Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 70966-70970 [2011-29624]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70966-70970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29624]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-570-980]


Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled 
Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of 
Countervailing Duty Investigation

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: November 16, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Calvert, Jun Jack Zhao or Emily 
Halle, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3586, (202) 482-1396 or (202) 482-0176, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petition

    On October 19, 2011, the Department of Commerce (Department) 
received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of 
crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into 
modules (solar cells), from the People's Republic of China (PRC) filed 
in proper form by SolarWorld Industries America Inc. (Petitioner). See 
Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties 
Against Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not 
Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China, dated 
October 19, 2011 (Petition).
    On October 21, 24 and 31, 2011, and November 4, 2011, the 
Department issued supplemental questionnaires requesting information 
and clarification of certain areas of the Petition.
    On October 24, 2011, the Department issued requests to Petitioner 
for additional information and for clarification of certain areas of 
the general issues, antidumping (AD), and CVD sections of the Petition. 
Based on the Department's requests, Petitioner filed a supplement to 
the Petition regarding the CVD section on October 26, 2011 (Supplement 
I), and requested an extension until October 28, 2011, for the AD and 
general issues supplemental questionnaire. On October 28, 2011, 
Petitioner filed the supplement to the Petition regarding the AD and 
general issues section (Supplement II-A--General Issues and Supplement 
II-B--AD Issues). On October 31, 2011, the Department issued an 
additional request for information, which Petitioner filed on November 
2, 2011 (Supplement III), November 4, 2011 (Supplement IV) and November 
7, 2011 (Supplement V-A--AD Issues and Supplement V-B--General Issues).
    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), Petitioner alleges that producers/exporters of solar 
cells from the PRC received countervailable subsidies within the 
meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, and that imports from 
these producers/exporters materially injure, and threaten further 
material injury to, an industry in the United States.
    The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party, as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and has demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the investigation that it 
requests the Department to initiate. See ``Determination of Industry 
Support for the Petition,'' below.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2010, through 
December 31, 2010.

Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by the scope of this investigation are solar 
cells from the PRC. For a full description of the scope of the 
investigation, see the ``Scope of the Investigation,'' in Appendix I of 
this notice.

Comments on Scope of the Investigation

    During our review of the Petition, we discussed the scope with 
Petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products 
for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Petitioner submitted 
revised scope language on

[[Page 70967]]

November 4, 2011, and November 7, 2011. The November 7, 2011, 
submission included various revisions. Among these revisions was the 
following substantive provision:

    These proceedings cover crystalline silicon PV cells, whether 
exported directly to the United States or via third countries; 
crystalline silicon PV modules/panels produced in the PRC, 
regardless of country of manufacture of the cells used to produce 
the modules or panels, and whether exported directly to the United 
States or via third countries, and crystalline silicon PV modules or 
panels produced in a third country from crystalline silicon PV cells 
manufactured in the PRC, whether exported directly to the United 
States or via third countries.

The Department has not adopted this specific revision recommended by 
Petitioner for the purposes of initiation.\1\ Because Petitioner's 
November 7, 2011, scope submission was filed one day prior to the 
statutory deadline for initiation, the Department has had neither the 
time nor the administrative resources to evaluate Petitioner's proposed 
language regarding merchandise produced using inputs from third-country 
markets, or merchandise processed in third-country markets. 
Petitioner's November 7, 2011, scope submission also contained the 
following language:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We note that the Department has independent authority to 
determine the scope of its investigations. See Diversified Products 
Corp. v. United States, 572 F. Supp. 883, 887 (CIT 1983).

    Unless explicitly excluded from the scope of these proceedings, 
crystalline silicon PV cells possessing the physical characteristics 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of subject merchandise are covered by these proceedings.

The Department has not adopted this specific revision recommended by 
Petitioner for the purposes of initiation because this language is 
superfluous, and appears to add no additional clarification as to the 
description of merchandise covered by the scope of the Petition. 
However, as discussed in the preamble to the regulations, we are 
setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding 
product coverage. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 
27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). The Department encourages interested 
parties to submit such comments by Monday, November 28, 2011, which is 
twenty calendar days from the signature date of this notice. All 
comments must be filed on the records of both the PRC AD investigation 
as well as the PRC CVD investigation. Comments must be filed 
electronically through Import Administration's Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS), 
https://iaaccess.trade.gov, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. See 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing 
Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 
(July 6, 2011). The period of scope consultations is intended to 
provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments 
and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary 
determination.

