40494 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 129 / Thursday, July 7, 2022 / Notices 

24 During the administrative review, this 

company was imprecisely referred to as Trina Solar 

Energy Co. Ltd. See Trina Solar’s Letter, ‘‘Letter in 

Lieu of Case Brief,’’ dated May 16, 2022. 

1See Glycine from India and the People’s 

Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Orders, 84 

FR 29173 (June 21, 2019) (Order). 

2See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 86 FR 

41821 (August 3, 2021) (Initiation Notice). 

3 In the CVD investigation, the Petition was 

submitted on behalf of GEO Specialty Chemicals, 

Inc. and Chattem Chemicals, Inc. In this review, we 

reference GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc., a domestic 

glycine producer, as the petitioner. 

4See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Glycine from India (C– 

533–884): Partial Withdrawal of Request for 

Administrative Review,’’ dated November 1, 2021 

(Petitioner’s Partial Withdrawal of Review 

Requests). 

5See Memorandum, ‘‘Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review of Glycine from India, 2020: 

Extension of Deadline for the Preliminary Results,’’ 

dated February 25, 2022. 

6See Memorandum, ‘‘Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review of Glycine from India, 2020: 

Second Extension of Deadline for the Preliminary 

Results,’’ dated June 6, 2022. 

7See Memorandum, ‘‘Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review of Glycine from India, 2020: 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum,’’ dated 

concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this 

notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 

8The eight companies for which the petitioner 

withdrew its request for review are Paras; Mulji 

Mehta Enterprises; Mulji Mehta Pharma; Studio 

Disrupt; J.R. Corporation; Rudraa International; 

Rexisize Rasayan Industries; and Indiana ChemPort. 

9Paras submitted a request for review with 

respect to itself. See Paras’s Letter, ‘‘Request for 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,’’ dated 

June 28, 2021. Paras did not withdraw its request 

for review. 

10See, e.g., Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road 

Tires from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2016, 

83 FR 32080 (July 11, 2018). 

Ltd. 

36. Suntimes Technology Co., Limited 

37. Systemes Versilis, Inc. 

38. Taimax Technologies Inc. 

39. Talesun Energy 

40. Talesun Solar 

41. tenKsolar (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. 

42. Tianjin Yingli New Energy Resources Co., 

Ltd. 

43. Tianneng Yingli New Energy Resources 

Co., Ltd. 

44. Toenergy Technology Hangzhou Co., Ltd. 

45. Yingli Green Energy International 

Trading Company Limited 

46. Zhejiang ERA Solar Technology Co., Ltd. 

47. Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. 

48. Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science 

& Technology Limited Liability 

Company 

49. Trina Solar Co., Ltd. (formerly Changzhou 

Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.) 24

50. Changzhou Trina Solar Yabang Energy 

Co., Ltd. 

51. Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science and 

Technology Co., Ltd. 

52. Turpan Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. 

53. Hubei Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. 

54. Yancheng Trina Solar Energy Technology 

Co., Ltd. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14420 Filed 7–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–533–884] 

Glycine From India: Preliminary 

Results and Rescission, in Part, of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review; 2020 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Commerce (Commerce) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

countervailing duty (CVD) order on 

glycine from India for the period of 

review (POR) January 1, 2020, through 

December 31, 2020. Commerce 

preliminarily determines that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

glycine from India. In addition, we are 

also rescinding this review with regard 

to seven companies for which the 

request for review was timely 

withdrawn by interested parties. The 

preliminary net subsidy rates are listed 

below in the section titled ‘‘Preliminary 

Results of Administrative Review.’’ 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

DATES: Applicable July 7, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

George McMahon or Scarlet Jaldin AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement 

and Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

(202) 482–1167 or (202) 482–4275, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 21, 2019, Commerce 

published in the Federal Register the 

CVD order on glycine from India.1 On 

August 3, 2021, Commerce published a 

notice of initiation of administrative 

review of the Order.2 On November 1, 

2021, GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. 

(the petitioner),3 timely withdrew its 

request for an administrative review of 

eight companies.4 On February 25, 

2022, Commerce extended the deadline 

for issuing the preliminary results of 

this review until June 22, 2022.5 On 

June 6, 2022, Commerce extended the 

deadline for issuing the preliminary 

results of review until June 30, 2022.6

For a complete description of the 

events that followed the initiation of 

this review, see the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum.7 A list of topics 

discussed in the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum is included as Appendix 

I to this notice. The Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum is a public 

document and is on file electronically 

via Enforcement and Compliance’s 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Centralized Electronic Service System 

(ACCESS). ACCESS is available to 

registered users at https://

access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete 

version of the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

at https://access.trade.gov/public/ 

FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. 

