Ripe Olives From Spain: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, 33054-33059 [2017-15142]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33054-33059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15142]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-469-817]


Ripe Olives From Spain: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value 
Investigation

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

DATES: Applicable July 12, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Cartsos at (202) 482-1757, 
or Peter Zukowski at (202) 482-0189, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and 
Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petition

    On June 22, 2017,\1\ the Department received an antidumping duty 
(AD) Petition concerning imports of ripe olives from Spain, filed in 
proper form, on behalf of the Coalition for Fair Trade in Ripe Olives, 
which consists of domestic processors Bell-Carter Foods, Inc. and Musco 
Family Olive Co. (collectively, the petitioner). The AD Petition was 
accompanied by a countervailing duty (CVD) Petition. The petitioners 
are domestic producers of processed olives, usually referred to as 
``ripe olives.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petition was filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce 
(the Department) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) on 
June 21, 2017, after 12:00 noon, and pursuant to 19 CFR 207.10(a), 
are deemed to have been filed on the next business day, June 22, 
2017. See Memorandum, ``Decision Memorandum Concerning the Filing 
Date of the Petition,'' dated June 23, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 23, 2017, June 27, 2017, and June 28, 2017, the Department 
requested additional information and clarification of certain aspects 
of the Petition.\2\ The petitioner filed responses to these requests on 
June 27, 2017, and June 30, 2017.\3\ On July 5, 2017, 
Associaci[oacute]n de Exportadores e Industiales de Aceitunas de Mesa 
(ASEMESA), an interested party, requested the Department poll the

[[Page 33055]]

domestic industry of olive growers and the workers employed by them.\4\ 
On July 7, 2017, the petitioner submitted rebuttal comments to 
ASEMESA's polling request \5\ and its final proposed scope language. 
ASEMESA submitted an additional argument and request for the Department 
to poll the domestic industry of olive growers on July 10, 2017.\6\ On 
July 12, 2017, Acorsa USA, Inc., Atalanta Corporation, Mario Camacho 
Foods, LLC, Mitsui Foods, Inc., and Schreiber Foods International, Inc. 
revised and resubmitted their July 11, 2017, submission, which was 
previously rejected. However, this new submission was filed too late 
for us to consider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Letters from the Department to the petitioner, regarding 
``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of 
Ripe Olives from Spain: Supplemental Questions,'' dated June 23, 
2017; Letter from the Department to the petitioner, regarding 
``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of 
Ripe Olives from Spain: Supplemental Questions,'' dated June 28, 
2017.
    \3\ See Letter from the petitioner to the Department, regarding 
``Ripe Olives from Spain; Response to the Department's Supplemental 
Questionnaires'' dated June 27, 2017, (General Issues and AD 
Supplement); Letter from the petitioner to the Department, regarding 
``Ripe Olives from Spain; Response to the Department's Second 
General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire,'' dated June 30, 2017, 
(Second General Issues Supplement).
    \4\ See ASEMESA's July 5, 2017 Industry Support Comments and 
Request to Poll Industry (July 5 ASEMESA Comments).
    \5\ See The petitioner's July 7, 2017 Final Scope Language and 
Response to Industry Support Comments (The petitioner's Rebuttal 
Comments).
    \6\ See ASEMESA's July 10, 2017 Industry Support Comments and 
Request to Poll Industry (July 10 ASEMESA Comments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of ripe olives 
from Spain 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, or threatening material 
injury to, an industry in the United States. Additionally, consistent 
with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by 
information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its 
allegations.
    The Department finds that the petitioner filed this Petition on 
behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested 
party as defined in section 771(9)(G) of the Act. As discussed in the 
``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition'' section, below, 
the Department also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient 
industry support with respect to initiation of the requested AD 
investigation.

Period of Investigation

    Because the Petition was filed on June 22, 2017, the period of 
investigation (POI) is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.

Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain processed 
olives, usually referred to as ``ripe olives,'' from Spain. For a full 
description of the scope of this investigation, see the ``Scope of the 
Investigation,'' in the Appendix to this notice.

Comments on Scope of the Investigation

    During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions 
to, and received responses from, the petitioner pertaining to the 
proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition 
accurately reflected the products for which the domestic industry is 
seeking relief.\7\ As a result of those exchanges, the scope of the 
Petition was modified to clarify the description of merchandise covered 
by the Petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See General Issues and AD Supplement, at 1-2; Second General 
Issues Supplement, at 1-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,\8\ we 
are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues 
regarding product coverage (i.e., scope). The Department will consider 
all comments received from parties and, if necessary, will consult with 
parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If 
scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), 
all such factual information should be limited to public information. 
The Department requests that all interested parties submit scope 
comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on Tuesday, August 1, 
2017, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. 
Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information (and also 
should be limited to public information), must be filed by 5:00 p.m. 
EST on Friday, August 11, 2017, which is ten calendar days after the 
deadline for initial comments.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
    \9\ See 19 CFR 351.302(c)(3)(iv) and 19 CFR 351.303(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties 
consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during 
this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that 
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the 
investigation may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and 
request permission to submit the additional information. All such 
comments and information must be filed on the records of each of the 
concurrent AD and CVD 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 (ACCESS).\10\ An electronically-
filed document must be successfully received, in its entirety, by the 
time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic 
submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) 
with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable 
deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order 
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and 
Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 
(November 20, 2014) for details of the Department's electronic 
filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. 
Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaire

    The Department will provide interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of ripe olives to 
be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaire. This 
information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics 
of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant 
costs of production 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, 
although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by 
manufacturers to describe ripe olives, 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

[[Page 33056]]

and the least important characteristics last.
    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in 
developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, all product characteristic 
comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on August 1, 2017, which is 20 
calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal 
comments, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on August 11, 2017. All 
comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically 
using ACCESS, as explained above.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    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 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,\11\ 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \12\ 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, the petitioner does not 
offer a definition of the 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 ripe olives, as 
defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we 
have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like 
product.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in 
these cases, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation 
Checklist: Ripe Olives from Spain (AD Initiation Checklist), at 
Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Ripe Olives from Spain 
(Attachment II); This checklist is dated concurrently with this 
notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents 
filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room 
B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 
732(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 ``Scope of the Investigation,'' in the Appendix to 
this notice. The petitioner provided the 2016 production of the 
domestic like product by its members.\14\ In addition, we relied on 
data the petitioner provided estimating the 2016 production of the 
domestic like product by the only other U.S. processor.\15\ We relied 
on data the petitioner provided for purposes of measuring industry 
support.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 5 and Exhibit I-3.
    \15\ Id., at 5; see also General Issues and AD Supplement, at 2 
and Exhibit I-17.
    \16\ Id. For further discussion, see AD Initiation Checklist, at 
Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 5, 2017, we received comments on industry support from 
ASEMESA.\17\ The petitioner responded to the letter from ASEMESA on 
July 7, 2017.\18\ On July 10, 2017, we received comments on industry 
support collectively from ASEMESA, Industria Aceiyunera Merciense, 
S.A., DCOOOP, S. COOP. AND., Agro Sevilla Aceitunas, SOC. COOP. AND., 
Plasoliva, S.L., GOYA en Espana, S.A.U., Aceitunas Guadalquivir, S.L., 
Angel Camacho Alimentaci[oacute]n, S.L., Internacional Olivarera S.A., 
F.J. Sanchez Sucesores, S.A.U., and Aceitunas Sevillanas S.A. 
(collectively, ASEMESA et al.).\19\ For further discussion of these 
comments, see the AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Letter from ASEMESA to the Department, re: ``Industry 
Support Comments on the Petitions for Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duties and Request to Poll Industry,'' dated July 5, 2017.
    \18\ See July 7, 2017, Response.
    \19\ See Letter from ASEMESA et al. to the Department, re: 
``Request to Poll Industry,'' dated July 10, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the Petition, supplemental 
responses, and other information readily available to the Department 
indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the 
Petition.\20\ First, the Petition established support from domestic 
producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total 
production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is 
not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry 
support (e.g., polling).\21\ Second, the domestic producers (or 
workers) have 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.\22\ Finally, 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 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.\23\ Accordingly, the Department determines 
that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within 
the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \21\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \22\ See AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on 
behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as 
defined in section 771(9)(G) of the Act and it has demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the AD

[[Page 33057]]

investigation that it is requesting that the Department initiate.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The 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, the 
petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility 
threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 12, and Exhibit I-6A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression 
or depression; lost sales and revenues; adverse impact on the domestic 
industry, including financial performance, production, and capacity 
utilization; reduction in olive acreage under cultivation; and 
magnitude of the alleged margins of dumping.\26\ 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.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id., at 18-34 and Exhibits I-6 and I-8--I-16.
    \27\ See AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of 
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Ripe Olives 
from Spain (Attachment III).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate an AD investigation of imports of ripe olives from Spain. The 
sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. 
price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the AD Initiation 
Checklist.

Export Price

    The petitioner based U.S. price on export price (EP) using average 
unit values of publicly available import data.\28\ The petitioner made 
deductions from U.S. price for movement expenses to derive the ex-
factory net U.S. EP.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See AD Initiation Checklist.
    \29\ See AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    The petitioner was unable to obtain home market or third country 
prices for ripe olives and calculated NV based on constructed value 
(CV).\30\ For further discussion of the cost of production (COP) and 
CV, see the section ``Normal Value Based on Constructed Value'' 
below.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See AD Initiation Checklist.
    \31\ In accordance with section 505(a) of the Trade Preferences 
Extension Act of 2015, amending section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for 
this investigation, the Department will request information 
necessary to calculate the CV and COP to determine whether there are 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign 
like product have been made at prices that represent less than the 
COP of the product. The Department no longer requires a COP 
allegation to conduct this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    As noted above, the petitioner was unable to obtain home market or 
third country prices; accordingly, the petitioner based NV on CV.\32\ 
Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the cost of 
manufacturing (COM), selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) 
expenses, financial expenses, packing expenses and profit. The 
petitioner calculated the COM based on the input factors of production 
and usage rates from a U.S. producer of ripe olives. The input factors 
of production were valued using publicly available data on costs 
specific to Spain, during the proposed POI.\33\ Specifically, the 
prices for raw materials and packing inputs were valued using publicly 
available Spanish import data.\34\ For labor costs, the petitioner 
multiplied the labor usage factors by Spanish labor rates derived from 
publicly available sources.\35\ To determine factory overhead, SG&A, 
financial expenses, and profit, the petitioner relied on financial 
statements of a Spanish company that is a producer of comparable 
merchandise operating in Spain.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Id.
    \33\ See AD Initiation Checklist.
    \34\ See Id.
    \35\ See Id.
    \36\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to 
believe that imports of ripe olives from Spain are being, or are likely 
to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on 
comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the 
Act, the estimated dumping margins for ripe olives form Spain are 78.00 
and 223.00 percent.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation

    Based upon the examination of the AD Petition, we find that the 
Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, 
we are initiating an AD investigation to determine whether imports of 
ripe olives from Spain 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 determination no later than 140 days after 
the date of this initiation.
    The Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 (TPEA) made numerous 
amendments to the AD and CVD laws.\38\ The TPEA does not specify dates 
of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department 
published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the 
applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for 
amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to 
determinations of material injury by the ITC.\39\ The amendments to 
sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all 
determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply 
to this AD investigation.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 
114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
    \39\ See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension 
Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015).
    \40\ Id. at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at 
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respondent Selection

    The petitioner identified numerous companies in Spain as producers/
exporters of ripe olives.\41\ In the event the Department determines 
that the number of companies is large and it cannot individually 
examine each company based upon the Department's resources, where 
appropriate, the Department intends to select mandatory respondents 
based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports 
of ripe olives from Spain during the period of the investigation under 
the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 
numbers listed in the ``Scope of the Investigation,'' in the Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Volume I at Exhibit I-5 and AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We intend to release CBP data under Administrative Protective Order 
(APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO within 
five business days of the announcement of the initiation of this 
investigation.
    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such 
applications

[[Page 33058]]

may be found on the Department's Web site at https://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.
    Comments for this investigation must be filed electronically using 
ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully 
in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, 
by 5:00 p.m. EST, by the dates noted above. We intend to finalize our 
decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication 
of this notice.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(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 Government of Spain (GOS) and the European Commission 
via ACCESS. 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 delivery of the public version to the GOS 
consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
732(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 ripe olives from Spain are materially 
injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.\42\ A 
negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being 
terminated; \43\ otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to 
statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
    \43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (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) through (iv). The regulation 
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. Time limits 
for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 
351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of 
factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review 
the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this 
investigation.

Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the 
expiration of a time limit established under Part 351, or as otherwise 
specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be 
considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time 
limit. For submissions that are due from multiple parties 
simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it 
is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain 
circumstances, we may elect to specify a different deadline after which 
extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions that are 
due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we 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. An extension request must be made in a 
separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will 
grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review 
Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), 
available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in this 
investigation.

Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\44\ 
Parties must use the certifications formats provided in 19 CFR 
351.303(g).\45\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if 
the submitting party does not comply with applicable certification 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \45\ 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 
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 this investigation should 
ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the 
filing of letters of appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) 
and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

    Dated: July 12, 2017.
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.

Appendix--Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain processed 
olives, usually referred to as ``ripe olives.'' The subject 
merchandise includes all colors of olives; all shapes and sizes of 
olives, whether pitted or not pitted, and whether whole, sliced, 
chopped, minced, wedged, broken, or otherwise reduced in size; all 
types of packaging, whether for consumer (retail) or institutional 
(food service) sale, and whether canned or packaged in glass, metal, 
plastic, multi-layered airtight containers (including pouches), or 
otherwise; and all manners of preparation and preservation, whether 
low acid or acidified, stuffed or not stuffed, with or without 
flavoring and/or saline solution, and including in ambient, 
refrigerated, or frozen conditions.
    Included are all ripe olives grown, processed in whole or in 
part, or packaged in Spain. Subject merchandise includes ripe olives 
that have been further processed in Spain or a third country, 
including but not limited to curing, fermenting, rinsing, oxidizing, 
pitting, slicing, chopping, segmenting, wedging, stuffing, 
packaging, or heat treating, or any other processing that would not 
otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation 
if performed in Spain.
    Excluded from the scope are: (1) Specialty olives \1\ (including 
``Spanish-style,'' ``Sicilian-

[[Page 33059]]

style,'' and other similar olives) that have been processed by 
fermentation only, or by being cured in an alkaline solution for not 
longer than 12 hours and subsequently fermented; and (2) 
provisionally prepared olives unsuitable for immediate consumption 
(currently classifiable in subheading 0711.20 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Some of the major types of specialty olives and their curing 
methods are:
     ``Spanish-style'' green olives. Spanish-style green olives have 
a mildly salty, slightly bitter taste, and are usually pitted and 
stuffed. This style of olive is primarily produced in Spain and can 
be made from various olive varieties. Most are stuffed with pimento; 
other popular stuffings are jalapeno, garlic, and cheese. The raw 
olives that are used to produce Spanish-style green olives are 
picked while they are unripe, after which they are submerged in an 
alkaline solution for typically less than a day to partially remove 
their bitterness, rinsed, and fermented in a strong salt brine, 
giving them their characteristic flavor.
    ``Sicilian-style'' green olives. Sicilian-style olives are 
large, firm green olives with a natural bitter and savory flavor. 
This style of olive is produced in small quantities in the United 
States using a Sevillano variety of olive and harvested green with a 
firm texture. Sicilian-style olives are processed using a brine-
cured method, and undergo a full fermentation in a salt and lactic 
acid brine for 4 to 9 months. These olives may be sold whole 
unpitted, pitted, or stuffed.
    ``Kalamata'' olives: Kalamata olives are slightly curved in 
shape, tender in texture, and purple in color, and have a rich 
natural tangy and savory flavor. This style of olive is produced in 
Greece using a Kalamata variety olive. The olives are harvested 
after they are fully ripened on the tree, and typically use a brine-
cured fermentation method over 4 to 9 months in a salt brine.
    Other specialty olives in a full range of colors, sizes, and 
origins, typically fermented in a salt brine for 3 months or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently 
classifiable under subheadings 2005.70.0230, 2005.70.0260, 
2005.70.0430, 2005.70.0460, 2005.70.5030, 2005.70.5060, 
2005.70.6020, 2005.70.6030, 2005.70.6050, 2005.70.6060, 
2005.70.6070, 2005.70.7000, 2005.70.7510, 2005.70.7515, 
2005.70.7520, and 2005.70.7525 HTSUS. Subject merchandise may also 
be imported under subheadings 2005.70.0600, 2005.70.0800, 
2005.70.1200, 2005.70.1600, 2005.70.1800, 2005.70.2300, 
2005.70.2510, 2005.70.2520, 2005.70.2530, 2005.70.2540, 
2005.70.2550, 2005.70.2560, 2005.70.9100, 2005.70.9300, and 
2005.70.9700. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and US Customs purposes, they do not define the scope of 
the investigation; rather, the written description of the subject 
merchandise is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2017-15142 Filed 7-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P