66352 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Notices 

Period to be 

reviewed 

Wireking Housewares & Hardware) 

Hangzhou Dunli Import & Export Co., Ltd. and Hangzhou Dunli Industry Co., Ltd. 

Hengtong Hardware Manufacturing (Huizhou) Co., Ltd. 

Jiangsu Weixi Group Co. 

King Shan Wire Co., Ltd. (parent company of New King Shan (Zhuhai) Co., Ltd.) 

Leader Metal Industry Co., Ltd. (aka Marmon Retail Services Asia) 

New King Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd. 

Taiwan Rail Company 

1 If one of the above named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of Certain Lined Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC 

entity of which the named exporters are a part. 2 If one of the above named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires 

from the PRC who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which the 

named exporters are a part. 3 If one of the above named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the PRC 

who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which the named exporters are a part. 4 If one of the above named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from 

the PRC who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which the named 

exporters are a part. 5Petitioners, SSW Holding Company, Inc. and Nashville Wire Products, Inc, also requested a review of five additional companies. However, 

the Department has sought additional information as to why Petitioners desire a review of these companies, as required by 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(1). We are still considering the appropriateness of initiating a review of these five companies. Therefore, at this time, we are not initiating a review with respect to the following companies: Asia Pacific CIS (Wuxi) Co., Ltd., Asia Pacific CIS (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Hengtong Hardware Manufacturing (Huizhou) Co., Ltd., Taiwan Rail Company, and King Shan Wire Co., Ltd. 6See footnote 5. 

Suspension Agreements 

None. 

During any administrative review 

covering all or part of a period falling 

between the first and second or third 

and fourth anniversary of the 

publication of an antidumping duty 

order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a 

determination under 19 CFR 

351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or 

suspended investigation (after sunset 

review), the Secretary, if requested by a 

domestic interested party within 30 

days of the date of publication of the 

notice of initiation of the review, will 

determine, consistent with FAG Italia v. 

United States, 291 F.3d 806 (Fed. Cir. 

2002), as appropriate, whether 

antidumping duties have been absorbed 

by an exporter or producer subject to the 

review if the subject merchandise is 

sold in the United States through an 

importer that is affiliated with such 

exporter or producer. The request must 

include the name(s) of the exporter or 

producer for which the inquiry is 

requested. 

For the first administrative review of 

any order, there will be no assessment 

of antidumping or countervailing duties 

on entries of subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption during the relevant 

provisional measures ‘‘gap’’ period, of 

the order, if such a gap period is 

applicable for the POR. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under 

administrative protective orders in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On 

January 22, 2008, the Department 

published Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Documents Submission Procedures; 

APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 

22, 2008). Those procedures apply to 

administrative reviews included in this 

notice of initiation. Parties wishing to 

participate in any of these 

administrative reviews should ensure 

that they meet the requirements of these 

procedures (e.g., the filing of separate 

letters of appearance as discussed in 19 

CFR 351.103(d)). 

These initiations and this notice are 

in accordance with section 751(a) of the 

Act, (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(1)(I). 

Dated: October 25, 2010. 

Susan H. Kuhbach, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27296 Filed 10–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–836] 

Glycine From the People’s Republic of 

China: Initiation of Antidumping Anticircumvention Inquiry 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request from 

GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. and 

Chattem Chemicals, Inc., domestic 

interested parties in the abovereferenced proceeding (‘‘domestic 

interested parties’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

initiating an antidumping anticircumvention inquiry pursuant to 

section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘the Act’’). This inquiry 

will examine whether the activities of 

three Indian companies, Salvi Chemical 

Industries (allegedly affiliated with 

Nutracare International) (collectively, 

‘‘Salvi’’), Paras Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. 

(‘‘Paras’’), and AICO Laboratories India 

Ltd. (‘‘AICO’’) are circumventing the 

antidumping duty order on glycine from 

the People’s Republic of China (PRC). 

See Antidumping Duty Order: Glycine 

from People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

16116 (March 29, 1995) (‘‘PRC Glycine 

Order ’’). 