Rescission, in Part, of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), 

Commerce will rescind an 

administrative review, in whole or in 

part, if the parties that requested a 

review withdraw the request within 90 

days of the date of publication of the 

notice of initiation of the requested 

review. The petitioner timely submitted 

a withdrawal of its request to review 

eight companies 8 and no other 

interested party requested an 

administrative review of the following 

seven of the eight companies listed in 

the Petitioner’s Partial Withdrawal of 

Review Requests: Mulji Mehta 

Enterprises; Mulji Mehta Pharma; 

Studio Disrupt; J.R. Corporation; Rudraa 

International; Rexisize Rasayan 

Industries; and Indiana Chem-Port. 

Paras Intermediates Private Ltd. (Paras) 

requested a review of its own entries 9

and did not withdraw its request for a 

review. As a result, the review of Paras, 

for which the petitioner and Paras 

requested a review, will not be 

rescinded. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(1), and consistent with our 

practice,10 we are rescinding the 

administrative review of the Order, in 

part, with respect to these seven 

companies, and continuing the 

administrative review with respect to 

Avid Organics Private Limited (Avid), 

Kumar Industries (Kumar), and Paras. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by the 

Order is glycine from India. For a 

complete description of the scope of the 

Order, see the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum. 

Methodology 

Commerce is conducting this review 

in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act). For each of the subsidy 

programs found countervailable, we 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 129 / Thursday, July 7, 2022 / Notices 40495 

11See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act 

regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) 

of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5)(A) 

of the Act regarding specificity. 

12See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Glycine from India: 

New Subsidy Allegation,’’ dated January 4, 2022. 

13See Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review of Glycine from India: New 

Subsidy Allegations Questionnaire,’’ dated 

February 9, 2022. 

14See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Glycine from India (C– 

533–884): GEO’s New Subsidy Allegations 

Questionnaire Responses,’’ dated February 16, 

2022. 

15See Memorandum, ‘‘Administrative Review of 

Countervailing Duty Order on Glycine from India; 

2020, New Subsidy Allegations,’’ dated March 11, 

2021. 

16See Commerce’s Letters, ‘‘Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review of Glycine from India; 2020: 

Kumar New Subsidy Allegation Questionnaire,’’ 

dated March 14, 2021; ‘‘Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review of Glycine from India; 2020: 

The Government of India New Subsidy Allegation 

Questionnaire,’’ dated March 14, 2021; 

‘‘Countervailing Duty Administrative Review of 

Glycine from India; 2020: Avid New Subsidy 

Allegation Questionnaire,’’ dated March 14, 2021. 

17See Memorandum, ‘‘Preliminary Results 

Calculation of Subsidy Rate for a Non-Selected 

Company Under Review,’’ dated concurrently with 

this notice. 

18See Memorandum, ‘‘Preliminary Results of 

Administrative Review of Glycine from India; 2020: 

Calculation Memorandum for Avid Organics Private 

Limited,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (Avid 

Preliminary Calculation Memorandum). 

19 In this review, we preliminarily determine that 

Kumar is cross-owned with Advance Chemical 

Corporation. See Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum and Kumar Preliminary Calculation 

Memorandum for further discussion. We note that 

the Initiation Notice includes ‘‘Kumar Industries’’ 

which we have determined is the same company 

previously examined, ‘‘Kumar Industries, India.’’ 

See Memorandum, ‘‘Preliminary Results of 

Administrative Review of Glycine from India; 2020: 

Preliminary Calculation Memorandum for Kumar 

Industries India,’’ dated concurrently with this 

notice (Kumar Preliminary Calculation 

Memorandum). 

20See section ‘‘Rescission, in Part, of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,’’ 

supra; see also Memorandum, ‘‘Preliminary Results 

Calculation of Subsidy Rate for a Non-Selected 

Company Under Review,’’ dated concurrently with 

this notice. 

21See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

22See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 351.309(d)(1); 

see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing 

requirements)). 

23See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and 351.309(d)(2). 

