[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4661-4667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01738]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-010, A-583-853]


Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the 
People's Republic of China and Taiwan: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: January 29, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Pedersen at (202) 482-2769 
(the People's Republic of China (PRC)); or Karine Gziryan at (202) 482-
4081 (Taiwan), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petitions

    On December 31, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of certain 
crystalline silicon photovoltaic products (certain solar cells and 
panels) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan.\1\ The 
Petitions were filed in proper form on behalf of SolarWorld Industries 
America, Inc. (Petitioner). Petitioner is a domestic producer of solar 
cells and panels. The Petitions were accompanied by a countervailing 
duty (CVD) petition on imports of certain solar cells and panels from 
the PRC. On January 3, 6, 9 and 10, 2014, the Department requested 
additional information and clarification of certain areas of the 
Petitions. Petitioner filed responses to these requests on January 8, 
9, 13, 15, and 17, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 
Imports of Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From 
the People's Republic of China and Taiwan,'' dated December 31, 2013 
(the Petitions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), Petitioner alleges that imports of certain solar 
cells and panels from the PRC and Taiwan are being, or are likely to 
be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the 
meaning of section 731 of the Act and that such imports are materially 
injuring, and threatening material injury to, an industry in the United 
States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the 
Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to 
Petitioner supporting its allegations.
    The Department finds that Petitioner filed these Petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested 
party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also 
finds that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficient industry support with 
respect to the initiation of

[[Page 4662]]

the AD investigations that Petitioner is requesting.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petitions'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Periods of Investigations

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), because the Petitions were filed 
on December 31, 2013, the period of investigation (POI) for the PRC 
investigation is April 1, 2013, through September 30, 2013. The POI for 
the Taiwan investigation is October 1, 2012, through September 30, 
2013.

Scope of the Investigations

    The products covered by these investigations are certain solar 
cells and panels from the PRC and Taiwan. For a full description of the 
scope of the investigations, see the ``Scope of the Investigations'' in 
Appendix I of this notice.

Comments on the Scope of Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions 
to, and received responses from, Petitioner pertaining to the proposed 
scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an 
accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is 
seeking relief. Also, on January 15, 2014, Suniva, Inc. (``Suniva''), a 
U.S. producer of certain solar cells and panels, submitted comments on 
the scope.\3\ As discussed in the preamble to the regulations,\4\ we 
are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues 
regarding product coverage. Parties should note that when considering 
product coverage with respect to these investigations, the Department 
will be informed by the product coverage decisions that it made in the 
investigations that resulted in the existing orders on crystalline 
silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from 
the PRC.\5\ The Department encourages all interested parties to submit 
such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 11, 2014. All 
comments must be filed on the records of the PRC and Taiwan AD 
investigations, as well as the concurrent PRC CVD investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Letter from Suniva, dated January 15, 2014.
    \4\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
    \5\ In the investigations covering crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from the 
PRC, the Department determined that modules, laminates, and panels 
produced in a third-country from cells produced in the PRC are 
covered by the scope of the investigations; however, modules, 
laminates, and panels produced in the PRC from cells produced in a 
third-country are not covered by the scope of the investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically 
using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS).\6\ An electronically 
filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by 5:00 
p.m. on the date of the applicable deadline. Documents excepted from 
the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in 
paper form) with the APO/Dockets Unit of Enforcement and Compliance, 
Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of 
receipt by the applicable deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order 
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011) for details of the 
Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect 
on August 5, 2011. Information on help using IA ACCESS can be found 
at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found 
at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires

    The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding 
the appropriate physical characteristics of certain solar cells and 
panels to be reported in response to the Department's AD 
questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key 
physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report 
the relevant factors and costs of production (COPs) accurately as well 
as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.
    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that 
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of 
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to 
which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product 
characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is 
not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-
comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful 
commercial differences among products. In other words, while there may 
be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to 
describe certain solar cells and panels, it may be that only a select 
few product characteristics take into account commercially-meaningful 
physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment 
on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in 
matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most 
important physical characteristics first and the least important 
characteristics last.
    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in 
developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, we must receive comments 
on product characteristics by February 5, 2014. Rebuttal comments must 
be received by February 12, 2014. All comments and submissions to the 
Department must be filed electronically using IA ACCESS, as referenced 
above.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department 
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to 
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by 
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a 
statistically valid sampling method to poll the industry.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine 
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute 
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the 
domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), 
which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' 
has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like 
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and 
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic 
like product,\7\ they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a 
separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's

