Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Determination of the Less Than Fair Value Investigation, 26654-26655 [2018-12481]
Download as PDF
26654
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2018 / Notices
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
this analysis, concluding that the value
of information produced by the ABS
outweighs the costs. The Census Bureau
submitted a request to OMB on January
5, 2018, formally requesting approval of
the ABS under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA). The request
included information about the cost to
administer the ABS and the cost
imposed on respondents in terms of
their time to respond. The request also
documented the many uses of the data.
The request demonstrated that the ABS
has practical utility, i.e., that the value
of information produced outweighs the
cost. As noted in the Paperwork
Reduction Act section below, OMB
approved the ABS on March 7, 2018
(OMB control number 0607–1004).
Furthermore, the ABS will provide
data required by Executive Order 11458
(March 5, 1969), ‘‘Prescribing
Arrangements for Developing and
Coordinating a National Program For
Minority Business Enterprise’’ (https://
www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=
60475). Executive Order 11458
prompted the Census Bureau to create
the Survey of Minority Business
Enterprises (SMOBE) and the Survey of
Women Business Enterprises (SWOBE).
The data previously collected in these
two surveys was later collected in the
SBO and the ASE, surveys that the ABS
will now replace. Without the ABS,
there will be no survey that complies
with the executive order. The Minority
Business Development Agency and
Small Business Administration also rely
on the Census Bureau to annually
produce these data, including data on
business ownership by gender,
ethnicity, race, and veteran status as
well as economic characteristics of
businesses.
The Census Bureau has designed the
ABS survey to collect the required data
while balancing the burden on
businesses. The ABS is designed to
combine Census Bureau firm-level
collections to reduce respondent
burden, increase data quality, reduce
operational costs, and operate more
efficiently.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no person is required to respond
to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C., Chapter
45) unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. In accordance with the PRA,
OMB approved the ABS under OMB
control number 0607–1004 on March 7,
2018.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Jun 07, 2018
Jkt 241001
Based upon the foregoing, I have
directed that the current mandatory
business surveys be conducted for the
purpose of collecting these data.
Dated: May 31, 2018.
Ron S. Jarmin,
Associate Director for Economic Programs,
Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and
Duties of the Director, Bureau of the Census.
[FR Doc. 2018–12356 Filed 6–7–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–07–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–010]
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic
Products From the People’s Republic
of China: Notice of Court Decision Not
in Harmony With Final Determination
of the Less Than Fair Value
Investigation
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 25, 2018, the United
States Court of International Trade (the
Court) entered final judgment sustaining
the final results of the second remand
redetermination by the Department of
Commerce (Commerce) pertaining to the
antidumping duty (AD) investigation of
certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic
products from the People’s Republic of
China (China). Commerce is notifying
the public that the final judgment in this
case is not in harmony with Commerce’s
final determination in the AD
investigation of certain crystalline
silicon photovoltaic products from
China.
DATES: Applicable June 4, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eli
Lovely, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV,
Enforcement and Compliance—
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–1593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
Subsequent to the December 23, 2014,
publication of the Final Determination
in the AD investigation of certain
crystalline silicon photovoltaic products
from China,1 and the February 18, 2015
publication of the AD order,2
1 See Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic
Products from the People’s Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 79
FR 76970 (December 23, 2014) (Final
Determination).
2 See Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic
Products from the People’s Republic of China:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SolarWorld Americas, Inc. (SolarWorld),
the petitioner, filed a complaint with
the Court challenging, among other
things, Commerce’s determination that
South African import data under
subheading 8548.10, of the United
States Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(HTS), constituted the best available
information for valuing Changzhou
Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.’s (Trina)
byproduct offset for scrapped solar
modules.3
In Jinko Solar I, the Court remanded
Commerce’s use of South African
import data under HTS subheading
8548.10, to value Trina’s byproduct
offset for scrapped solar modules when
calculating normal value. The Court
found that Commerce did not
adequately explain how its decision was
reasonable in light of the record as a
whole.4 Further, the Court found that
two arguments made before the Court
constituted post hoc rationalizations
and directed Commerce to make those
rationalizations explicit and identify
supporting evidence for them, if either
of the rationalizations informed
Commerce’s decision to rely on HTS
subheading 8548.10 to value Trina’s
byproduct offset for scrapped solar
modules.5
On August 2, 2017, Commerce issued
its First Remand Results, in which it
determined that it would continue to
value Trina’s byproduct offset for
scrapped solar modules with South
African import data under HTS 8548.10
and explained its decision to do so.6
The Court, in Jinko Solar II, held that
Commerce’s determination remained
unsupported by substantial evidence
and that Commerce did not explain how
its selected surrogate value was a
representative surrogate value for the
scrapped modules.7 The Court directed
Commerce to reconsider or further
explain its decision to use South
African import data under HTS
subheading 8548.10 to value the
byproduct offset for scrapped solar
Antidumping Duty Order; and Amended Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and
Countervailing Duty Order, 80 FR 8592 (February
18, 2015).
3 See SolarWorld’s Complaint, No. 15–00086, ECF
No. 10 (CIT April 17, 2015).
4 See Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v. United States, 229
F. Supp. 3d 1333, 1353–1355 (CIT 2017) (Jinko
Solar I).
5 Id. at 1355.
6 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v. United
States, Court No. 15–00080, Slip Op. 17–62 (Court
of International Trade May 18, 2017) (August 2,
2017) (First Remand Results).
7 See Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v. United States, 279
F. Supp. 3d 1253, 1261–1264 (CIT 2017) (Jinko
Solar II).
E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM
08JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2018 / Notices
modules when calculating normal
value.8
On March 12, 2018, Commerce issued
its Second Remand Results, wherein,
considering the Court’s order, and under
respectful protest, Commerce selected
Thai import data under HTS category
2804.69 to value Trina’s byproduct
offset for scrapped solar modules for
purposes of its normal value
calculations.9
On May 25, 2018, the Court issued its
decision in Jinko Solar III sustaining
Commerce’s Second Remand Results.10
Dated: June 4, 2018.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations,
performing the non-exclusive functions and
duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
Timken Notice
RIN 0648–XG280
In its decision in Timken,11 as
clarified by Diamond Sawblades,12 the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to
section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce
must publish a notice of a court
decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with
a Commerce determination and must
suspend liquidation of entries pending
a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The
Court’s May 25, 2018, final judgment
sustaining Commerce’s Second Remand
Redetermination constitutes a final
decision of the Court that is not in
harmony with Commerce’s Final
Determination. This notice is published
in fulfillment of the publication
requirements of Timken. Accordingly,
Commerce will continue the suspension
of liquidation of the subject
merchandise pending the expiration of
the period of appeal, or if appealed,
pending a final and conclusive court
decision. We have not amended the
Final Determination because valuing
Trina’s scrapped solar modules using
Thai import data under HTS category
2804.69 rather than South African
import data under HTS subheading
8548.10 did not result in a change to the
weighted average dumping margin
calculated for Trina in the Final
Determination.
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with section 516A(e)(1) of
the Act.
8 Id.
at 1264.
Final Results of Second Redetermination
Pursuant to Court Order, Jinko Solar Co., Ltd., et al.
v. United States, Court No. 15–00080, Slip Op. 17–
165 (Court of International Trade December 13,
2017) (March 12, 2018) (Second Remand Results).
10 See Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v. United States, No.
15–00080, Slip Op. 18–61 (CIT May 25, 2018) (Jinko
Solar III).
11 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337,
341 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
12 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
9 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Jun 07, 2018
[FR Doc. 2018–12481 Filed 6–7–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Special Accommodations
This meeting is physically accessible
to people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aid should be directed to M.
Jan Saunders, (302) 526–5251, at least 5
days prior to the meeting date.
Dated: June 4, 2018.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018–12305 Filed 6–7–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Notification to Interested Parties
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
26655
Jkt 241001
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
AGENCY:
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council’s (Council)
Mackerel-Squid-Butterfish (MSB)
Monitoring Committee will meet via
webinar to develop recommendations
for future MSB specifications.
DATES: The meeting will be held
Monday, June 25, 2018 at 9 a.m. and
end by noon.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held
via webinar with a telephone-only
connection option: https://
mafmc.adobeconnect.com/moncom20
18plusfmat/.
Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, 800 N. State St.
Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone:
(302) 674–2331.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council; telephone: (302)
526–5255. The Council’s website,
www.mafmc.org will also have details
on webinar access and any background
materials.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Council’s MSB Monitoring Committee
will develop recommendations for
future MSB specifications. The MSB
Monitoring Committee will meet jointly
with the Fishery Management Action
Team (FMAT), which is developing
analyses for the Council’s Atlantic
mackerel rebuilding framework to set
2019–2021 Atlantic mackerel
specifications. The Council will review
previously-set 2019 longfin squid, Illex
squid, and butterfish specifications and
take final action on the Atlantic
mackerel rebuilding framework at its
August 2018 Council Meeting (https://
www.mafmc.org/meetings/).
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
The Department of Commerce will
submit to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for clearance the
following proposal for collection of
information under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35).
Agency: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Title: Atlantic Highly Migratory
Species Vessel and Gear Marking.
OMB Control Number: 0648–0373.
Form Number(s): None.
Type of Request: Regular (extension of
a currently approved information
collection).
Number of Respondents: 3,282.
Average Hours per Response: Vessels,
45 minutes; gear, 15 minutes per piece.
Burden Hours: 3,894.
Needs and Uses: This request is for an
extension of a current information
collection. These requirements apply to
vessel owners in the Atlantic highly
migratory species (HMS) Fishery.
Under current regulations at 50 CFR
635.6, fishing vessels permitted for
Atlantic HMS fisheries must display
their official vessel numbers on their
vessels. Flotation devices and highflyers attached to certain fishing gears
must also be marked with the vessel’s
number to identify the vessel to which
the gear belongs. These requirements are
necessary for identification, law
enforcement, and monitoring purposes.
Specifically, all vessel owners that
hold a valid Atlantic HMS permit under
50 CFR 635.4, other than an Atlantic
HMS Angling permit, are required to
display their vessel identification
number. Numbers must be permanently
affixed to, or painted on, the port and
starboard sides of the deckhouse or hull
and on an appropriate weather deck, so
as to be clearly visible from an
E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM
08JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26654-26655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12481]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-010]
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the People's
Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final
Determination of the Less Than Fair Value Investigation
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 25, 2018, the United States Court of International
Trade (the Court) entered final judgment sustaining the final results
of the second remand redetermination by the Department of Commerce
(Commerce) pertaining to the antidumping duty (AD) investigation of
certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from the People's
Republic of China (China). Commerce is notifying the public that the
final judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce's final
determination in the AD investigation of certain crystalline silicon
photovoltaic products from China.
DATES: Applicable June 4, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eli Lovely, AD/CVD Operations, Office
IV, Enforcement and Compliance--International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Subsequent to the December 23, 2014, publication of the Final
Determination in the AD investigation of certain crystalline silicon
photovoltaic products from China,\1\ and the February 18, 2015
publication of the AD order,\2\ SolarWorld Americas, Inc. (SolarWorld),
the petitioner, filed a complaint with the Court challenging, among
other things, Commerce's determination that South African import data
under subheading 8548.10, of the United States Harmonized Tariff
Schedule (HTS), constituted the best available information for valuing
Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.'s (Trina) byproduct offset for
scrapped solar modules.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from
the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
than Fair Value, 79 FR 76970 (December 23, 2014) (Final
Determination).
\2\ See Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from
the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order; and Amended
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and
Countervailing Duty Order, 80 FR 8592 (February 18, 2015).
\3\ See SolarWorld's Complaint, No. 15-00086, ECF No. 10 (CIT
April 17, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Jinko Solar I, the Court remanded Commerce's use of South
African import data under HTS subheading 8548.10, to value Trina's
byproduct offset for scrapped solar modules when calculating normal
value. The Court found that Commerce did not adequately explain how its
decision was reasonable in light of the record as a whole.\4\ Further,
the Court found that two arguments made before the Court constituted
post hoc rationalizations and directed Commerce to make those
rationalizations explicit and identify supporting evidence for them, if
either of the rationalizations informed Commerce's decision to rely on
HTS subheading 8548.10 to value Trina's byproduct offset for scrapped
solar modules.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 3d
1333, 1353-1355 (CIT 2017) (Jinko Solar I).
\5\ Id. at 1355.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 2, 2017, Commerce issued its First Remand Results, in
which it determined that it would continue to value Trina's byproduct
offset for scrapped solar modules with South African import data under
HTS 8548.10 and explained its decision to do so.\6\ The Court, in Jinko
Solar II, held that Commerce's determination remained unsupported by
substantial evidence and that Commerce did not explain how its selected
surrogate value was a representative surrogate value for the scrapped
modules.\7\ The Court directed Commerce to reconsider or further
explain its decision to use South African import data under HTS
subheading 8548.10 to value the byproduct offset for scrapped solar
[[Page 26655]]
modules when calculating normal value.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 15-00080,
Slip Op. 17-62 (Court of International Trade May 18, 2017) (August
2, 2017) (First Remand Results).
\7\ See Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v. United States, 279 F. Supp. 3d
1253, 1261-1264 (CIT 2017) (Jinko Solar II).
\8\ Id. at 1264.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 12, 2018, Commerce issued its Second Remand Results,
wherein, considering the Court's order, and under respectful protest,
Commerce selected Thai import data under HTS category 2804.69 to value
Trina's byproduct offset for scrapped solar modules for purposes of its
normal value calculations.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Final Results of Second Redetermination Pursuant to
Court Order, Jinko Solar Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, Court
No. 15-00080, Slip Op. 17-165 (Court of International Trade December
13, 2017) (March 12, 2018) (Second Remand Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 25, 2018, the Court issued its decision in Jinko Solar III
sustaining Commerce's Second Remand Results.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v. United States, No. 15-00080,
Slip Op. 18-61 (CIT May 25, 2018) (Jinko Solar III).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\11\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\12\ the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of a court
decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a Commerce determination and
must suspend liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' court
decision. The Court's May 25, 2018, final judgment sustaining
Commerce's Second Remand Redetermination constitutes a final decision
of the Court that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final
Determination. This notice is published in fulfillment of the
publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, Commerce will continue
the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the
expiration of the period of appeal, or if appealed, pending a final and
conclusive court decision. We have not amended the Final Determination
because valuing Trina's scrapped solar modules using Thai import data
under HTS category 2804.69 rather than South African import data under
HTS subheading 8548.10 did not result in a change to the weighted
average dumping margin calculated for Trina in the Final Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed.
Cir. 1990).
\12\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section
516A(e)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 4, 2018.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018-12481 Filed 6-7-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P