24See Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD 

Service Requirements Due to COVID–19; Extension 

of Effective Period, 85 FR 41363 (July 10, 2020). 

preliminarily determine that there is a 

subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution 

that gives rise to a benefit to the 

recipient, and the subsidy is specific.11

For a full description of the 

methodology underlying our 

conclusions, see the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum. 

In January 4, 2022, the petitioner 

timely submitted new subsidy 

allegations regarding eight additional 

programs.12 On February 9, 2022, 

Commerce requested additional 

information 13 from the petitioner 

regarding certain of its allegations, to 

which the petitioner responded on 

February 16, 2022.14 On March 11, 

2022, we initiated an investigation of 

four of the eight new subsidy programs 

alleged by the petitioner.15 On March 

14, 2022, Commerce issued new subsidy 

allegation questionnaires to the 

Government of India, Avid, and Kumar 

related to each of the programs on 

which it initiated a review.16

Company Not Selected for Individual 

Review 

For the company not selected for 

individual review (i.e., Paras), because 

the subsidy rates calculated for Avid 

and Kumar for these preliminary results 

of review are above de minimis and not 

based on facts available, we have 

preliminarily calculated a subsidy rate 

based on a weighted-average of the 

subsidy rates calculated for Avid and 

Kumar using publicly ranged sales data 

submitted by respondents.17 This 

methodology for establishing the 

subsidy rate for the non-selected 

companies is consistent with our 

practice and with section 705(c)(5)(A) of 

the Act. For additional information, see 

the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 

Preliminary Results of Administrative 

Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(4), we determine the 

following preliminary net 

countervailable subsidy rates for the 

period January 1, 2020, through 

December 31, 2020: 

Company 

Subsidy rate 

(percent ad 

valorem) 

Avid Organics Private Limited 18 ................................. 3.00 

Kumar Industries, India 19 ..... 3.11 

Paras Intermediates Private 

Ltd. 20 ................................ 3.06 

Assessment Rates 

Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon 

issuance of the final results, Commerce 

will determine, and U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, 

CVDs on all appropriate entries covered 

by this review. Commerce intends to 

issue assessment instructions to CBP no 

earlier than 35 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review in the Federal Register. If a 

timely summons is filed at the U.S. 

Court of International Trade, the 

assessment instructions will direct CBP 

not to liquidate relevant entries until the 

time for parties to file a request for a 

statutory injunction has expired (i.e., 

within 90 days of publication). 

For the companies for which we have 

rescinded this administrative review, 

i.e., Mulji Mehta Enterprises, Mulji 

Mehta Pharma, Studio Disrupt, J.R. 

Corporation, Rudraa International, 

Rexisize Rasayan Industries and Indiana 

Chem-Port, CVDs shall be assessed at 

rates equal to the cash deposit of 

estimated CVDs required at the time of 

entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, 

for consumption, during the period 

January 1, 2020, through December 31, 

2020, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(c)(1)(i). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

In accordance with section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce also 

intends to instruct CBP to collect cash 

deposits of estimated CVDs at the rates 

shown above for each of the companies 

listed above with regard to the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this review. For all nonreviewed firms, Commerce will instruct 

CBP to continue to collect cash deposits 

of estimated CVDs at the all-others rate 

or the most recent company-specific rate 

applicable to the company, as 

appropriate. These cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

We will disclose to parties of this 

proceeding the calculations performed 

in reaching the preliminary results 

within five days of the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

in the Federal Register.21

Interested parties may submit written 

comments (case briefs) on the 

preliminary results no later than 30 days 

after the date of publication of this 

Federal Register notice, and rebuttal 

comments (rebuttal briefs) within seven 

days after the time limit for filing case 

briefs.22 Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs must be 

limited to issues raised in the case 

briefs. Parties who submit arguments are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

(1) a statement of the issue; (2) a brief 

summary of the argument; and (3) a 

table of authorities.23 Note that 

Commerce has temporarily modified 

certain of its requirements for serving 

documents containing business 

proprietary information, until further 

notice.24

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 

interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing must submit a written request to 

the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
40496 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 129 / Thursday, July 7, 2022 / Notices 

25See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

26See 19 CFR 351.310. 

27See 19 CFR 351.310 (c). 

1See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 86 FR 

41821 (August 3, 2021). 

2 Id. 

3See Memorandum, ‘‘Identification of Mandatory 

Respondent,’’ dated December 1, 2021. 

4See Memorandum, ‘‘Extension of Time Limit for 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 2020–2021,’’ dated 

February 15, 2022. 

5See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review; 2020–2021,’’ dated 

concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this 

notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 

6See Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from Spain: 

Antidumping Duty Order, 82 FR 27229 (June 14, 

2017) (Order). 

and Compliance, within 30 days after 

the date of publication of this notice.25

Hearing requests should contain: (1) the 

party’s name, address, and telephone 

number; (2) the number of participants, 

whether any participant is a foreign 

national; and (3) a list of the issues to 

be discussed. Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in the respective case and rebuttal 

briefs.26 If a request for a hearing is 

made, Commerce intends to hold the 

hearing at a time and date to be 

determined.27 Parties should confirm 

the date and time of the hearing two 

days before the scheduled date. 

Parties are reminded that all briefs 

and hearing requests must be filed 

electronically using ACCESS and that 

electronically filed documents must be 

received successfully in their entirety by 

5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. 

Commerce intends to issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the result of our analysis of 

the issues raised by the parties in their 

comments, no later than 120 days after 

the date of publication of this notice, 

pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h), unless this 

deadline is extended. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This administrative review and notice 

are issued and published in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213. 

Dated: June 30, 2022. 

Ryan Majerus, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and 

Negotiations. 

Appendix 

List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary 

Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Period of Review 

IV. Scope of the Order 

V. Partial Rescission of Review 

VI. Rate for Non-Examined Company 

VII. Subsidies Valuation 

VIII. Interest Rates, Discount Rates, and 

Benchmarks 

IX. Analysis of Programs 

X. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2022–14489 Filed 7–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–469–815] 

Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From 

Spain: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review; 2020–2021 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily 

determines that producers or exporters 

of finished carbon steel flanges (flanges) 

from Spain subject to this review made 

sales of subject merchandise at less than 

normal value during the period of 

review (POR) June 1, 2020, through May 

31, 2021. We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

DATES: Applicable July 7, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carolyn Adie or Mark Flessner, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

(202) 482–6250 or (202) 482–6312, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 3, 2021, based on timely 

requests for review, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), Commerce 

initiated an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on flanges from 

Spain.1 This review covers eight 

producers and/or exporters of the 

subject merchandise: (1) ULMA Forja, 

S.Coop (ULMA); (2) Grupo Cunado; (3) 

Tubacero, S.L.; (4) Aleaciones De 

Metales Sinterizados S.A.; (5) 

Transglory S.A.; (6) Central Y 

Almacenes; (7) Friedrich Geldbach 

Gmbh; and (8) Farina Group Spain.2 On 

December 1, 2021, we identified ULMA 

as the sole mandatory respondent in this 

review.3 On February 15, 2022, we 

extended the deadline for the 

preliminary results by 120 days.4 The 

deadline for the preliminary results of 

this administrative review is now June 

30, 2022. 

For a complete description of the 

events that followed the initiation of 

this administrative review, see the 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum.5

The Preliminary Decision Memorandum 

is a public document and is on file 

electronically via Enforcement and 

Compliance’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (ACCESS). 

ACCESS is available to registered users 

at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a 

complete version of the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly at https://access.trade.gov/ 

public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx/. 

Scope of the Order 6

The scope of the Order covers 

finished carbon steel flanges. Finished 

carbon steel flanges are currently 

classified under subheadings 

7307.91.5010 and 7307.91.5050 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). They may also 

be entered under HTSUS subheadings 

7307.91.5030 and 7307.91.5070. The 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes; the 

written description of the scope is 

dispositive. For a complete description 

of the scope of the Order, see the 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 

Methodology 

Commerce is conducting this review 

in accordance with section 751 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 

Export price is calculated in accordance 

with section 772 of the Act. Normal 

value is calculated in accordance with 

section 773 of the Act. For a full 

description of the methodology 

underlying these preliminary results, 

see the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum. A list of topics included 

in the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum is included as the 

appendix to this notice. 

Non-Individually Examined Companies 

For the rate for non-selected 

respondents in an administrative 

review, generally, Commerce looks to 

section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which 

provides instructions for calculating the 

all-others rate in a market economy 

investigation. Under section 

735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others 

rate is normally ‘‘an amount equal to the 

weighted average of the estimated 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES