in Usinor Industeel, the Court rejected the Commission’s
interpretation that “likely” captures a concept that falls in between “probable” and “possible” on a continuum of
relative certainty. Usinor Industeel III, Slip. Op. 02-152 at 5-6. (The Court, however, did not remand the matter to
the Commission on those grounds, as the Commission explicitly adopted the Court’s definition of “likely” for
purposes of making that remand determination. Usinor Industeel III, Slip. Op. 02-152 at 4.) (Subsequent to Usinor
Industeel II], Commissioners Hillman, Koplan, and Miller explicitly stated they were applying the court’s definition
of “likely” per Usinor Industeel, Usinor, and Nippon. Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, Inv. No. 731-
TA-745 (Review), USITC Pub. 3577 at 13 n.60 (Feb. 2003).)

'° While, for purposes of this review, Commissioner Pearson does not take a position on the correct interpretation
of “likely,” he notes that he would have made a negative determination under any interpretation of “likely” other than
that equating “likely” with merely “possible.”

16


Data on the value of U.S. imports of PSP tape subject to the antidumping finding during fiscal
years 1993 to 1997, collected from the Commerce web site during the Commission’s 1998 review, are
presented below.

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
$2,924,399 $1,858,956 $5,370,767 $368,297 $1,015,448

Yearly data from Commerce on the value of U.S. imports subject to antidumping and
countervailing duty orders are no longer available. Since the enactment of the Continued Dumping and
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“Byrd Amendment”), Customs has maintained a record of disbursements of
assessed antidumping and countervailing duties made to affected domestic producers. The values of
yearly disbursements made by Customs to 3M, the only domestic producer eligible to receive
disbursements of antidumping duties on PSP tape from Italy, are presented below.”!

FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003
$413,729 $134,726 $5,877

Apparent U.S. Consumption

U.S. consumption data collected in the original investigation, and in the Commission’s first five-
year review, are presented in table I-4. Between 1976 and 1997, the domestic industry’s share of
apparent U.S. PSP tape consumption more than doubled from *** to *** percent. The share of apparent
consumption accounted for by imports from Italy declined in the same period, from *** percent in 1976
to just over *** percent in 1997. The share of U.S. apparent consumption of PSP tape accounted for by
imports from all other sources declined as well, from *** percent in 1976 to *** percent in 1997.

No current estimates of U.S. apparent consumption, or of the respective market shares of U.S.
producers’ shipments and imports, can be made based on available data.

2! Disbursements represent all entries of subject PSP tape imports from Italy liquidated in the fiscal year.

1-9


Table 1-4
PSP tape: U.S. apparent consumption and market shares, 1973-76, 1997, and 2003

Calendar year

Item 1973 1974 1975 1976 i 1997 I 2003
Quantity (1,000 square yards)

U.S. producers’ U.S.
shipments‘ hala a ial ia ae? N/A
Imports from Italy 8,618 8,391 | 11,396 30,615 ” NIA
Other imports 13,983 | 25,840 | 27,943 40,703 “ NIA

Total imports 22,601 34,231 39,370 71,318 “ NIA
Apparent consumption hae ial hie iia ial N/A

Share of apparent consumption (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments Laid ad ee od aes NIA
imports from Italy +e ee ered ee ae N/A
Other imports hil Sal oe +e co NIA

Total imports +e tee ae cord one NIA

‘U.S. shipments data in this table differ slightly from those presented in table I-1. The differences reflect
discrepancies in the original data tables.

2 3M's estimate of the U.S. PSP tape industry's production quantity in 1997 is used as a proxy for U.S.
producers’ U.S. shipments. In 2003, U.S. shipments represented *** percent of production by the four U.S.
producers of PSP tape for which data were submitted in the present review.

Source: Staff Report of August 15, 1977, table 14; Staff Report of January 8, 1999, p. 1-8.

THE INDUSTRY IN ITALY

At the time of the Commission’s original investigation, there were seven Italian manufacturers
that exported PSP tape to the United States.” Four producers — Manuli Autoadesivi, S.p.A.; Boston,
S.p.A; Comet S.A.R.A., S.p.A.; and Plasturopa - SIPA, S.a.S.%— accounted for *** percent of Italian
exports of PSP tape to the United States during the period of Treasury’s investigation (December 1975-

2 Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from West Germany, Investigation No. AA1921-168, USITC Pub. 831,
September 1977, p. A-36.

? As stated earlier, the antidumping finding was revoked by Commerce with respect to Boston, S.p.A. in 1990.

%* Treasury found no LTFV margins on sales by Plasturopa in its original investigation, and determined that the
company should be excluded from the investigation. Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from West Germany,
Investigation No. AA1921-168, USITC Pub. 831, September 1977, p. A-6; Commerce’s Issues and Decision
Memorandum, May 3, 2004.