DATES: Effective Date: October 28, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Cordell or Olga Carter, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0408 or (202) 482– 

8221, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 18, 2009, the domestic 

interested parties filed a request for 

initiation of an anti-circumvention 

inquiry, alleging two companies (AICO 

and Paras) were circumventing the order 

covering glycine from the PRC under 

section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Notices 66353 

1The domestic interested parties used a variety 

of terms (e.g. refining, purifying, processing, 

sieving) in their submissions to describe the 

processing activities that are allegedly taking place 

in India. We have used the term ‘‘processing’’ to 

encompass all of them for purposes of this initiation 

notice. 

351.225(h), through completion and 

assembly in India of the same class or 

kind of merchandise that is subject to 

the PRC Glycine Order and by labeling 

the merchandise as Indian origin. See 

domestic interested parties request 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Order on Glycine 

from the People’s Republic of China— 

Circumvention of Antidumping Duty 

Order,’’ dated December 18, 2009 

(‘‘Circumvention Allegation’’). 

On January 15, 2010, the Department 

requested that domestic interested 

parties resubmit legible copies of AICO 

financial statements and of the Port 

Import Export Reporting Service 

(‘‘PIERS’’) report regarding AICO’s 

shipments to the United States, 

provided in their original 

Circumvention Allegation, at Exhibits B 

and A, respectively. The legible copies 

of the requested documents were 

submitted by the domestic interested 

parties on January 22, 2010. See letter 

from the domestic interested parties to 

the Department, dated January 22, 2010. 

On February 18, 2010, the domestic 

interested parties met with the 

Department to discuss their December 

18, 2009, and January 22, 2010, 

submissions, in which they requested 

the Department initiate an anticircumvention inquiry for glycine from 

the PRC. See Memorandum to the File, 

from Olga Carter, analyst, titled ‘‘Scope 

Determination Request Based on 

Circumvention Inquiry: Meeting with 

Counsel and Executive Vice President 

and CFO of Domestic Interested Party 

GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc.,’’ dated 

February 22, 2010. On February 22, 

2010, the Department requested 

additional information from the 

domestic interested parties in the form 

of a supplemental questionnaire. 

In response to a request from the 

domestic interested parties, on July 29, 

2010, the Department held a meeting to 

further discuss the December 18, 2009, 

and January 22, 2010, submissions, as 

well as the Department’s February 22, 

2010, deficiency questionnaire. See 

Memorandum to the File, titled ‘‘Scope 

Determination Request Based on 

Circumvention Inquiry: Meeting with 

Counsel of Domestic Interested Party 

GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc.,’’ dated 

August 2, 2010. 

On August 19, 2010, the domestic 

interested parties filed additional 

information and data, supplementing 

their Circumvention Allegation, titled 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Order on Glycine 

from the People’s Republic of China— 

Circumvention of Antidumping Duty 

Order’’ (‘‘August 19, 2010 submission’’), 

in which the domestic interested parties 

also included an anti-circumvention 

allegation against a third company, 

Salvi, and its export arm, Nutracare 

International. In their Circumvention 

Allegation, as supplemented, the 

domestic interested parties allege that 

all three Indian companies are 

importing technical-grade glycine from 

companies in the PRC, processing 1 and/ 

or repackaging the PRC-origin glycine, 

then exporting the finished product to 

the United States, marked as Indianorigin glycine. 

On August 31, 2010, the Department 

requested the domestic interested 

parties to provide additional 

information to justify their claim that 

there is a clear and compelling need to 

withhold certain double bracketed 

information in their August 19, 2010, 

submission from disclosure under an 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’). 

On September 7, 2010, the domestic 

interested parties provided such 

justification in a response to the 

Department’s request, thus satisfying the 

basic requirements for filing a request 

for an anti-circumvention inquiry. See 

Letter from the Domestic Interested 

Parties to the Department, entitled 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Order on Glycine 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’) Scope Determination Request 

Based on Circumvention Inquiry: 

Response of Domestic Glycine Industry 

to Department’s August 31, 2010 Letter.’’ 

In response to this submission, on 

September 8, 2010, the Department 

established an APO and a Public Service 

List for this segment of the proceeding. 

See the Memorandum to the File ‘‘Scope 

Request Based on Circumvention 

Inquiry: Glycine from the PRC,’’ dated 

September 8, 2010. 

On September 23, 2010, the 

Department conducted a telephone 

interview with the foreign market 

researcher to corroborate the 

information in the market report that the 

domestic interested parties filed on the 

record as support for their allegations 

and to clarify the details of the research 

process. See the Memorandum to the 

File entitled ‘‘Antidumping 

Circumvention Inquiry: Telephone 

Interview with the Foreign Market 

Researcher,’’ dated October 5, 2010 

(‘‘Telephone Interview Memo’’). 