[[Page 4663]]

determination is subject to limitations of time and information. 
Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, 
such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary 
to law.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See section 771(10) of the Act
    \8\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. 
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 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 title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition).
    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner offers a 
definition of the domestic like product that includes certain 
crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and modules and notes that the 
like product definition in this proceeding is identical to the 
definition of the like product in the Department's and the ITC's 
investigation of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not 
assembled into modules, from China.\9\ According to Petitioner, 
``{t{time} he definition of the domestic like product in the Petition 
differs only slightly from the proposed scope of the investigations . . 
.'' and ``slight differences in the definition of the domestic like 
product and the scope of an investigation are permissible under the 
statute . . .'' \10\ Based on our analysis of the information submitted 
on the record, we have determined that certain crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic cells and modules constitute a single domestic like 
product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic 
like product.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 24; see also General 
Issues Supplement to the Petitions, dated January 9, 2014 (General 
Issues Supplement), at Exhibit I-Supp-1; Crystalline Silicon 
Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the 
People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigation, 76 FR 70960, 70961 (November 16, 2011); Crystalline 
Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, 
From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing 
Duty Investigation, 76 FR 70966, 70967-8 (November 16, 2011); and 
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells and Modules From the People's 
Republic of China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-481 and 731-TA-1190 (Final) 
USITC Pub. 4360 (December 2012), at 6-12.
    \10\ See General Issues Supplement, at 4.
    \11\ See Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the People's 
Republic of China (PRC AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, 
Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Petitions Covering Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic 
Products From the People's Republic of China and Taiwan (Attachment 
II); and Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from Taiwan 
(Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II. These checklists 
are dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice and 
are on file electronically via IA ACCESS. Access to documents filed 
via IA ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit (CRU), 
Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the Petitions. To establish industry support, Petitioner 
provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2012, and 
compared this to the estimated total production of the domestic like 
product for the entire domestic industry.\12\ Petitioner obtained total 
2012 production of the domestic like product using data published by 
Solar Energy Industries Association/Greentech Media Research in U.S. 
Solar Market Insight 2012 Year in Review and other publicly available 
data.\13\ We have relied upon data Petitioner provided for purposes of 
measuring industry support.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 8-10 and Exhibits I-3, I-
5, and I-6; see also General Issues Supplement, at 5-8 and Exhibits 
I-Supp-1, I-Supp-2, I-Supp-3 and I-Supp-6.
    \13\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibits I-5 and I-6.
    \14\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist and Taiwan AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 10, 2014, in consultations the Department held with 
respect to the companion CVD case on imports of certain solar cells and 
modules from the PRC, the Government of China raised the issue of 
industry support.\15\ On January 15, 2014, we received comments on 
industry support from Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited, 
Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc., and Canadian Solar Inc 
(collectively, PRC Producers/Exporters).\16\ Petitioner responded to 
the PRC Producers/Exporters' comments on January 15, 2014.\17\ PRC 
Producers/Exporters filed a rebuttal to Petitioner on January 17, 
2014.\18\ For further discussion of these comments, see the PRC AD 
Initiation Checklist and the Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist, at 
Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Memorandum to the File from Vicki Flynn, dated January 
14, 2014, titled ``Placing Consultations Memorandum on the AD 
Records.''
    \16\ See Letter from Yingli Green Energy Holding Company 
Limited, Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc., and Canadian Solar 
Inc., dated January 14, 2014.
    \17\ See Letter from Petitioner, dated January 15, 2014.
    \18\ See Letter from Yingli Green Energy Holding Company 
Limited, Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc., and Canadian Solar 
Inc., dated January 17, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on information provided in the Petitions, supplemental 
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department, 
we determine that Petitioner has met the statutory criteria for 
industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the 
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for 
at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like 
product.\19\ Based on information provided in the Petitions, the 
domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for 
industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the 
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for 
more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product 
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or 
opposition to, the Petitions. Accordingly, the Department determines 
that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within 
the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist and Taiwan AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf 
of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined 
in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and that it has demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the AD investigations that it is 
requesting the Department initiate.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with 
material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise 
sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, Petitioner alleges 
that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for 
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See General Issues Supplement, at 8 and Exhibit I-Supp-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price depression 
or suppression; lost sales and revenues; shuttered production and 
hindered capacity utilization; reduced employment; and decline in 
industry financial performance.\23\ We have assessed the

[[Page 4664]]

allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat 
of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these 
allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the 
statutory requirements for initiation.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 5-7, 20-22, 33-67 and 
Exhibits I-1, I-4, I-13 through I-14, I-16 through I-20, and I-22 
through I-30; General Issues Supplement, at 8-9 and Exhibits I-Supp-
1, I-Supp-4 and I-Supp-5; and Second General Issues Supplement, 
dated January 13, 2014 (Second General Issues Supplement), at 5-11 
and Exhibits I-Supp-7 through I-Supp-15.
    \24\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, 
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and 
Causation for the Petitions Covering Certain Crystalline Silicon 
Photovoltaic Products from the People's Republic of China and Taiwan 
(Attachment III); see also Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist, at 
Attachment III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate AD investigations of imports of certain solar cells and panels 
from the PRC and Taiwan. The sources of data for the deductions and 
adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater 
detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.

Constructed Export Price--PRC

    Petitioner calculated constructed export price (CEP) based on an 
offer for sales of solar panels assembled in, and exported from, the 
subject country by a manufacturer of subject merchandise. Petitioner 
classified these offers as CEP transactions because it believed that 
this manufacturer's products were sold by their U.S. affiliates. 
Petitioner made deductions from the U.S. price for movement expenses, 
consistent with the delivery terms. Petitioner also deducted from the 
U.S. price U.S. selling expenses and CEP profit, both of which it 
estimated using the financial statements of First Solar, Inc., a U.S. 
producer of solar modules utilizing thin-film technologies.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ For details regarding all adjustments to CEP, see the PRC 
AD Initiation Checklist at 6-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Constructed Export Price--Taiwan

    Petitioner calculated CEP based on offers for sales of solar panels 
which were exported from the subject country in the form of laminates 
and further manufactured in the United States by the U.S. affiliate of 
the Taiwanese producer of the laminates. Petitioner classified these 
offers as CEP transactions because it believed that these products were 
sold by the U.S. affiliate of the Taiwanese producer. Petitioner 
calculated the further manufacturing costs in the United States using 
its own production experience and subtracted the further manufacturing 
cost related to the production of finished modules in the United States 
from the quoted U.S. price. Petitioner made deductions from the U.S. 
price for movement expenses, consistent with the delivery terms. 
Petitioner also deducted from the U.S. price U.S. indirect selling 
expenses and CEP profit, both of which it estimated using the financial 
statements of First Solar, Inc., a U.S. producer of solar modules 
utilizing thin-film technologies.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ For details regarding all adjustments to CEP, see the 
Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist at 6-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NV--PRC

    Petitioner calculated NV for the panels assembled in the PRC using 
a methodology that was based on the conclusion that the solar cells 
that were used in the panels were produced in Taiwan from wafers 
manufactured in the PRC.\27\ Petitioner states that the Department has 
long treated the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) country.\28\ 
Accordingly, Petitioner calculated the portion of NV that was based on 
production performed in the PRC using the Department's NME methodology, 
as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 351.408. 
Specifically, Petitioner calculated the portion of NV relating to 
production performed in the PRC using factors of production (FOPs) 
valued in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with 
section 773(c) of the Act. Petitioner contends that Thailand is the 
appropriate surrogate country for the PRC because: (1) It is at a level 
of economic development comparable to that of the PRC; (2) it is a 
significant producer of identical merchandise; and (3) that the 
availability and quality of data are good.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at 6.
    \28\ See Volume II of the Petitions, at 14.
    \29\ Id., at 15-17, 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the 
presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the 
Department. The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been 
revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for 
purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Hence, an NME 
methodology is appropriate for valuing production performed in the PRC. 
Moreover, based on the information provided by Petitioner, we believe 
that it is appropriate to use Thailand as a surrogate country for 
initiation purposes. After initiation of the investigation, interested 
parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding 
surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), 
will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available 
information to value factors of production no later than 30 days before 
the date of the preliminary determination. In addition, in the course 
of the investigation covering merchandise from the PRC, all parties, 
including the public, will have the opportunity to provide relevant 
information related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and the 
granting of separate rates to individual exporters.
    Petitioner calculated a portion of the NV for the PRC Petition 
based on the cost of producing solar cells in Taiwan using PRC wafers. 
Petitioner determined the cost of the solar cells produced in Taiwan by 
valuing FOPs for the Taiwanese production using import prices in 
Taiwan.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factors of Production

    Petitioner based the FOPs for materials, labor, and energy on the 
consumption rates of a surrogate producer of panels. Petitioner asserts 
that these consumption rates are reasonably available information, 
which, to the best of its knowledge, are an appropriate surrogate for 
consumption of producers of the merchandise under consideration in the 
PRC because this surrogate producer is comparable to the PRC producers 
of the merchandise under consideration.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Volume II of the Petitions, at 15, 22-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Raw Materials and Packing Materials

    Petitioner valued the FOPs for various raw material inputs used to 
produce subject merchandise in the PRC based on Thai import data for 
the POI from Global Trade Atlas (GTA) under corresponding Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule (HTS) numbers.\32\ Petitioner added to the raw material 
surrogate values the inland freight charges reported for importing 
goods into Thailand, as published by the World Bank in Doing Business 
2014: Thailand.\33\ Petitioner excluded from its surrogate values all 
import values from countries previously determined by the Department to 
maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and 
from countries previously determined by the Department to be

[[Page 4665]]

NME countries.\34\ In addition, in accordance with the Department's 
practice, the average import value used as a surrogate excludes imports 
that were labeled as originating from an unidentified country. We 
revised the surrogate that Petitioner used to value aluminum frames and 
frame corners because Petitioner used a HTS number that had been 
rejected by the Department in a previous AD proceeding involving solar 
cells and panels from the PRC.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at 8; see also Volume II 
of the Petitions, at 26 and Exhibit II-21; First PRC AD Supplement, 
at 2-3.
    \33\ See Volume II of the Petitions, at Exhibits II-9; see also 
First PRC AD Supplement, at 7-8.
    \34\ See Volume II of the Petitions, at Exhibits II-19, II-20 
and II-21.
    \35\ See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not 
Assembled into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative 
Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, 77 FR 63791 
(October 17, 2012) and the accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 16, as amended by Crystalline Silicon 
Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the 
People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, and Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 73018 
(December 7, 2012); see also PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at 
Attachment V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For production performed in Taiwan for the module assembled in the 
PRC, Petitioner valued various raw material inputs based on Taiwan 
import data for the POI from GTA under the applicable HTS numbers.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at 8; see also Volume II 
of the Petitions, at 26 and Exhibit II-21; First PRC AD Supplement, 
at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Energy

    For production performed in the PRC, Petitioner valued electricity 
using a 2012 electricity rate in Thai baht per kilowatt hour, as 
reported by the Thai Board of Investment.\37\ In accordance with the 
Department's policy not to adjust energy tariffs for inflation if those 
tariffs are likely still in force, Petitioner did not adjust this value 
for inflation.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Volume II of the Petitions, at 26 and Exhibit II-22.
    \38\ Id.; see also Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks 
from the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 2010-2011, 77 FR 61385 (October 9, 2012), and accompanying 
Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 16, unchanged in Certain Kitchen 
Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's Republic of China; 
2010-2011; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
78 FR 5414 (January 25, 2013); Certain Activated Carbon From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 70208 (November 
17, 2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 4; and Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of 
Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination, 74 
FR 59117 (November 17, 2009), unchanged in Certain Oil Country 
Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final 
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Final Determination of 
Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 (April 19, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For production performed in Taiwan, Petitioner utilized Taiwanese 
electricity rates for industrial users as collected and disseminated by 
the U.S. Department of Energy.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Volume II of the Petitions, at 26 and Exhibit II-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Labor

    For production performed in the PRC, Petitioner valued labor using 
information published in a 2013 industrial survey by the Thailand 
National Statistics Office.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Id., at Exhibit II-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For production performed in Taiwan, Petitioner valued labor using 
2012 data for Taiwan collected by the U.S. Bureau of Labor 
Statistics.\41\ Petitioner adjusted this rate for inflation by 
utilizing the consumer price index, as reported by the U.S. Bureau of 
Labor Statistics.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Volume II of the Petitions, at 27 and Exhibit II-24.
    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Factory Overhead, Selling, General and Administrative 
Expenses, and Profit

    Petitioner calculated factory overhead, selling, general and 
administrative expenses, and profit using data from the 2012-2013 
financial statements of Hana Microelectronics Group, a Thai producer of 
electronics merchandise which Petitioner identified as comparable to 
the merchandise under consideration.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist; see Volume II of the 
Petitions, at 28-29 and Exhibits II-19 and II-24; First PRC AD 
Supplement at 3-4, and Exhibit II-Supp-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NV--Taiwan

    Petitioner based NV on price information from a Taiwanese producer 
of panels for panels sold in the subject country. Petitioner was not 
able to obtain a price quote for a laminate offered for sale in the 
home market during the POI, but did obtain a finished module price. The 
only alleged difference between the finished module and laminate is the 
final stage of the production of the module. Therefore, Petitioner 
believes that an adjustment to the home market price for the difference 
in merchandise is appropriate. Petitioner adjusted the home market 
price by subtracting from the offered price the further manufacturing 
cost related to the production of finished modules in the United 
States, based on Petitioner's own experience. Petitioner made 
adjustments to NV for movement expenses consistent with the sales 
terms. Petitioner made no other adjustments to NV.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Taiwan AD Initiation Checklist, at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to 
believe that imports of certain solar cells and panels from the PRC and 
Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at 
less than fair value. Based on comparisons of CEP to NV, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(1) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for 
certain solar cells and panels from Taiwan is 75.68 percent.\45\ Based 
on a comparison of CEP to NV, in accordance with section 773(c) of the 
Act, the estimated dumping margin for certain solar cells and panels 
from the PRC is 165.04 percent.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Taiwan Initiation Checklist.
    \46\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate an 
AD proceeding whenever an interested party files an AD petition on 
behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for the 
imposition of a duty under section 731 of the Act; and (2) is 
accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners 
supporting the allegations.
    Based upon the examination of the Petitions on certain solar cells 
and panels from the PRC and Taiwan, we find that the Petitions meet the 
requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD 
investigations to determine whether imports of certain solar cells and 
panels from the PRC and Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in 
the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 
733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we 
will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after 
the date of this initiation.

Respondent Selection

    The Petition for Taiwan names 21 companies as producers/exporters 
of certain solar cells and panels. Following the Department's standard 
practice in AD investigations involving market-economy countries, for 
the Taiwanese AD investigation we will select respondents based on U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of certain 
solar cells and panels. We intend to release CBP data under 
Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to 
information protected by APO within five-business

[[Page 4666]]

days of publication of this Federal Register notice. The Department 
invites comments regarding respondent selection within seven days of 
publication of this Federal Register notice.
    The Petition for the PRC names 78 companies as producers/exporters 
of certain solar cells and panels. In accordance with the Department's 
standard practice in AD investigations involving NME countries, for 
respondent selection in the PRC AD investigation we intend to issue 
quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires to each potential respondent 
named in the Petition and base respondent selection on the responses to 
our Q&V questionnaire. In addition, the Department will post the Q&V 
questionnaire along with the filing instructions on Enforcement and 
Compliance's Web site at http://trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp. 
Exporters and producers of certain solar cells and panels from the PRC 
that do not receive a Q&V questionnaire from the Department may still 
submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire using a copy of the 
questionnaire obtained from Enforcement and Compliance's Web site. The 
Q&V questionnaire must be submitted by all PRC producers/exporters no 
later than February 13, 2014. All Q&V questionnaires must be filed 
electronically using IA ACCESS.

Separate Rates

    In order to obtain separate rate status in an NME investigation, 
exporters and producers must submit a separate rate application.\47\ 
The specific requirements for submitting the separate rate application 
in the PRC investigation are outlined in detail in the application 
itself, which will be available on Enforcement and Compliance's Web 
site at http://trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp on the date of 
publication of this initiation notice in the Federal Register. The 
separate rate application will be due 60 days after publication of this 
initiation notice. All separate rate applications must be filed 
electronically using IA ACCESS. For exporters and producers who submit 
a separate rate application and have been selected as mandatory 
respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible 
for consideration for separate rate status unless they respond to all 
parts of the AD questionnaire as mandatory respondents. The Department 
requires that PRC producers/exporters submit a response to both the Q&V 
questionnaire and the separate rate application by their respective 
deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate rate status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (Separate 
Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin), available on the Department's 
Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Combination Rates

    The Department will calculate combination rates for certain 
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME 
investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin 
states:

    {w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate 
rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will 
now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those 
producers that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the 
exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise 
to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both 
to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated 
separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms 
receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. 
This practice is referred to as the application of ``combination 
rates'' because such rates apply to specific combinations of 
exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned 
to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the 
firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter 
during the period of investigation.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin, at 6 
(emphasis added).

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been 
provided to the governments of the PRC and Taiwan via IA ACCESS. 
Because of the particularly large number of producers/exporters 
identified in the Petitions, the Department considers the service of 
the public version of the Petitions to the foreign producers/exporters 
to be satisfied by the provision of the public version of the Petition 
to the governments of the PRC and Taiwan, consistent with 19 CFR 
351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine no later than February 14, 
2014, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of certain 
solar cells and panels from the PRC and Taiwan are materially injuring, 
or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. A negative ITC 
determination for any country will result in the investigation being 
terminated with respect to that country; otherwise, these 
investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time 
limits.

Submission of Factual Information

    On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual 
Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: 
Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two 
regulations related to AD and CVD proceedings: the definition of 
factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for 
the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule 
identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 
351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted 
in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of 
allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors 
under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration 
under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the 
Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described 
in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual 
information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) 
the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted 
to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the 
record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already 
on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or 
correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather 
than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits 
based on the type of factual information being submitted. These 
modifications are effective for all proceeding segments initiated on or 
after May 10, 2013, and thus are applicable to these investigations. 
Please review the final rule, available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04-10/pdf/2013-08227.pdf#page=1, prior to submitting 
factual information in these investigations.

Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\49\ 
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are 
in effect

[[Page 4667]]

for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. 
Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after 
August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings 
initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the 
revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule.\50\ The 
Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting 
party does not comply with applicable revised certification 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \50\ See Certification of Factual Information To Import 
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also 
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revised Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation 
concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in AD and CVD 
proceedings. The modification clarifies that parties may request an 
extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 
expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an 
extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the 
time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which 
are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will 
be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. 
Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, 
filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value 
factors under section 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of 
remuneration under section 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the 
selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) 
comments concerning CBP data; and (5) Q&V questionnaires. Under certain 
circumstances, the Department may elect to specify a different time 
limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for 
submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such 
a case, the Department will inform parties in the letter or memorandum 
setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which 
extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This 
modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a 
separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under 
which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the 
extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all 
segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013. Please review 
Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting 
factual information in these segments.

Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
APO 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). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations 
should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures 
(e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 
351.103(d)).
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

    Dated: January 22, 2014.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I

Scope of the Investigations

    The merchandise covered by these investigations is crystalline 
silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates and/or panels 
consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not 
partially or fully assembled into other products, including building 
integrated materials. For purposes of these investigations, subject 
merchandise also includes modules, laminates and/or panels assembled 
in the subject country consisting of crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic cells that are completed or partially manufactured 
within a customs territory other than that subject country, using 
ingots that are manufactured in the subject country, wafers that are 
manufactured in the subject country, or cells where the 
manufacturing process begins in the subject country and is completed 
in a non-subject country.
    Subject merchandise includes crystalline silicon photovoltaic 
cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a 
p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has 
undergone other processing, including, but not limited to, cleaning, 
etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not 
limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and 
forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.
    Excluded from the scope of these investigations are thin film 
photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (a-Si), 
cadmium telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS). 
Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are any 
products covered by the existing antidumping and countervailing duty 
orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not 
assembled into modules, from the People's Republic of China. See 
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled 
Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Antidumping Duty 
Order, 77 FR 73018 (December 7, 2012); Crystalline Silicon 
Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the 
People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 77 FR 73017 
(December 7, 2012).
    Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are 
crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000mm\2\ in 
surface area, that are permanently integrated into a consumer good 
whose function is other than power generation and that consumes the 
electricity generated by the integrated crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic cell. Where more than one cell is permanently 
integrated into a consumer good, the surface area for purposes of 
this exclusion shall be the total combined surface area of all cells 
that are integrated into the consumer good.
    Merchandise covered by these investigations is currently 
classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) under subheadings 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.8030, 8507.20.8040, 
8507.20.8060, 8507.20.8090, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030 and 
8501.31.8000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of these 
investigations is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2014-01738 Filed 1-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P