[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4667-4671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01743]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-570-011]
Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the
People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigation
AGENCY: Enforcement & Compliance, formerly Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: January 29, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Justin Neuman or Milton Koch, Office
VII, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone; (202) 482-
0486 or (202) 482-2584, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 4668]]
The Petition
On December 31, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of
certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products (certain solar cells
and panels) from the People's Republic of China (PRC), filed in proper
form by SolarWorld Industries America, Inc. (Petitioner), a domestic
producer of certain solar cells and panels. The CVD petition was
accompanied by an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of
certain solar cells and panels.\1\ Between January 3 and January 9,
2014, the Department requested additional information and clarification
of certain areas of the Petition, and between January 7 and January 13,
2014, Petitioner filed a timely response to each request.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties Pursuant to Sections 701 and 731 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, As Amended,'' (December 31, 2013) (Petition).
\2\ See Petitioner's filings, ``Supplement to the China CVD
Petition,'' (January 7, 2014) (China CVD Supplement); ``General
Issues Supplement to the Petition,'' (January 9, 2014) (General
Issues Supplement); and ``Second General Issues Supplement to the
Petition,'' (January 13, 2014) (Second General Issues Supplement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), Petitioner alleges that producers/exporters of
certain solar cells and panels in the PRC received countervailable
subsidies under thirty-three programs within the meaning of sections
701 and 771(5) of the Act, and that imports from these producers/
exporters materially injure, or threaten material injury to, an
industry in the United States.
The Department finds that Petitioner filed this Petition on behalf
of the domestic industry because it is an interested party defined in
section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and that Petitioner has demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that
it is requesting the Department to initiate (see ``Determination of
Industry Support for the Petition'' below).
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2012, through
December 31, 2012, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
Scope of the Investigation
The products covered by this investigation are certain solar cells
and panels the PRC.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Appendix I of this notice for a full description of the
scope of this investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on the Scope of the Investigation
During our review of the Petition, we solicited information from
Petitioner to ensure that the proposed scope language is 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.\4\ Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the Department's
regulations,\5\ 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 this investigation, 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.\6\ The Department encourages all interested
parties to submit such comments by February 11, 2014, which is 20
calendar days from the signature date of this notice. All comments must
be filed on the record of the CVD investigation, as well as the
concurrent AD investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Letter from Suniva, ``Request for Comment Period on
Scope for Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the
People's Republic of China,'' (January 15, 2014).
\5\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
\6\ The AD and CVD Orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic
cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from the PRC, cover
modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third-country from
cells produced in the PRC; however, modules, laminates, and panels
produced in the PRC from cells produced in a third-country are not
covered by the scope of the Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically
using Enforcement & Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). An electronically
filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the
Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. on the due
date. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements
must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with the Enforcement &
Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, 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 deadline established
by the Department.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b)(1). Information on help using IAACCESS
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%20Filing%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, on January 2,
2014, the Department invited representatives from the Government of
China (GOC) for consultations with respect to the CVD Petition.
Consultations were held with the GOC on January 10, 2014.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Ex-Parte Memorandum to the File from Justin Neuman,
International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII,
Enforcement & Compliance, ``Consultations with Officials from the
Government of the People's Republic of China Regarding the
Countervailing Duty Petition Concerning Certain Crystalline Silicon
Photovoltaic Products,'' (January 13, 2014) (Consultations
Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination of Industry Support for the Petition
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(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 702(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
[[Page 4669]]
the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,\9\
they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and
distinct authority. In addition, the Department's 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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\10\ 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.\11\ 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. . . .'' \12\ 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.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 24; see, also 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.
\12\ See General Issues Supplement, at 4.
\13\ See Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist:
Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from the People's
Republic of China (PRC CVD 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). This checklist is dated concurrently with this notice and 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
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product
as defined in the Petition. 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.\14\ 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.\15\ We have relied upon data Petitioner provided for purposes of
measuring industry support.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Volume I of the Petition, 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.
\15\ See Volume I of the Petition, at Exhibits I-5 and I-6.
\16\ See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 10, 2014, in its consultations with the Department, the
GOC raised the issue of industry support.\17\ 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).\18\ Petitioner responded
to the PRC Producers/Exporters' comments on January 15, 2014.\19\ PRC
Producers/Exporters filed a rebuttal to Petitioner on January 17,
2014.\20\ For further discussion of these comments, see the PRC CVD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Consultations Memorandum.
\18\ See Letter from Yingli Green Energy Holding Company
Limited, Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc., and Canadian Solar
Inc., (January 15, 2014).
\19\ See Letter from Petitioner, (January 15, 2014).
\20\ See Letter from Yingli Green Energy Holding Company
Limited, Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc., and Canadian Solar
Inc., (January 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on information provided in the Petition, supplemental
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department,
we determine that Petitioner has met the statutory criteria for
industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at
least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like
product.\21\ Based on information provided in the Petition, the
domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for
industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition 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 Petition. Accordingly, the Department determines
that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within
the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf
of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined
in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the countervailing duty investigation
that it is requesting the Department initiate.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury Test
Because the PRC is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act
applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine
whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially
injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
Petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are
benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are
causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry
producing the domestic like product. In addition, Petitioner alleges
that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 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
[[Page 4670]]
performance.\25\ We have assessed the 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.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Volume I of the Petition, 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, at
5-11 and Exhibits I-Supp-7 through I-Supp-15.
\26\ See PRC CVD 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a
CVD proceeding whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on
behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for an
imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is
accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners
supporting the allegations.
The Department has examined the Petition on certain solar cells and
panels from the PRC and finds that it complies with the requirements of
section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section
702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a CVD investigation to
determine whether producers/exporters of certain solar cells and panels
in the PRC receive countervailable subsidies. For a discussion of
evidence supporting our initiation determination, see the CVD
Initiation Checklist which accompanies this notice.
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 28 alleged
programs. For the other five programs alleged by Petitioner, we have
determined that the requirements for initiation have not been met. For
a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate or not
initiate on each program, see the CVD Initiation Checklist.
Respondent Selection
For this investigation, the Department intends to select
respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for
U.S. imports during the POI (i.e., calendar year 2012) under the
following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States numbers:
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. We intend to release the
CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties
with access to information protected by APO within five days of the
announcement of the initiation of this investigation. Interested
parties may submit comments regarding the CBP data and respondent
selection within seven calendar days of release of this data. We intend
to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of
publication of this Federal Register notice.
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such
applications may be found on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo/index.html.
Distribution of Copies of the CVD Petition
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been
provided to the representatives of the GOC. Because of the particularly
large number of producers/exporters identified in the Petition, the
Department considers the service of the public version of the petition
to the foreign producers/exporters satisfied by the delivery of the
public version to the GOC, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
702(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date
on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable
indication that imports of subsidized certain solar cells and panels
from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S.
industry.\27\ A negative ITC determination will result in the
investigation being terminated.\28\ Otherwise, the investigation will
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.
\28\ See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 this investigation.
Please review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to
submitting factual information in this investigation.
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.\29\ 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
[[Page 4671]]
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) quantity and value 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 the
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 this segment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790
(September 20, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\30\
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are
in effect for company/government officials as well as their
representatives in all AD or CVD investigations or proceedings
initiated on or after August 16, 2013, including this
investigation.\31\ The formats for the revised certifications are
provided at the end of the Final Rule. The Department intends to reject
factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the
revised certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\31\ See Certification of Factual Information To Import
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: January 22, 2014.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation 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 this investigation, 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 this investigation 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 this investigation 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 this investigation 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 this investigation 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 this
investigation is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2014-01743 Filed 1-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P