On October 6, 2010, the domestic 

interested parties amended their request 

for the initiation of an anticircumvention inquiry with respect to 

AICO, citing to the Telephone Interview 

Memo. See domestic interested parties’ 

submission, titled ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Order on Glycine from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC): Antidumping 

Circumvention Inquiry—Amendment to 

Domestic Industry’s Circumvention 

Allegation based on Department’s 

Memorandum to File’’ (‘‘Amendment 

Letter’’), dated October 6, 2010, at 2. 

Therein, the domestic interested parties 

allege that, based on the telephone 

interview, AICO is both repackaging and 

refining the glycine. Id. 

Scope of Order 

The product covered by this order is 

glycine, which is a free-flowing 

crystalline material, like salt or sugar. 

Glycine is produced at varying levels of 

purity and is used as a sweetener/taste 

enhancer, a buffering agent, reabsorbable amino acid, chemical 

intermediate, and a metal complexing 

agent. Glycine is currently classified 

under subheading 2922.49.4020 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). The scope of 

this order includes glycine of all purity 

levels. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of this 

proceeding is dispositive. 

Initiation of Antidumping AntiCircumvention Inquiry 

Section 781(b)(1) of the Act provides 

that the Department may find 

circumvention of an antidumping duty 

order when merchandise of the same 

class or kind subject to the order is 

completed or assembled in a foreign 

country other than the country to which 

the order applies. In conducting anticircumvention inquiries, under section 

781(b)(1) of the Act, the Department will 

also evaluate whether: (1) The process 

of assembly or completion in the other 

foreign country is minor or 

insignificant; (2) the value of the 

merchandise produced in the foreign 

country to which the antidumping duty 

order applies is a significant portion of 

the total value of the merchandise 

exported to the United States; and (3) 

action is appropriate to prevent evasion 

of such an order or finding. As 

discussed below, the domestic 

interested parties supported their claims 

with information available to them with 

respect to these criteria. 

A. Merchandise of the Same Class or 

Kind 

Domestic interested parties state that 

the PRC Glycine Order covers all grades 

and purity levels of glycine and that 

both the Department and U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) have 

determined that purifying or refining 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
66354 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Notices 

2See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Glycine From India, 73 FR 

16640 (March 28, 2008) (Indian Glycine), and the 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 5 (Issues and Decision Memorandum). 

3 Id. 

glycine does not result in a substantial 

transformation necessary to change its 

country of origin. See Circumvention 

Allegation at 5. Therefore, the domestic 

interested parties argue that the 

merchandise being imported into the 

United States from India from Salvi, 

Paras and Aico is of the same class or 

kind as that subject to the PRC Glycine 

Order, pursuant to section 

781(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. To further 

support this allegation, domestic 

interested parties cite to the 

investigation of glycine from India,2

where Paras stated that it was further 

processing PRC-origin glycine into 

higher grades and the Department found 

that ‘‘the further processing incurred in 

India with respect to imported technical 

grade glycine is not substantial enough 

to change the country of origin.’’ 3

Therefore, domestic interested parties 

contend that the PRC-origin glycine 

processed by Paras, Salvi, and AICO in 

India continues to be PRC glycine, and 

therefore is the merchandise of the same 

class or kind as that subject to the PRC 

Glycine Order. 

B. Completion of Merchandise in a 

Foreign Country 

Domestic interested parties allege 

that, based on the face-to-face 

interviews with the market researchers, 

in the case of Paras, Salvi and AICO, all 

three companies acknowledge that they 

have imported technical-grade PRC 

glycine into India, refined it and 

shipped it to the United States. See 

August 19, 2010, submission at 4, 

footnote 7. In addition, the domestic 

interested parties again cite to Indian 

Glycine, in which Paras acknowledged 

it had further-processed PRC glycine in 

India. See August 19, 2010, submission 

at 4. With respect to Salvi, the domestic 

interested parties cite to the foreign 

market research report, titled ‘‘Market 

Survey to Assess the Dynamics of the 

Glycine Market in India’’ (Market 

Research Report), which identifies Salvi 

as an exporter of PRC glycine to the 

United States, which it allegedly refined 

in India,. See August 19, 2010, 

submission at Exhibit 12. With respect 

to AICO, the domestic interested parties 

contend that AICO both repackages and 

refines glycine originating in the PRC. 

See Amendment Letter at 3. 

C. Minor or Insignificant Process 

Domestic interested parties allege that 

for the purposes of section 781(b)(1)(C) 

of the Act, the process of refining or 

purifying technical-grade PRC glycine 

into purified glycine is ‘‘minor or 

insignificant,’’ as defined by the Act. To 

demonstrate that the processing is 

‘‘minor or insignificant,’’ the domestic 

interested parties calculate a cost to 

process the PRC glycine that is imported 

into India, and allegedly performed by 

Paras and Salvi, based on the domestic 

industry’s cost of production. See 

August 19, 2010, submission at Exhibit 

2. They allege that the refining of lowergrade glycine in India does not include 

‘‘the reactor, washing and centrifuge 

steps,’’ which are critical to the 

production process. Id. Domestic 

interested parties conclude that 

refinement costs that do not include 

production-related processes (i.e., the 

reactor, washing and centrifuge steps) 

are insignificant or minor when 

measured against the value of glycine 

exported to the United States. Further, 

the domestic interested parties argue 

that based on their own estimates, the 

cost to refine PRC glycine ranges from 

2.28 percent for AICO to 2.85 percent 

for Paras and Salvi of the average value 

of Indian glycine imported into the 

United States during the period from 

April 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009. 

See August 19, 2010, submission at 5 

and 6. 

D. Value of Merchandise Produced in 

the PRC is a Significant Portion of the 

Total Value of the Merchandise 

Exported to the United States 

Domestic interested parties allege that 

the production process for glycine that 

takes place in the PRC prior to 

processing in India and subsequent 

shipment to the United States accounts 

for the significant portion of the total 

value of the final product. See August 

19, 2010, submission at 5 and 6. 

Domestic interested parties argue that 

an analysis of the relevant statutory 

factors of section 781(b)(2) of the Act 

further supports the conclusion that the 

Indian processing is ‘‘minor or 

insignificant.’’ These factors include: (1) 

Level of investment in the foreign 

country; (2) level of research and 

development in the foreign country; (3) 

nature of the production process in the 

foreign country; (4) extent of production 

facilities in the foreign country; and (5) 

whether the value of the processing 

performed in the foreign country 

represents a small proportion of the 

value of the merchandise imported into 

the United States. The domestic 

interested parties’ analysis of these 

factors, including citations as 

appropriate, is as follows. 

(1) Level of Investment 

Domestic interested parties state that 

manufacturing of glycine requires a 

significant level of investment. See 

August 19, 2010, submission at 8. 

Domestic interested parties further 

contend that unlike the manufacturing 

of glycine, the processing of a lowergrade, PRC-origin glycine into a more 

refined grade does not require a 

significant level of investment, since 

Indian companies are allegedly reprocessing the PRC-origin glycine by 

refining it, and then repackaging the 

PRC-origin glycine. See August 19, 

2010, submission at 6 through 8 and 19. 

(2) Level of Research and Development 

Domestic interested parties state that 

the purification, refining, and 

repackaging of glycine are technically 

mature processes and, therefore, believe 

no research and development is 

required to refine, purify and repackage 

PRC-origin glycine as performed by 

Paras, Salvi, and AICO. See August 19, 

2010, submission at 9. 

(3) Nature of the Production Process 

Domestic interested parties state that 

they were not able to acquire definitive 

information regarding the production 

processes used by Paras, Salvi, and 

AICO. See August 19, 2010 submission 

at 9. However, the domestic interested 

parties describe a possible scenario 

where Paras and Salvi refine PRC 

glycine by placing it in a sieve and then 

repackage the processed PRC-origin 

glycine for export as Indian glycine. Id 

at 9–10. Further, the domestic interested 

parties state that the Department has 

previously determined that Paras’ 

further processing of imported glycine 

into higher-purity grades was not 

significant enough to substantially 

transform the glycine into Indian-origin 

glycine. See August 19, 2010, 

submission at 4, citing to Indian Glycine 

and the accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. 