110


EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY
in
Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Inv. No. AA1921-167 (Review)

On April 6, 2004, the Commission determined that it should proceed to an expedited review in
the subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,
19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B).

The Commission received responses from domestic producers 3M Company, Intertape Polymer
Group, Inc., Shurtape Technologies, Inc., and Sekisui TA Industries, Inc. The Commission determined
that the responses were individually adequate. The Commission also determined that the responses were
an adequate domestic interested party group response because the four producers account for a
significant share of domestic production of the like product.

The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested party. Consequently,
the Commission determined that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The
Commission did not find any circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review. The
Commission therefore determined to conduct an expedited review. A record of the Commissioners’
votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and the Commission’s web site (http://www.usitc.gov).


that subject import volume is likely to remain at 1997 levels, the year for which the most recent data are
available on the record.

Consequently, we find that revocation of the antidumping finding would not likely 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
Tevocation of the finding is not likely to lead to any significant price effects.

G. 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.

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
Teporting financial data had gone from showing a substantial profit in 1974 to a substantial loss in 1976."

Subject imports are not likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic PSP tape
industry if the finding is revoked. Subject imports account for less than 1 percent of U.S. consumption.*
The domestic industry is well established and dominated the U.S. market with a substantial market share
of *** percent in 1997.” Nonsubject suppliers accounted for the difference, holding *** percent of the
U.S. market in 1997. Subject imports would have to increase substantially to have a likely adverse
effect volume or prices, which given the minuscule market share of subject imports is not likely. We
have determined that subject imports are not likely to increase to significant levels. Further, any
increased subject imports resulting from the revocation of the finding are likely to gain market share at
the expense of nonsubject imports rather than at the expense of the domestic industry. There is no
information on the record that would indicate otherwise.

There are no updated data on the record regarding the state of the domestic industry for the
current review. Most important, no financial data has been provided for periods beyond 1976. There
have been significant changes in the U.S. industry over the past 27 years, 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.“' We therefore find that subject imports would not be likely to
have a significant impact on domestic PSP tape producers’ cash flow, inventories, employment, wages,

*5 The record contains no information on other price-related factors such as the channels of distribution used; the
methods of contracting (such as spot sales or long-term contracts); and lead times for delivery of goods; discounts;

and payment terms.
% 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).
5’ Original Determination at 6.
58 3M Submission at 3; see also footnote 40.
* CR at Table I-4.
© CR at Table I-4.

®! As we have no current financial data, we have no current information indicating vulnerability. Indeed, all the
aforementioned market conditions would indicate otherwise.

22




Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 1/Friday, January 2, 2004/Notices

103

(a) Production (quantity) and, if
known, an estimate of the percentage of
total production of Subject Merchandise
in the Subject Country accounted for by
your firm’s(s’) production; and

(b) the quantity and value of your
firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of
Subject Merchandise and, if known, an
estimate of the percentage of total
exports to the United States of Subject
Merchandise from the Subject Country
accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports.

(10) Identify significant changes, if
any, in the supply and demand
conditions or business cycle for the
Domestic Like Product that have
occurred in the United States or in the
market for the Subject Merchandise in
the Subject Country after 1997, and
significant changes, if any, that are
likely to occur within a reasonably
foreseeable time. Supply conditions to
consider include technology;
production methods; development
efforts; ability to increase production
(including the shift of production
facilities used for other products and the
use, cost, or availability of major inputs
into production); and factors related to
the ability to shift supply among
different national markets (including
barriers to importation in foreign
markets or changes in market demand
abroad). Demand conditions to consider
include end uses and applications; the
existence and availability of substitute
products; and the level of competition
among the Domestic Like Product
produced in the United States, Subject
Merchandise produced in the Subject
Country, and such merchandise from
other countries.

(11) (Optional) A statement of
whether you agree with the above
definitions of the Domestic Like Product
and Domestic Industry; if you disagree
with either or both of these definitions,
please explain why and provide
alternative definitions.

Authority: This review is being conducted
under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act
of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to
section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules.

Issued: December 22, 2003.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary.
IFR Doc, 03-32298 Filed 12~31-03; 8:45 am)
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION

Investigation No. AA1921—188 (Review)]

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire
Strand From Japan

AGENCY: International Trade
Commission.

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review
concerning the antidumping finding on
prestressed concrete steel wire strand
from Japan.

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 finding on prestressed
concrete steel wire strand from Japan
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;* to be assured of
consideration, the deadline for
responses is February 23, 2004.
Comments on the adequacy of responses
may be filed with the Commission by
March 16, 2004. 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).

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 2, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Messer (202-205-3193), 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 (hitp://
www.usitc.gov). The public record for

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. 04-5-079,
expiration date June 30, 2005. Public reporting
burden for the request is estimated to average 7
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.

this review may be viewed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at http://edis.usitc.gov.
‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On December 8, 1978, the Department
of the Treasury issued an antidumping
finding on imports of prestressed
concrete steel wire strand from Japan
(43 FR 57599). Following five-year
reviews by Commerce and the
Commission, effective February 3, 1999,
Commerce issued a continuation of the
antidumping duty order on imports of
prestressed concrete steel wire strand
from Japan (64 FR 40554, July 27, 1999),
The Commission is now conducting a
second review to determine whether
revocation of the order would be likely
to lead to continuation or recurrence of
material injury to the domestic industry
within a reasonably foreseeable time. It
will assess the adequacy of interested
party responses to this notice of
institution to determine whether to
conduct a full review or an expedited
review. The Commission’s
determination in any expedited review
will be based on the facts available,
which may include information
provided in response to this notice.
Definitions

The following definitions apply to
this review:

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or
kind of merchandise that is within the
scope of the five-year review, as defined
by the Department of Commerce.

(2) The Subject Country in this review
is Japan.

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the
domestically produced product or
products which are like, or in the
absence of like, most similar in
characteristics and uses with, the
Subject Merchandise. In its expedited
five-year review, the Commission found
that the appropriate definition of the
Domestic Like Product was the same as
Commerce's scope: all steel wire strand,
other than alloy steel, not galvanized,
which has been stress-relieved and is
suitable for use in prestressed concrete.
The Commission did not make a like
production determination per se in its
original determination.

(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 five-year review, the
Commission defined the Domestic
Industry as producers of prestressed
concrete steel wire strand.


Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 1/Friday, January 2,

2004 / Notices 101

By order of the Commission.

Marilyn R. Abbott,

Secretary to the Commission.

(FR Doc. 03-32259 Filed 12-31-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION

[avestigation No, AA1921~167 (Review)}

Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From
Italy

AGENCY: International Trade
Commission.

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review
concerning the antidumping 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 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; * to
be assured of consideration, the
deadline for responses is February 23,
2004. Comments on the adequacy of
responses may be filed with the
Commission by March 16, 2004. 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).

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 2, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Messer (202-205-3193), 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

“No response to this request fr information i
required if a currently valid Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the
OMB number is 3117-0016/USITC No. 04-5-078,
expiration date June 30, 2005. Public reporting
burden for the request is estimated to average 7
hours per response, Please send comments

the accuracy of this burden estimate to
the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC
20436.

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://www.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 five-year
reviews by Commerce and the
Commission, effective February 17,
1999, Commerce issued a continuation
of the antidumping duty order on
imports of pressure sensitive plastic
tape from Italy (64 FR 51515, September
23, 1999). The Commission is now
conducting a second review to
determine whether revocation of the
order would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of material
injury to the domestic industry within
a reasonably foreseeable time. It will
assess the adequacy of interested party
responses to this notice of institution to
determine whether to conduct a full
review or an expedited review. The
Commission’s determination in any
expedited review will be based on the
facts available, which may include
information provided in response to this
notice.

Definitions. The following definitions
apply to this review:

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or
kind of merchandise that is within the
scope of the five-year review, as defined
by the Department of Commerce.

(2) The Subject Country in this review
is 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. In its expedited
five-year review determination, 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% inches in width and
not exceeding 4 mils in thickness. The
Commission did not make a like
product determination per se in its
original determination.

(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 five-year review
determination, the Commission defined
the Domestic Industry as all producers
of pressure sensitive plastic tape.

'5) The Order Date is the date that the
antidumping duty order or finding
under review became effective. In this
review, the Order Date is October 21,
1977.

(6) An Importer is any person or firm
engaged, either directly or through a
parent company or subsidiary, in
importing the Subject Merchandise into
the United States from a foreign
manufacturer or through its selling
agent.

Participation in the review and public
service list. Persons, including
industrial users of the Subject
Merchandise and, if the merchandise is
sold at the retail level, representative
consumer organizations, wishing to
participate in the review as parties must

le 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 reminded that they
are required, pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15,
to seek Commission approval if the
matter in which they are seeking to
appear was pending in any manner or
form during their Commission
employment. Former employees may
seek informal advice from Commission
ethics officials concerning their
eligibility to appear in five-year reviews.
However, any informal consultation will
not relieve former employees of the
obligation to seek approval to appear
from the Commission under its rule
201.15. For ethics advice, contact Carol
McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics
Official, at 202-205-3088.

Limited disclosure of business
proprietary information (BPI) under an
administrative protective order (APO)
and APO service list. Pursuant to
section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s
rules, the Secretary will make BPI
submitted in this review available to
authorized applicants under the APO
issued in the review, provided that the
application is made no later than 21
days after publication of this notice in
the Federal Register. Authorized
applicants must represent interested
parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9),
who are parties to the review. A
separate service list will be maintained


We recognize that the most recent information available as to the volume of subject imports —
information from the first five-year review ** — shows that subject imports were at a low level relative to
total consumption.” We attribute this low level of subject imports in part to the restraining effects of the
finding. In a five-year review, however, our focus is on whether subject import volume is likely to be
significant in the reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping finding is revoked.

The record from the original investigation indicates that Italian PSP tape producers had the
ability and willingness to establish a significant presence in the U.S. market. In the original
investigation, the Commission found that Italian PSP tape producers were able to increase their
shipments to the United States and gain market share rapidly. Imports from less-than-fair-value suppliers
in Italy more than tripled in one year, rising from eight million square yards in 1975, to more than 26
million square yards in 1976." In the same period, the share of the U.S. market held by these suppliers
more than doubled, rising from *** percent in 1975 to *** percent in 1976.*' In our view, absent
contrary information, the low market share of imports from Italy in 1997 likely reflected the restraining
effects of the antidumping finding, rather than an inability or unwillingness to ship significant volumes to
the U.S. market.

In the first five-year review, the Commission noted 3M’s argument that imports would surge if
the finding were revoked, and concluded, in the absence of contrary evidence or argument, that the likely
volume of imports of PSP tape from Italy would be significant if the finding were revoked.”

PSP tape producers in Italy currently have substantial unused production capacity. The record
indicates that their capacity utilization rate was only *** percent in 2003, and that they had excess
capacity to produce approximately *** square yards of PSP tape. Apparent U.S. consumption in 1997
was *** billion square yards of PSP tape. Moreover, the U.S. market was an attractive one for subject
Italian producers before the antidumping finding was issued, and that attractiveness is now enhanced by
the substantial growth of demand for PSP tape in the U.S. market, as well as the substantial excess
capacity existing in Italy. We also note that PSP tape is a commodity product that competes on price.
Given the apparent high degree of substitutability between domestic and Italian PSP tape, relatively small
changes in price can result in significant shifts in market share.

In these circumstances, 3M maintains that imports would surge if the finding is revoked.*° In the
absence of contrary evidence or argument, we conclude that the likely volume of imports of the subject
merchandise would be significant if the finding is revoked.

3® More recent import data were not available to us. Official import statistics could not be used because the tariff
subheading under which PSP tape is classified includes other non-subject products.

> The record shows that imports from Italy subject to the antidumping finding accounted for just over ***
percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 1997. CR/PR at Table I-4.

“ Original Determination at 5.

“ Confidential First Five-Year Review Determination at 13.

© First Five-Year Review Determination at 8.

“3 CR/PR at Table I-5 (based on estimates supplied by 3M).

“ CR/PR at Table I-4. More recent data on apparent U.S. consumption is not available.
45 3M Response at 3.


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. 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 antidumping
finding at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the finding is revoked.”

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
condition of the firms reporting financial data had declined from a substantial profit in 1974 toa
substantial loss in 1976, and that these losses worsened over the interim periods.

Since imposition of the finding, the domestic industry’s market share increased as subject
imports from Italy virtually exited the market. In the first five-year review, the Commission noted 3M’s
argument that subject imports would have a significant adverse impact if the finding were revoked, and
the Commission concluded, in the absence of contrary evidence or argument, that revocation of the
finding would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably
foreseeable time.TM*

There is little new information in the record on the current condition of the domestic industry.
3M has not argued that the industry is currently in poor condition or that it is facing difficulty from other
sources.®* However, 3M has argued that subject imports would have a significant adverse impact on the
domestic industry if the finding is revoked, and that material injury is likely to recur.* In the absence of
contrary evidence or argument, we agree with this conclusion. We have concluded that if the finding is
revoked, the likely volume of subject imports would be significant and that these imports would have
significant adverse price effects. These findings, in turn, indicate that the subject imports would likely
have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry if the finding is revoked.

© 19US.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

51 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the
magnitude of the margin of dumping” in making its determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6).
The statute defines the “magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as
“the dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.”
19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887.

Commerce’s expedited determination in its five-year review provided a likely margin of 10 percent for two
specific PSP tape producers in Italy. The “all others” margin also is 10 percent. 69 Fed. Reg. at 26068, 26069 (May
11, 2004).

* 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.

*} Original Determination at 6.

* First Five-Year Review Determination at 10.
55 See, 3M Response and 3M Comments.

5° 3M Response at 3-4, 3M Comments at 2-3.

ll


U.S. International Trade Commission |

Washington, DC 20436
www.usitc.gov

Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape
From China

Investigation No. AA1921-167 (Second Review)

Publication 3698 July 2004


Table 1-3

PSP tape: U.S. imports, by source, 1973-76, 1997, and 2003

Source Calendar year
1973 1974 1975 1976 I 1997" | 2003
Quantity (1,000 square yards)
Italy 8,618 8,391 11,396 30,615 “ N/A
Other sources 13,983 25,840 27,974 40,703 ad N/A
Total 22,601 34,231 39,370 71,318 hid N/A
Value ($1,000)
Italy 1,484 2,009 1,979 5,397 N/A N/A
Other sources 2,947 5,653 5,370 8,007 N/A N/A
Total 4,431 7,662 7,349 13,404 N/A N/A
Unit value (per 1,000 square yards)
Italy $172 $239 $174 $176 N/A N/A
Other sources 211 219 192 197 N/A N/A
Total 196 224 187 188 N/A\ N/A
Share of quantity (percent)
Italy 38.1 24.5 28.9 42.9 4.0 N/A
Other sources 61.9 75.5 71.41 57.1 96.0 NIA
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Share of value (percent)
Italy 33.5 26.2 26.9 40.3 N/A\ N/A
Other sources 66.5 73.8 73.1 59.7 N/A N/A
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
‘In response to the Commission's 1998 notice of institution, 3M reported importing *** square yards of PSP
tape 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 1997, and that imports from Italy represented 4 percent of U.S. imports of PSP
tape from all sources.
Source: Staff Report of August 15, 1977, table 4. Staff Report of January 8, 1999, pp. |-6 and I-7.

18



U.S. market is dominated by domestic producers and nonsubject suppliers that held almost *** percent of
U.S. apparent consumption in 1997," which is in stark contrast to the situation in 1976 when U.S.
producers held *** share of apparent consumption as subject imports.

3M argues that the “significant underutilization” in capacity by Italian producers would result in
an increase in exports to the United States if the finding were revoked and that the increase would
translate into a direct decrease in U.S. industry sales volume, production, capacity utilization, and
wages.“ There is no information on the record that supports the aforementioned assertion that the Italian
product (1) would find its way to the U.S. market and (2) would capture market share from U.S.
producers. Rather, significant changes in both the U.S. market and subject imports’ home market
indicate that subject imports would not increase beyond 1997 levels. While the original finding appears
to have had an impact on the level of imports, and thus the market share of PSP tape from Italy, Italian
market share 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, which indicates that the United
States is not the primary market for Italian PSP tape.

As we noted earlier, many shifts in global trade patterns have occurred over the past 27 years,
including the expansion of the European market and the creation of the European Union, which has
affected the global market for PSP tape. Most important in this review is that major structural changes
have occurred in the European market since 1976. Between the original investigation and the first
review, six countries joined the European Communities (EC) to form the European Union (EU-15) in
1995. Moreover, since the first review, the EU has further integrated the economies of additional
member countries, and began circulating a common currency, the euro, on January 1, 2002. In May
2004, the EU expanded from 15 member countries, which includes Italy, to 25 member countries. This
expansion represents a massive new market potential for Italian PSP tape producers. In essence, demand
for Italian PSP tape has 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. There is nothing on the record that would indicate that it is more probable than
not 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, 3M states that its Italian joint venture focuses its
Italian production on the EU market and does not ship to the United States.

The record indicates that total imports from Italy accounted for approximately 1 percent of
apparent U.S. consumption in 2003," which is markedly different than subject import share in the
original investigation, and smaller than the market share of total imports from Italy in the first five-year
review. Although the data suggest that the antidumping finding had a significant impact on the market
penetration of Italian imports, the massive growth in domestic consumption and the U.S. industry’s
extensive and consistently maintained share in that growth signify that increases in imports are not likely
to lead to any adverse effect if the finding is revoked. Apparent domestic consumption increased from

* CR at Table I-4.

“CR at I-14.

‘5 3M Submission at 7.

Ona related matter, we are surprised that 3M, having an Italian joint venture, did not submit more substantive
information on the Italian market. Given its active participation in the Italian market, and given that the number of
players in that market have contracted through consolidation (3M Submission at 8-9), it seems reasonable to
conclude that 3M could have submitted additional data that may have further informed the Commission.

“7 3M Submission at 3. Those imports subject to the finding likely accounted for less than 1 percent of apparent
U.S. consumption in 2003.

20


U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Stephen Koplan, Chairman
Deanna Tanner Okun, Vice Chairman
Marcia E. Miller
Jennifer A. Hillman

Charlotte R. Lane
Daniel R. Pearson

Robert A. Rogowsky
Director of Operations

Staff assigned:

Jai Motwane, Investigator
Peter Sultan, Attorney

Diane Mazur, Supervisory Investigator

Address all communications to
Secretary to the Commission
United States International Trade Commission
Washington, DC 20436


26068 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 91/Tuesday, May 11, 2004/ Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-580-809]

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe
From Korea: Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of rescission of
administrative review.

2003, with respect to the respondents.
See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 68 FR 74550 (December 24,
2003). The period of review is
November 1, 2002, through October 31,
2

On April 9, 2004, the domestic
interested parties withdrew their
request for review of all three
respondents. HYSCO withdrew its
request for review on April 21, 2004.
Husteel and SeAH withdrew their
requests for review on April 23, 2004.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from
interested parties, the Department of
Commerce initiated an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe
from Korea. Based on requests from
interested parties for withdrawal of the
review with respect to all respondents,
we are rescinding the administrative
review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scott Holland or Julie Santoboni, Office
1, AD/CVD Enforcement, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482-1279 or (202) 482~
4194, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On November 3, 2003, the Department
of Commerce (“the Department”)
published a notice in the Federal
Register of the opportunity for
interested parties to request an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on circular
welded non-alloy steel pipe from Korea.
See Notice of Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review of Antidumping
or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding
or Suspended Investigation, 68 FR
62279 (November 3, 2003). On
November 26, 2003, the Department
received a timely request for review of
Husteel Co. Ltd. (“Husteel”), Hyundai
HYSCO (“"HYSCO”), and SeAH Steel
Corporation, Ltd. (“SeAH”)
(collectively, “respondents”) from
Allied Tube and Conduit Corporation
and Wheatland Tube Company
(collectively, “domestic interested
parties”). We also received timely filed
requests for review from Husteel,
HYSCO, and SeAH.

In accordance with 19 CFR
351.221(b)(1), we published a notice of
initiation of the antidumping duty
administrative review on December 24,

Rescission of Antidumping
Administrative Review

In accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(1), the Department will
rescind an administrative review if a
party that requested the review
withdraws the request within 90 days of
the date of publication of the notice of
initiation of the requested review. The
Department may extend this time limit
if it decides it is reasonable to do so.
Although the domestic interested
parties and the respondents submitted
requests for withdrawal of this
administrative review subsequent to the
90 day deadline, i.e., March 23, 2004,
because all parties withdrew their
requests for an administrative review,
we are hereby rescinding this
administrative review.

The Department will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”)
to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. For the companies
for which this review is rescinded,
antidumping duties shall be assessed at
rates equal to the cash deposit of
estimated antidumping duties required
at the time of entry, or withdrawal from
warehouse, for consumption, in
accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(c)(1)(i).

The Department will issue
appropriate assessment instructions
directly to CBP within 15 days of
publication of this notice.

Notification to Importers

This notice serves as a reminder to
importers of their responsibility under
19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to 1;
of the relevant entries during
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of doubled antidumping duties.

Notification Regarding APOs

This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective orders (“APOs”) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary
information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification
of the return/destruction of APO
materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and terms of an APO is a violation
which is subject to sanction.

This notice is issued and published in
accordance with section 777(i) of the
Act, as amended and 19 CFR
351.213(d)(4).

Dated: May 4, 2004.

James J. Jochum,

Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.

(FR Doc, E4~1072 Filed 5-10-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration

[A-475-059]

Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From
Italy; Final Results of the Second
Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty
Finding

AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of the
second expedited sunset review of
antidumping finding on pressure
sensitive plastic tape from Italy.

‘SUMMARY: On January 2, 2004, the
Department of Commerce (“the
Department”) published the notice of
initiation of sunset review on Pressure
Sensitive Plastic Tape (“PSPT”) from
Italy. On the basis of the notice of intent
to participate, and adequate substantive
comments filed on behalf of a domestic
interested party and inadequate
response (in this case, no response) from
respondent interested parties, we
determined to conduct an expedited
(120-day) sunset review. As a result of
this review, we find that revocation of
the antidumping duty finding would be
likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the levels
listed below in the section entitled
“Final Results of Review.”

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 2004.



of more than 1-3/8 inches in width and not exceeding 4 mils in thickness from Italy that was being, or
was likely to be, sold at LTFV within the meaning of the Antidumping Act, 1921, as amended.* After
receipt of the Commission’s determination, Treasury issued an antidumping finding on imports of PSP
tape from Italy.° In February 1999, the Commission completed an expedited five-year review of the
antidumping finding, and, on the basis of facts available, 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.”

Commerce’s Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review

On May 11, 2004, the Commission received notification of Commerce’s “Final Results of
Expedited Sunset Review” concerning PSP tape from Italy.’ The review covered all manufacturers and
exporters of PSP tape in Italy. Commerce determined that dumping is likely to continue or recur if the
antidumping finding is revoked. The following tabulation provides information with regard to the
margins (in percent ad valorem) of dumping that Commerce found would likely prevail if the order is
revoked:?

Company Margin
Comet SARA, S.p.A. . 0... eee eee eee 10.0
Manuli Autoadesivi ...............66 10.0
Allothers ......... 0. cece cere eee eee 10.0

Between 1977, when the antidumping finding was imposed by Treasury, and 1998, Commerce
conducted numerous administrative reviews with respect to imports of PSP tape from Italy. The
antidumping finding was revoked with respect to two Italian producers of PSP tape, one each in 1988 and

5 The investigation resulted from complaints filed with Treasury by Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company (3M, Co.) 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 reason of imports of PSP tape from West Germany sold, or likely to be sold, at LTFV. Pressure Sensitive
Plastic Tape from West Germany, Investigation No. AA1921-168, USITC Pub. 831, September 1977. Information
obtained in the two separate investigations was presented together by the Commission in USITC Pub. 831, Id.

6 42 FR 56110 (October 21, 1977).

7 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 Pub. 3157, February 1999.

* 69 FR 26068 (May 11, 2004).

° Commerce’s likelihood determination was based on the fact that dumping at levels above de minimis has
continued over the life of the finding against imports of PSP tape from Italy. See Issues and Decision Memorandum
from Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to James J. Jochum, Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, May 3, 2004. Attp://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.

14


APPENDIX A
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

A-l


growth, ability to raise capital, or investment within a reasonably foreseeable time in the event the
finding is revoked. In conjunction with our findings regarding likely price and volume effects, we find
that revocation is not likely to lead to a significant reduction in U.S. producers’ output, sales, market
share, profits, productivity, ability to raise capital, or return on investments within a reasonably
foreseeable time.” We therefore find that revocation of the finding is not likely to lead to the
continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic PSP tape industry within a reasonably
foreseeable time.

u16 CONCLUSION

Subject imports are not likely to have adverse volume or price effects in the event of revocation,
and are therefore not likely to have a negative impact on the domestic industry. Thus, we find that
material injury to the U.S. PSP tape industry is not likely to continue or recur within a reasonably
foreseeable time if the antidumping finding on PSP tape from Italy is revoked.

® The record contains no current information with regard to the factors provided in the SAA, such as: the
fungibility or differentiation within the product in question; and the level of substitutability between the imported and
domestic products; as well as other factors that may only manifest themselves in the longer term, such as planned
investment and the shifting of production facilities.” SAA at 887.

23


Although the standard in five-year reviews is not the same as the standard applied in original
antidumping or countervailing duty investigations, 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 order is revoked or the suspended investigation
is terminated.”** 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 order is revoked or the suspension.
agreement is terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
§ 1675(a)(4).*

Section 751(c)(3) of the Act and the Commission’s regulations provide that in an expedited five-
year review the Commission may issue a final determination “based on the facts available, in accordance
with section 776.”” We have relied on the facts available in this review, which consist primarily of
information from the original investigation and first review, information submitted by the domestic
producers, and information collected by the Commission since the institution of this review.”

For the reasons stated below, we determine that revocation of the antidumping finding on PSP
tape from Italy would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic
industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

B. Conditions of Competition

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry if the finding is
revoked, the statute directs the Commission to evaluate all relevant economic factors “within the context
of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.””

In the first five-year review determination the Commission identified the following conditions of
competition as relevant to the PSP tape industry. The Commission noted that the domestic industry had
apparently become *** since the time of the original investigation. Then, four domestic firms accounted
for at least 80 percent of production and 3M was by far the largest U.S. manufacturer. By the time of the

continued)
the need to establish channels of distribution; product differentiation; and any other factors that may only manifest
themselves in the longer term. In other words, this analysis seeks to define “reasonably foreseeable time” by
reference to current and likely conditions of competition, but also seeks to avoid unwarranted speculation that may
occur in predicting events into the more distant future.

19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a\(1).

6 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the
Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s
determination. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). While the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is
necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886. We note that no duty absorption findings have been made by Commerce.

19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B); 19 C.F.R. 207.62(e). Section 776 of the Act, in turn, 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 section 782(i) of the Act. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a).

® Chairman Okun and Commissioners Lane and Pearson make negative determinations and thus do not join in
the remainder of this opinion. See their dissenting views.

® 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).


Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 91/Tuesday, May 11, 2004/ Notices

26069

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alessandra Cortez or Ozlem Koray,
Office of Policy for Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482-5925 or (202) 482-
3675,

‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 2, 2004, the Department
published the notice of initiation of
sunset review of the antidumping duty
finding on PSPT from Italy pursuant to
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the “Act”).1 The
Department received the notice of intent
to participate on behalf of 3M Company
(“3M”), a domestic interested party,
within the deadline specified in section
351.218(d)(1)(1) of the Department’s
Regulations (“Sunset Regulations”). 3M
claimed interested party status under
section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a U.S.
producer of a domestic like product. We
received a complete substantive
response from 3M within the 30-day
deadline specified in the Sunset
Regulations under section
351.218(d)(3)(i).

We did not receive a substantive
response from any interested party
respondents in this proceeding, 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.

Scope of Review

The products covered in this review
are shipments of PSPT measuring over
one and three-eights inches in width
and not exceeding four millimeters in
thickness. The above described PSPT is
classified under HTS subheading
3919.90.50.? On May 7, 1992, the
Department issued a scope ruling on
highlighting “note tape” and
determined that it was not within the
scope of the finding. See Scope Rulings,
57 FR 19602 (May 7, 1992). 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 case by 3M
are addressed in the “Issues and

‘Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 69 FR
50 (January 2, 2004).

2 HTS number 3919.90.20 was incorrectly
included in the first sunset review, but later
determined to be an invalid number. Pressure
Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy, USITC Pub. 3157,
\p. I-4, fn. 8 (February 1999).

Decision Memorandum” (“Decision
Memo”) from Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Director, Office of Policy, Import
Administration, to James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, dated May 3, 2004,
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 margin 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 room
B-099 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,
under the heading “May 2004.” The
paper copy and electronic version of the
Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.

Final Results of Review

We determine that revocation of the
antidumping duty finding on PSPT from
Italy would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of dumping
at the following percentage weighted-
average margins:

Italy manufacturers/exporters/pro- | Margin
ducers weighted average percent
Comet SARA, S.p.A 10
Manuli Autoadesivi (Manuli) 10
All Others .... 10

*Tyco Adhesives Italia S.p.A became a suc-
gessor-in-interest company to Manuli Tapes
S.p.A. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstances Review: Pressure
Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, 69 FR 15297
(March 25, 2004).

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 of the Department’s regulations.
Timely notification of the return or
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a violation which is subject to
sanction.

We are issuing and publishing the
results and notice in accordance with
sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.

Dated: May 3, 2004.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.

[FR Doc. E4—1074 Filed 5-10-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[C-122-815]

Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium
From Canada: Preliminary Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of
countervailing duty administrative
reviews.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
is conducting administrative reviews of
the countervailing duty orders on pure
magnesium and alloy magnesium from
Canada for the period January 1, 2002,
through December 31, 2002. We ”
preliminarily find that certain
producers/exporters have received
countervailable subsidies during the
period of review. If the final results
remain the same as these preliminary
results, we will instruct the U.S. Bureau.
of Customs and Border Protection to
assess countervailing duties as detailed
in the “Preliminary Results of Reviews”
section of this notice. Interested parties
are invited to comment on these
preliminary results (see the Public
Comment section of this notice).
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Melanie Brown, AD/CVD Enforcement,
Group I, Office 1, Import
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230,
telephone: (202) 482-4987.

Case History

On August 31, 1992, the Department
of Commerce (“the Department”)
published in the Federal Register the
countervailing duty orders on pure
magnesium and alloy magnesium from
Canada (see Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determinations:
Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium
from Canada, 57 FR 39392 (July 13,
1992)). On August 1, 2003, the
Department published a notice of
“Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review” of these countervailing duty
orders (see Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or



APPENDIX B

STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

B-1


D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the antidumping finding is revoked, the
Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the subject
imports as compared to domestic like products and if 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
domestic like products.

The record in this expedited review contains very little pricing data, and provides no information
comparing current prices of the domestic like product and the subject imports in the U.S. market, given
the current low level of subject imports in the U.S. market. Again, our conclusions are based primarily
on the records of the original investigation and the first five-year review, and the information submitted
by the domestic industry.

In the original determination, the Commission found that less than fair value imports from Italy
consistently undersold U.S. producers and caused price depression in the U.S. market.” In the first five-
year review, the Commission noted the domestic industry’s argument that imports would again enter the
U.S. market at prices that would have significant price depressing or suppressing effects if the finding
were revoked, and the Commission concluded, in the absence of contrary evidence or argument, that
revocation of the finding would be likely to lead to significant price effects in the reasonably foreseeable
future.

The domestic industry asserts that subject imports would again enter the U.S. market at prices
that would have significant price depressing or suppressing effects if the finding is revoked.” In the
absence of contrary evidence or argument, we agree with this conclusion.

As noted above, PSP tape is a commodity product for which purchasing decisions appear to be
based largely on the prices of competing suppliers. It therefore appears likely that subject Italian
exporters would offer attractively low prices to U.S. purchasers in order to regain market share. The
substantial excess capacity available to the Italian producers provides a strong incentive to engage in
aggressive pricing behavior. Consequently, 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 PSP tape offered at lower prices.

Accordingly, in the absence of contrary evidence or argument, we find that revocation of the
antidumping finding would be likely to lead to significant price effects, including significant underselling
by the subject imports of the domestic like product, as well as to significant price depression or
suppression in the reasonably foreseeable future.

E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the order is revoked, the
Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are likely to have a bearing on the

“ 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.

‘7 Original Determination at 5-6.
“8 First Five-Year Review Determination at 9.
® 3M Response at 4.

10