Consultations

    Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, on October 20, 
2011, the Department invited representatives of the Government of the 
PRC (GOC) for consultations with respect to the CVD petition. On 
November 2, 2011, the Department held consultations with 
representatives of the GOC via conference call. See Memorandum to the 
File, regarding ``Consultations with Officials from the Government of 
the People's Republic of China on the Countervailing Duty Petition 
Regarding Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or 
Not Assembled Into Modules,'' dated November 4, 2011 (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 the same statutory definition regarding the domestic 
like product (see section 771(10) of the Act), 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. 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), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (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 does not offer 
a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the 
investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on 
the record, we have determined that solar cells constitute a single 
domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of 
that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic like 
product analysis in this case, see ``Countervailing Duty Investigation 
Initiation Checklist: Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, 
Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of 
China'' (Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry 
Support for the Petitions Covering Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic 
Cells from the People's Republic of China, on file electronically on IA 
ACCESS, accessible via the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main 
Commerce building, and also accessible on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic versions of the 
Initiation Checklist are identical in content.
    In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section 
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry

[[Page 70968]]

support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic 
like product as defined in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section, 
above. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided its 
production volume of the domestic like product in 2010, and compared 
this to the estimated total production volume of the domestic like 
product for the entire domestic industry. See Initiation Checklist at 
Attachment II. Petitioner estimated 2010 production volume of the 
domestic like product by non-petitioning companies based on production 
data published by an industry source, Photon International, along with 
affidavits of support for the Petition, and its knowledge of the 
industry. We have relied upon data Petitioner provided for purposes of 
measuring industry support. For further discussion, see Initiation 
Checklist at Attachment II.
    On November 2, 2011, in its consultations with the Department, the 
Government of China raised the issue of industry support. See 
Consultations Memorandum; see also Initiation Checklist at Attachment 
II. On November 7, 2011, certain Chinese producers/exporters and 
affiliated importers of Solar Cells, interested parties to this 
proceeding as defined in section 771(9)(A) of the Act filed comments 
regarding industry support. Because the comments did not include 
certifications as required under 19 CFR 351.303(g), we allowed the 
parties to re-file the comments. On November 8, 2011, we received 
comments with proper certifications. On November 8, 2011, the same 
Chinese producers/exporters filed additional comments regarding 
industry support. However, those comments were not limited to industry 
support as required by section 732(c)(4)(E) of the Act. Accordingly, we 
rejected the comments as improperly filed. The interested parties re-
filed this submission on November 8 and properly limited their comments 
to industry support.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For further discussion of these submissions see Initiation 
Checklist at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on information provided in the Petition, supplemental 
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department, 
we determine that the domestic producers and workers have 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. Because the Petition did not establish support 
from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 
percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the 
Department was required to take further action in order to evaluate 
industry support. See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act. In this case, 
the Department was able to rely on other information, in accordance 
with section 702(c)(4)(D)(i) of the Act, to determine industry support. 
See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II; see also Memorandum to the 
File from Stephen Bailey, titled ``Conference Call,'' dated November 3, 
2011. Based on information provided in the Petition, supplemental 
submissions, and additional information obtained by the Department, the 
domestic producers and 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. See Initiation Checklist 
at Attachment II.
    The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined 
in sections 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that it is 
requesting the Department initiate. 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 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 solar cells from the PRC are 
benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are 
causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the domestic industry 
producing solar cells. In addition, Petitioner alleges that subject 
imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 
771(24)(A) of the Act.
    Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share, reduced shipments, unused 
capacity, underselling and price depression or suppression, reduced 
employment, a decline in financial performance, lost sales and revenue, 
and an increase in import penetration. See Volume I of the Petition, at 
1-4, 25-44, and Exhibits I-6, I-8-9, I-14-16, I-17a, I-18a, I-19-20, I-
21a, I-21b, I-22 and I-24, and Supplement II-A-General Issues, at 1-2. 
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. See 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment III, Injury.

Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation

    Section 702(b)(i) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a 
CVD proceeding whenever an interested party files a 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 petitioner(s) 
supporting the allegations. The Department has examined the CVD 
Petition on solar cells from the PRC and finds that it complies with 
the requirements of section 702(b) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance 
with section 702(b) of the Act, we are initiating a CVD investigation 
to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of solar 
cells in the PRC receive countervailable subsidies. For a discussion of 
evidence supporting our initiation determination, see Initiation 
Checklist.
    We are including in our investigation the following programs 
alleged in the Petition to have provided countervailable subsidies to 
producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in the PRC:

A. Grant Programs
    1. Export Product Research and Development Fund
    2. Subsidies for Development of ``Famous Brands'' and ``China World 
Top Brands''
    3. Sub-Central Government Subsidies for Development of ``Famous 
Brands'' and ``China World Top Brands''
    4. Special Energy Fund (Established by Shandong Province)
    5. Funds for Outward Expansion of Industries in Guangdong Province
    6. Golden Sun Demonstration Program

[[Page 70969]]

B. Government Provision of Goods and Services for Less Than Adequate 
Remuneration (LTAR)
    1. Government Provision of Polysilicon for LTAR
    2. Government Provision of Aluminum for LTAR
    3. Government Provision of Power for LTAR
C. Government Provision of Land for LTAR
D. Policy Lending to the Renewable Energy Industry
E. Income and Other Direct Tax Exemption and Reduction Programs
    1. ``Two Free, Three Half'' Program for Foreign Invested 
Enterprises (FIEs)
    2. Income Tax Reductions for Export-Oriented FIEs
    3. Income Tax Benefits for FIEs Based on Geographic Location
    4. Local Income Tax Exemption and Reduction Programs for 
``Productive'' FIEs
    5. Tax Reductions for FIEs Purchasing Chinese-Made Equipment
    6. Tax Offsets for Research and Development by FIEs
    7. Tax Refunds for Reinvestment of FIE Profits in Export-Oriented 
Enterprises
    8. Preferential Tax Programs for FIEs Recognized as High or New 
Technology Enterprises
    9. Tax Reductions for High and New-Technology Enterprises Involved 
in Designated Projects
    10. Preferential Income Tax Policy for Enterprises in the Northeast 
Region
    11. Guangdong Province Tax Programs
F. Indirect Tax and Tariff Exemption Programs
    1. Value Added Tax (VAT) Exemptions for Use of Imported Equipment
    2. VAT Rebates on FIE Purchases of Chinese-Made Equipment
    3. VAT and Tariff Exemptions for Purchases of Fixed Assets Under 
the Foreign Trade Development Fund Program
G. Export Credit Subsidy Programs
H. Export Guarantees and Insurance for Green Technology

    For a description of each of these programs and a full discussion 
of the Department's decision to initiate an investigation of these 
programs, see Initiation Checklist.
    We are not including in our investigation the following programs 
alleged to benefit producers/exporters of the subject merchandise in 
the PRC.

A. Grant Programs
    1. Fund for Economic, Scientific, and Technology Development 
(Established by Foshan City)
    2. Provincial Fund for Fiscal and Technological Innovation 
(Established by Guangdong Province)
B. Government Provision of Water for LTAR
C. Currency Undervaluation

    For further information explaining why the Department is not 
initiating an investigation of these programs, see Initiation 
Checklist.

Critical Circumstances

    Petitioner alleges, based on trade statistics since August 2010 and 
prior knowledge of an impending trade case, that there is a reasonable 
basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist with 
regard to imports of solar cells from the PRC. See Volume IV of the 
Petition, at 1, 7, and 10.
    Section 703(e)(1) of the Act states that if a petitioner alleges 
critical circumstances, the Department will find that such 
circumstances exist, at any time after the date of initiation, when 
there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that under, 
subparagraph (A) the alleged countervailable subsidy is inconsistent 
with the Subsidies Agreement, and (B) there have been massive imports 
of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Section 
351.206(h) of the Department's regulations defines ``massive imports'' 
as imports that have increased by at least 15 percent over the imports 
during an immediately preceding period of comparable duration. Section 
351.206(i) of the Department's regulations states that a relatively 
short period will normally be defined as the period beginning on the 
date the proceeding begins and ending at least three months later.
    With regard to the subsidies alleged in the Petition, Petitioner 
notes that the subsidies alleged include subsidies based on export 
performance, subsidies for inputs provided for LTAR, as well as 
interest free or low interest loans that are not otherwise available to 
the general public. See Volume IV of the Petition, at 13. Petitioner 
argues that based on information provided in the Petition, it is clear 
that Chinese exporters and producers of subject merchandise have 
received subsidies that are inconsistent with the Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. See Volume IV of the Petition, 
at 13-15; see also Volume III of the Petition.
    With regard to the criteria of massive imports over a relatively 
short period of time, Petitioner argues that the Department should 
evaluate the level of imports during a period prior to the filing a 
petition because importers and foreign exporters and producers had 
reason to believe that an AD or CVD proceeding was likely. See Volume 
IV of the Petition, at 3-9, and Exhibits IV-1 through IV-16; see also 
19 CFR 351.206(i). Petitioner contends that there were newspaper 
articles beginning in August 2009 that discussed unfair pricing on 
behalf of Chinese producers. See Volume IV of the Petition, at 4, and 
Exhibits IV-1 and IV-2. Petitioner further notes that the very widely 
publicized closure of a large solar cell producer resulted in much 
media discussion of the effects of unfair trade in January 2011. 
Therefore, Petitioner states that ``the effects of any behavioral 
shifts of Chinese producers would be likely to manifest themselves in 
February 2011 as shipments of goods ordered in the days immediately 
following Evergreen's demise in January 2011 would not have reached the 
United States until February.'' See Supplement II-A-General Issues, at 
6. Thus, Petitioner demonstrates massive imports over a relatively 
short period of time by comparing imports of subject merchandise 
between the six-month period of August 2010 and January 2011 (base 
period) and the six-month period of February 2011 and July 2011 
(comparison period). Based on Petitioner's calculation, imports surged 
220 percent between base period and comparison period, which is greater 
than the 15 percent threshold defined in the Department's regulations. 
See Volume IV of the Petition, at 10-11; see also 19 CFR 351.206(h).
    Petitioner requests that the Department examine the information it 
has provided and make a preliminary finding of critical circumstances 
on an expedited basis, within 45 days of the filing of the Petition. 
See Volume IV of the Petition, at 1, 2, and 16; see also 19 CFR 
351.206(c)(2)(iii). Section 702(e) of the Act states that when there is 
a reasonable basis to suspect that the alleged countervailable subsidy 
is inconsistent with the Subsidies Agreement, the Department may 
request U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to compile information 
on an expedited basis regarding entries of the subject merchandise.
    Taking into consideration the foregoing, we will analyze this 
matter further. We will monitor imports of solar cells from the PRC and 
we will request that CBP compile information on an expedited basis 
regarding entries of subject merchandise. See Section 702(e) of the 
Act. If, at any time, the criteria for a finding of critical 
circumstances are established, we will issue a critical circumstances 
finding at the earliest possible date. See Change in

[[Page 70970]]

Policy Regarding Timing of Issuance of Critical Circumstances 
Determinations, 63 FR 55364 (October 15, 1998).

Respondent Selection

    For this investigation, the Department expects to select 
respondents based on CBP data for U.S. imports during the POI. We 
intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 
days of publication of this Federal Register notice. The Department 
will release CBP data under Administrative Protective Order shortly 
after the signature date of this notice. Given that certain Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States headings used in the description 
of the scope of this investigation are for broad ``basket categories'' 
of merchandise (e.g., headings 8501.61.0000 and 8507.20.80), the 
Department intends to rely only on headings 8541.40.6020 and 
8541.40.6030, which cover solar cells exclusively, in selecting 
respondents. Therefore, we will only release CBP data under those same 
two headings as well. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP 
data and respondent selection to be submitted to the Department within 
seven calendar days of publication of this Federal Register notice.

Distribution of Copies of the 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 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 solar cells from the PRC are 
causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a 
U.S. industry. See section 703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative ITC 
determination will result in the investigation being terminated; 
otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to statutory and 
regulatory time limits.

Notification to Interested Parties

    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. Parties wishing to participate in this 
investigation 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)).
    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. See 
section 782(b) of the Act. Parties are hereby reminded that revised 
certification requirements are in effect for company/government 
officials as well as their representatives in all segments of any 
antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceedings initiated on or 
after March 14, 2011. See Certification of Factual Information to 
Import Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings: Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 7491 (February 10, 2011) 
(Interim Final Rule) amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)(1) and (2). The formats 
for the revised certifications are provided at the end of the Interim 
Final Rule. The Department intends to reject factual submissions in any 
proceeding segments initiated on or after March 14, 2011, if the 
submitting party does not comply with the revised certification 
requirements.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

     Dated: November 8, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation are crystalline 
silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, 
consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not 
partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not 
limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated 
materials.
    This investigation covers 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.
    Subject merchandise may be described at the time of importation 
as parts for final finished products that are assembled after 
importation, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, 
panels, building-integrated modules, building-integrated panels, or 
other finished goods kits. Such parts that otherwise meet the 
definition of subject merchandise are included in the scope of this 
investigation.
    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 
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 System of the United States 
(HTSUS) under subheadings 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.80, 8541.40.6020 and 
8541.40.6030. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of this 
investigation is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2011-29624 Filed 11-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P