Domestic interested parties’ allegations 

that AICO’s production process involves 

processing in addition to repackaging 

PRC-origin glycine, are based on the 

Market Research Report and foreign 

market researcher’s statement during the 

telephone interview with the 

Department. See Market Research 

Report at 25; see also Amendment Letter 

at 2. Thus, the domestic interested 

parties claim that the production 

processes of the named Indian 

companies are limited to refining and 

repackaging of technical-grade PRC 

glycine. See August 19, 2010, 

submission at 5. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Notices 66355 

(4) Extent of Production Facilities 

The domestic interested parties allege 

that AICO does not manufacture 

glycine. See August 19, 2010, 

submission at 6. Further, the domestic 

interested parties allege that the extent 

of AICO’s production facilities is 

limited to the facilities required for 

processing and repackaging. See 

Telephone Interview Memo at 4. See 

also August 19, 2010, submission at 6. 

With respect to Paras, the domestic 

interested parties described Paras’s 

production facilities, as it pertained to 

the processing of PRC-origin glycine, as 

consisting of a refining line, in which 

PRC glycine bypasses the reactor, 

washing and centrifuge steps. See 

August 19, 2009, submission at 4. 

With respect to Salvi, the domestic 

interested parties claim that Salvi’s 

operation is similar to Paras’s operation. 

See August 19, 2010, submission at 2. 

(5) Value of Processing Performed in 

India Represents a Small Proportion of 

the Value of the Merchandise Imported 

into the United States 

Domestic interested parties allege that 

the production process for glycine that 

takes place in the PRC prior to refining 

in India and subsequent shipment to the 

United States accounts for the vast 

majority of the total value of the final 

product. See August 19, 2010, 

submission, Exhibits 2 and 3. See also 

Market Research Report at 25. Domestic 

interested parties claim that the value of 

processing performed in India 

represents a small portion of the value, 

compared to either the cost of 

production or import value. See August 

19, 2010, submission at 5 and at Exhibit 

2. In support of their claim, domestic 

interested parties submit the domestic 

industry’s estimated cost of Paras’s and 

Salvi’s processing of PRC glycine. 

According to their calculations, both 

companies’ estimated cost of processing 

(i.e., ‘‘repackaging and refining cost’’) 

amounts to $0.0784 per pound, 

representing 2.85 percent of the average 

value of Indian glycine imported into 

the United States. Id. In addition, based 

on the analysis of AICO’s financial 

statements, the domestic interested 

parties contend that AICO’s purchases 

of imported goods were the dominant 

components of its 2007 and 2009 costs 

of goods sold. See August 19, 2010, 

submission at 18. According to the 

domestic interested parties’ calculations 

of AICO’s estimated processing cost of 

PRC glycine, its value amounts to 

$0.0628 per pound, or 2.28 percent of 

the average value of Indian glycine 

imported to the United States. See 

August 19, 2010, submission at 6 and at 

Exhibit 3. Therefore, the domestic 

interested parties contend that the value 

of glycine processing that is performed 

in India represents a small portion of 

the value of the glycine imported to the 

United States. Id. 

Factors to Consider in Determining 

Whether Action is Necessary 

Domestic interested parties argue that 

the additional factors contained in 

section 781(b)(3) of the Act must also be 

considered in the Department’s decision 

whether to issue a finding of anticircumvention regarding importation of 

Indian glycine. 

Pattern of Trade 

Domestic interested parties state that 

section 781(b)(3)(C) of the Act directs 

the Department to take into account the 

pattern of trade, including sourcing 

patterns, when making a decision 

whether to include merchandise 

assembled or completed in India within 

the scope of the PRC Glycine Order. 

Domestic interested parties allege that 

from 2008 to 2009, glycine imports from 

the PRC to the United States decreased 

by 96.5 percent and imports of glycine 

from India rose by 13.8 percent and 

India’s share of the U.S. glycine imports 

rose from 27 percent to 50 percent over 

the same time period. See August 19, 

2010, submission at 12 and at Exhibit 5. 

Domestic interested parties also point 

out that the market share of total U.S. 

imports of glycine from the PRC 

dropped from 38 percent to 2 percent 

over the same time period. Id. 

Affiliation 

None of the companies alleged to be 

circumventing the order are alleged to 

be affiliated with PRC producers. 

However, the domestic interested 

parties claim a buyer/seller relationship 

exists between AICO and Chiyuen 

International Trading Ltd., a 

manufacturer in the PRC of amino acetic 

acid (i.e., glycine). See August 19, 2010, 

submission at 18. 

Subsequent Import Volume 

Domestic interested parties cite to 

section 781(b)(3)(C) of the Act, which 

directs the Department to take into 

account whether imports of the 

merchandise into the foreign country 

have increased after the initiation of the 

investigation which resulted in the 

issuance of such an order or finding 

when making a decision on anticircumvention rulings. Domestic 

interested parties allege that from 2003– 

2004 to 2008–2009, imports into India 

of PRC glycine rose more than 246 

percent. See August 19, 2010, 

submission at 13. 

Analysis 

Based on our analysis of the domestic 

interested parties’ anti-circumvention 

inquiry request, as supplemented, and 

our September 23, 2010, phone call with 

the foreign market researcher, the 

Department determines that the 

domestic interested parties have 

satisfied the criteria under section 

781(b)(1) of the Act to warrant the 

Department’s initiation of an anticircumvention inquiry. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.225(e), if the 

Department finds that the issue of 

whether a product is included within 

the scope of an order cannot be 

determined based solely upon the 

application and the descriptions of the 

merchandise contained in the petition, 

the investigation and other 

determinations, the Department will 

notify by mail all parties on the 

Department’s scope service list of the 

initiation of a scope inquiry, including 

an anti-circumvention inquiry. In 

addition, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.225(f)(1)(ii), a notice of the 

initiation of an anti-circumvention 

inquiry issued under paragraph (e) of 

this section will include a description of 

the product that is the subject of the 

anti-circumvention inquiry, i.e., glycine 

from the PRC that is processed and/or 

repackaged in India, as provided in the 

scope of the PRC Glycine Order, and an 

explanation of the reasons for the 

Department’s decision to initiate the 

anti-circumvention inquiry, as provided 

below. 

With regard to whether the 

merchandise from India is of the same 

class or kind as the merchandise 

produced in the PRC, the domestic 

interested parties have presented 

information to the Department which 

appears to indicate that, pursuant to 

section 781(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the 

merchandise being produced in and/or 

exported from India by AICO, Paras and 

Salvi may be of the same class or kind 

as glycine produced in the PRC and 

subject to the PRC Glycine Order. 

Consequently, the Department finds that 

the domestic interested parties provided 

sufficient information in its request, as 

supplemented regarding the class or 

kind of merchandise to warrant 

initiation of an anti-circumvention 

inquiry. 

With regard to completion or 

assembly of merchandise in a foreign 

country, pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(B) 

of the Act, the domestic interested 

parties have also presented information 

to the Department which appears to 

indicate that certain glycine exported 

from India to the United States is being 

further processed by AICO, Paras and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
66356 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Notices 

Salvi using glycine imported into India 

from the PRC. We find that the 

information presented by the domestic 

interested parties regarding this 

criterion supports their request to 

initiate an anti-circumvention inquiry. 

The Department believes that the 

domestic interested parties sufficiently 

addressed the factors described by 

sections 781(b)(1)(C) and 781(b)(2) of 

the Act regarding whether the 

processing of glycine in India is minor 

or insignificant. Specifically, in support 

of its argument, the domestic interested 

parties relied on information from 

Indian Glycine, on the domestic 

interested parties’ calculations based on 

their estimated cost of production and 

cost of processing and repackaging of 

PRC-origin glycine, allegedly performed 

by Paras, Salvi, and AICO, and 

information in the Market Research 

Report as described above. Thus, we 

find that the information presented by 

the domestic interested parties supports 

their request, as supplemented, to 

initiate an anti-circumvention inquiry. 

In particular, for the purposes of 

initiation, we find that the domestic 

interested parties have sufficiently 

supported their allegations that: (1) 

Little investment has been made by 

either Paras, Salvi, or AICO in their 

respective processing of PRC glycine; (2) 

Paras, Salvi, and AICO perform 

processing and repackaging of the 

lower-grade PRC glycine, which are 

technologically mature processes that 

do not require research and 

development by these companies; (3) 

the mere processing of the lower-grade 

glycine through refinement, 

purification, and repackaging does not 

alter the fundamental characteristics of 

the glycine, or whether it is subject to 

the scope of the PRC Glycine Order; (4) 

Paras’s, Salvi’s, and AICO’s facilities for 

processing and repackaging PRC glycine 

do not require the typically capitalintensive production facilities needed to 

manufacture glycine; and (5) refining 

and repackaging of PRC glycine 

represents a small proportion of the 

value of the merchandise exported to 

the United States. 

Our analysis will focus on Paras’s, 

Salvi’s, and AICO’s processing 

operations in India and, in the context 

of this proceeding, we will closely 

examine the extent of processing done 

in India, as well as Paras’s, Salvi’s, and 

AICO’s relationships with glycine 

suppliers in the PRC. With respect to 

the value of the merchandise produced 

in the PRC, pursuant to section 

781(b)(1)(D) of the Act, the domestic 

interested parties relied on their 

information and arguments presented in 

the ‘‘minor or insignificant’’ portion of 

their anti-circumvention request, as 

supplemented, to indicate that the value 

of PRC glycine may be significant 

relative to the total value of the glycine 

processed and repackaged in India and 

then exported to the United States. We 

find that the information provided 

adequately addresses this factor, as 

discussed above, for the purposes of 

initiating an anti-circumvention inquiry. 

Finally, the domestic interested 

parties argue that, pursuant to section 

781(b)(3) of the Act, the Department 

should also consider the pattern of 

trade, affiliation, and subsequent import 

volumes as factors in determining 

whether to initiate an anticircumvention inquiry. The export and 

import data submitted by the domestic 

interested parties suggests that imports 

of glycine from the PRC into India rose 

significantly in recent years. 

Accordingly, based on the domestic 

interested parties’ allegations, as 

supplemented, we have determined that 

domestic interested parties have 

provided a sufficient basis to initiate an 

anti-circumvention inquiry concerning 

the PRC Glycine Order, pursuant to 

section 781(b) of the Act. These anticircumvention inquiries pertain solely 

to Paras, Salvi, and AICO. 

If, within sufficient time, the 

Department receives a formal request 

from an interested party regarding 

potential anti-circumvention of the PRC 

Glycine Order by other Indian 

companies, we will consider conducting 

additional inquiries concurrently. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.225(l)(2), if the Department issues a 

preliminary affirmative determination, 

we will then instruct CBP to suspend 

liquidation and require a cash deposit of 

estimated duties on the merchandise. 

The Department will, following 

consultation with interested parties, 

establish a schedule for questionnaires 

and comments on the issues. The 

Department intends to issue its final 

determination within 300 days of the 

date of publication of this initiation. See 

section 781(f) of the Act. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: October 22, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27294 Filed 10–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Materials Processing Equipment 

Technical Advisory Committee; Notice 

of Partially Closed Meeting 

The Materials Processing Equipment 

Technical Advisory Committee 

(MPETAC) will meet on November 17, 

2010, 9 a.m., Room 6087B, in the 

Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street 

between Pennsylvania and Constitution 

Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The 

Committee advises the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration with respect to technical 

questions that affect the level of export 

controls applicable to materials 

processing equipment and related 

technology. 

Agenda: 

Open Session 

1. Opening Remarks and 

Introductions. 

2. Presentation of Papers and 

Comments by the Public. 

3. Discussion on Proposals from last 

and for next Wassenaar Meeting. 

4. Report on Proposed changes to the 

Export Administration Regulation. 

5. Other Business. 

Closed Session 

6. Discussion of matters determined to 

be exempt from the provisions relating 

to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. 

app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). 

The open session will be accessible 

via teleconference to 20 participants on 

a first come, first serve basis. To join the 

conference, submit inquiries to Ms. 

Yvette Springer at 

Yspringer@bis.doc.gov no later than 

November 10, 2010. 

A limited number of seats will be 

available for the public session. 

Reservations are not accepted. To the 

extent that time permits, members of the 

public may present oral statements to 

the Committee. The public may submit 

written statements at any time before or 

after the meeting. However, to facilitate 

the distribution of public presentation 

materials to the Committee members, 

the Committee suggests that presenters 

forward the public presentation 

materials prior to the meeting to Ms. 

Springer via e-mail. 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Administration, with the concurrence of 

the delegate of the General Counsel, 

formally determined on October 15, 

2010, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § (10)(d)), that 

the portion of the meeting dealing with 

matters the disclosure of which would 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES