EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY
`
`in
`
`Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy
`Inv. No. AA1921-167 (Third Review)
`
`On August 4, 2009, the Commission determined that it should proceed to a full review in the
`subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. §1675(c)(5)).
`
`The Commission received a single response filed by 3M Company (“3M”), a domestic producer
`of pressure sensitive plastic tape (PSPT); 3M’s response also contains information submitted on behalf of
`two other U.S. producers of PSPT, Shurtape Technologies, LLC and Intertape Polymer Group, Inc. The
`Commission found the individual response of each of these domestic PSPT producers, which contained
`company-specific data, to be adequate. Because the three producers that provided company-specific data
`collectively account for a substantial proportion of domestic production of PSPT, the Commission further
`determined that the domestic interested party group response was adequate.
`
`The Commission did not receive a response to the notice of institution from any respondent
`interested party. The Commission determined that the respondent interested party group response was
`inadequate in this review.
`
`Notwithstanding the Commission’s determination that the respondent interested party group
`response was inadequate, the Commission determined to conduct a full review in light of information
`regarding possible changes in conditions of competition.1 These include trends in U.S. demand; the
`nature of U.S. supply, particularly concerning the presence in the U.S. market of nonsubject imports from
`China and Taiwan; and the structure and market orientation of the Italian PSPT industry.
`
`A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and the
`Commission’s web site (www.usitc.gov).
`
`1 Commissioners Williamson and Pinkert voted to conduct an expedited review, citing both the
`lack of adequate respondent participation and their finding that the record in this adequacy phase did not
`indicate sufficient changes in the conditions of competition since the original investigation and the first
`and second five-year reviews to warrant conducting a full review.