Ripe Olives From Spain: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 33050-33054 [2017-15143]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
33050
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 19, 2017 / Notices
of the NAFTA Secretariat on July 12,
2017, pursuant to NAFTA Article 1904.
Panel Review was requested of the
Department of Commerce’s final
determination regarding Certain
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe
from Mexico. The final results of the
antidumping duty administrative review
and final determination of no
shipments, 2014–2015, was published
in the Federal Register on June 13, 2017
(82 FR 27039). The NAFTA Secretariat
has assigned case number USA–MEX–
2017–1904–01 to this request.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
E. Morris, United States Secretary,
NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230, (202) 482–5438.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter
19 of Article 1904 of NAFTA provides
a dispute settlement mechanism
involving trade remedy determinations
issued by the Government of the United
States, the Government of Canada, and
the Government of Mexico. Following a
Request for Panel Review, a Binational
Panel is composed to review the trade
remedy determination being challenged
and issue a binding Panel Decision.
There are established NAFTA Rules of
Procedure for Article 1904 Binational
Panel Reviews, which were adopted by
the three governments for panels
requested pursuant to Article 1904(2) of
NAFTA which requires Requests for
Panel Review to be published in
accordance with Rule 35. For the
complete Rules, please see https://
www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Textsof-the-Agreement/Rules-of-Procedure/
Article-1904.
The Rules provide that:
(a) A Party or interested person may
challenge the final determination in
whole or in part by filing a Complaint
in accordance with Rule 39 within 30
days after the filing of the first Request
for Panel Review (the deadline for filing
a Complaint is August 11, 2017);
(b) A Party, investigating authority or
interested person that does not file a
Complaint but that intends to appear in
support of any reviewable portion of the
final determination may participate in
the panel review by filing a Notice of
Appearance in accordance with Rule 40
within 45 days after the filing of the first
Request for Panel Review (the deadline
for filing a Notice of Appearance is
August 28, 2017); and
(c) The panel review shall be limited
to the allegations of error of fact or law,
including challenges to the jurisdiction
of the investigating authority, that are
set out in the Complaints filed in the
panel review and to the procedural and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:49 Jul 18, 2017
Jkt 241001
substantive defenses raised in the panel
review.
Dated: July 14, 2017.
Paul E. Morris,
U.S. Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2017–15168 Filed 7–18–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–GT–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–469–818]
Ripe Olives From Spain: Initiation of
Countervailing Duty Investigation
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce
DATES: Applicable July 12, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Shore at (202) 482–2778, AD/
CVD Operations, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
The Petition
On June 22, 2017,1 the Department of
Commerce (Department) received a
countervailing duty (CVD) petition
concerning imports of ripe olives from
Spain, filed in proper form, on behalf of
the Coalition for Fair Trade in Ripe
Olives and its individual members, BellCarter Foods, Inc. and Musco Family
Olive Co. (collectively, the petitioner).
The CVD Petition was accompanied by
an antidumping duty (AD) Petition. The
petitioners are domestic producers of
processed olives, usually referred to as
‘‘ripe olives.’’
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, June 30,
2017, and July 3, 2017.3 On July 5, 2017,
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.
2 See Department Letter re: General Issues
Supplemental Questions, dated June 23, 2017
(General Issues Supplemental); Department Letter
re: Second General Issues Supplemental Questions,
dated June 28, 2017 (Second General Issues
Supplemental); and Department Letter re:
Countervailing Duty Petition Supplement Question,
dated June 27, 2017.
3 See The petitioner’s July 3, 2017 Supplement to
the CVD Petition (CVD Supplement).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
´
Associacion de Exportadores e
Industiales de Aceitunas de Mesa
(ASEMESA), an interested party,
requested the Department poll the
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 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 Also on July 10, 2017, the
Department held consultations with
respect to the CVD Petition, the
Government of Spain (GOS) and the
European Commission (EC) provided
comments on the countervailability of
the alleged programs and requested
clarification on the procedural
timelines. The GOS and the EC
submitted their comments in written
form that same day.7 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.
In accordance with section 702(b)(1)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), the petitioner alleges that the
GOS and the European Union are
providing countervailable subsidies
within the meaning of sections 701 and
771(5) of the Act, to manufacturers,
producers, or exporters of ripe olives
from Spain, and that imports of such
ripe olives are materially injuring, or
threatening material injury to, an
industry in the United States.
Additionally, consistent with section
702(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is
accompanied by information reasonably
available to the petitioner supporting its
allegations of subsidy programs in Spain
on which we are initiating a CVD
investigation.
The Department finds that the
petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of
the domestic industry because the
petitioner is an interested party, as
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).
7 See Ex-Parte Memorandum, ‘‘Ripe Olives from
´
Spain Countervailing Duty Petition: Consultations
with Officials from Spain and European Union,’’
dated July 11, 2017. See, also European
Commission and the Government of Spain
Consultation Comments, dated July 10, 2017.
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 19, 2017 / Notices
defined by section 771(9)(F) 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 CVD
investigation.
Period of Investigation
Because the Petition was filed on June
22, 2017, the period of investigation
(POI), the period for which we are
measuring subsidies, is January 1, 2016,
through December 31, 2016.
Scope of the Investigation
The products covered by this Petition
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.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Comments on the 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.8 As a result of
those exchanges, the scope of the
Petition was modified to clarify the
description of merchandise covered by
the Petition.
As discussed in the preamble to the
Department’s regulations,9 we are
setting aside a period of time for
interested parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).
The Department will consider all
comments received 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
8 See
General Issues and AD Supplement, at 1–
2; Second General Issues Supplement, at 1–3.
9 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:49 Jul 18, 2017
Jkt 241001
is ten calendar days after the deadline
for initial comments.10
The Department requests that any
factual information the parties consider
relevant to the scope of the
investigations be submitted during this
time period. However, if a party
subsequently finds that additional
factual information pertaining to the
scope 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).11 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.
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A) of the
Act, the Department notified
representatives of the GOS and the EU
of its receipt of the Petition and
provided them with the opportunity for
consultations regarding the CVD
allegations.12 On July 10, 2017, the
Department held consultations with the
GOS and the EU.13 All letters and
memoranda pertaining to these
consultations are available via ACCESS.
10 See 19 CFR 351.302(c)(3)(iv) and 19 CFR
351.303(b).
11 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%20
Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
12 See Department Letter, ‘‘Ripe Olives from
Spain: Invitation for Consultations to Discuss the
Countervailing Duty Petition,’’ June 23, 2017.
13 See Department Memorandum,
‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Ripe Olives from
Spain: Consultations,’’ July 11, 2017.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33051
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 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,14 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.15
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’’
14 See
section 771(10) of the Act.
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)).
15 See
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
33052
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 19, 2017 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
(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.16
In determining whether the petitioner
has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A)
of the Act, we considered the industry
support data contained in the Petition
with reference to the domestic like
product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of the
Investigation,’’ in the Appendix to this
notice. The petitioner provided the 2016
production of the domestic like product
by its members.17 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.18 We relied on data the
petitioner provided for purposes of
measuring industry support.19
On July 5, 2017, we received
comments on industry support from
ASEMESA.20 The petitioner responded
to the letter from ASEMESA on July 7,
2017.21 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
´
Alimentacion, S.L., Internacional
Olivarera S.A., F.J. Sanchez Sucesores,
S.A.U., and Aceitunas Sevillanas S.A.
(collectively, ASEMESA et al.).22 For
further discussion of these comments,
see the AD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II.
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.23 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).24 Second, the domestic
producers (or 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 Petitions
account for at least 25 percent of the
total production of the domestic like
product.25 Finally, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support
under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petition
account for more than 50 percent of the
production of the domestic like product
produced by that portion of the industry
expressing support for, or opposition to,
the Petition.26 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.
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 CVD
investigation that it is requesting that
the Department initiate.27
16 For a discussion of the domestic like product
analysis in these cases, see Countervailing Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Ripe Olives from
Spain (CVD 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.
17 See Volume I of the Petition, at 5 and Exhibit
I–3.
18 Id., at 5; see also General Issues and AD
Supplement, at 2 and Exhibit I–17.
19 Id. For further discussion, see AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
20 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.
21 See July 7, 2017, Response.
Injury Test
Because Spain is a ‘‘Subsidies
Agreement Country’’ within the
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act,
section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to
this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC
must determine whether imports of the
subject merchandise from Spain
materially injure, or threaten material
injury to, a U.S. industry.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:49 Jul 18, 2017
Jkt 241001
22 See Letter from ASEMESA et al to the
Department, re: ‘‘Request to Poll Industry,’’ dated
July 10, 2017.
23 See CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
24 See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also
CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
25 See CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
26 Id.
27 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
The petitioner alleges that imports of
the subject merchandise are benefitting
from countervailable subsidies and that
such imports are causing, or threaten to
cause, material injury to the U.S.
industry producing the domestic like
product. The petitioner alleges that
subject imports exceed the negligibility
threshold provided for under section
771(24)(A) of the Act.28
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, and reduction in olive
acreage under cultivation.29 We
assessed the allegations and supporting
evidence regarding material injury,
threat of material injury, and causation,
and we determined that these
allegations are properly supported by
adequate evidence and meet the
statutory requirements for initiation.30
Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigation
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires
the Department to initiate a CVD
investigation whenever an interested
party files a CVD petition on behalf of
an industry that (1) alleges the elements
necessary for the imposition of a duty
under section 701(a) of the Act and (2)
is accompanied by information
reasonably available to the petitioner
supporting the allegations.
The petitioner alleges that producers/
exporters of ripe olives in Spain
benefited from countervailable subsidies
bestowed by the GOS and the EU. The
Department examined the Petition and
finds that it complies with the
requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the
Act. Therefore, in accordance with
section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are
initiating a CVD investigation to
determine whether manufacturers,
producers, and/or exporters of ripe
olives from Spain receive
countervailable subsidies from the GOS
and/or the EU, as alleged by the
petitioner.
The Trade Preferences Extension Act
of 2015 (TPEA) made numerous
28 See Volume I of the Petition, at 12, and Exhibit
I–6A.
29 Id., at 18–34 and Exhibits I–6 and I–8—I–16.
30 See CVD 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).
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 19, 2017 / Notices
amendments to the AD and CVD laws.31
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.32 The amendments to sections
776 and 782 of the Act are applicable to
all determinations made on or after
August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to
this CVD investigation.33
Based on our review of the Petition,
we find that there is sufficient
information to initiate a CVD
investigation on the six alleged
programs. For a full discussion of the
basis for our decision to initiate on each
program, see CVD Initiation Checklist. A
public version of the initiation checklist
for this investigation is available on
ACCESS.
In accordance with section 703(b)(1)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1),
unless postponed, we will make our
preliminary determination in this
investigation no later than 65 days after
the date of initiation.
Respondent Selection
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
The petitioner named numerous
companies as producers/exporters of
ripe olives from Spain.34 The
Department intends to follow its
standard practice in CVD investigations
and calculate company-specific subsidy
rates in this investigation. 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 investigation under the
appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (HTSUS) numbers
listed in the ‘‘Scope of the
Investigation,’’ in the Appendix.
On July 6, 2017, the Department
released CBP data under Administrative
Protective Order (APO) to all parties
with access to information protected by
APO and indicated that interested
31 See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015,
Public Law 114–27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
32 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) (Applicability Notice).
33 Id., at 46794–95. The 2015 amendments may be
found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114thcongress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
34 See Petition, Volume I, at 28 and Exhibit 61.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:49 Jul 18, 2017
Jkt 241001
parties wishing to comment regarding
the CBP data must do so within three
business days of the announcement of
the initiation of the CVD investigation.35
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under APO
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b).
Instructions for filing such applications
may be found on the Department’s Web
site at 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
702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), a copy of the public version
of the Petition has been provided to the
GOS and the European Commission via
ACCESS. Because of the particularly
large number of producers/exporters
identified in the Petition,36 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 702(d)
of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine,
within 45 days of the date on which the
Petition was filed, whether there is a
reasonable indication that imports of
ripe olives in Spain are materially
injuring, or threatening material injury
to, a U.S. industry.37 A negative ITC
determination will result in the
investigation being terminated; 38
otherwise, the investigation will
proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
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
Memorandum, ‘‘Ripe Olives from Spain
Countervailing Duty Petition: Release of Customs
Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Release of CBP Data,’’ dated July 6, 2017.
36 See Petition, Volume I at Exhibit 61.
37 See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.
38 See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.
PO 00000
35 See
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33053
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 untimelyfiled 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/201322853.htm, prior to submitting factual
information in this investigation.
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual
information in an AD or CVD
proceeding must certify the accuracy
and completeness of that information.39
39 See
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
section 782(b) of the Act.
19JYN1
33054
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 19, 2017 / Notices
Parties must use the certification
formats provided in 19 CFR
351.303(g).40 The Department intends to
reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with
the applicable certification
requirements.
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 letters of
appearance, as discussed at 19 CFR
351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of
the Act.
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.
Excluded from the scope are: (1) Specialty
olives 41 (including ‘‘Spanish-style,’’
‘‘Sicilian-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)).
The merchandise subject to this petition is
currently classifiable under subheadings
005.70.0230, 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 petition; rather, the written
description of the subject merchandise is
dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2017–15143 Filed 7–18–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Appendix—Scope of the Investigation
The products covered by this Petition 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, multilayered 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.
40 See also Certification of Factual Information to
Import Administration During Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July
17, 2013) (Final Rule). Answers to frequently asked
questions regarding the Final Rule are available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_
info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:49 Jul 18, 2017
Jkt 241001
41 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–469–817]
Ripe Olives From Spain: Initiation of
Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation
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:
AGENCY:
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.’’
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, Associacion de
Exportadores e Industiales de Aceitunas
de Mesa (ASEMESA), an interested
party, requested the Department poll the
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.
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).
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33050-33054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15143]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-469-818]
Ripe Olives From Spain: Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigation
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce
DATES: Applicable July 12, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Shore at (202) 482-2778, AD/
CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On June 22, 2017,\1\ the Department of Commerce (Department)
received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of
ripe olives from Spain, filed in proper form, on behalf of the
Coalition for Fair Trade in Ripe Olives and its individual members,
Bell-Carter Foods, Inc. and Musco Family Olive Co. (collectively, the
petitioner). The CVD Petition was accompanied by an antidumping duty
(AD) 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, June 30, 2017, and July 3, 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
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\ 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\ Also on
July 10, 2017, the Department held consultations with respect to the
CVD Petition, the Government of Spain (GOS) and the European Commission
(EC) provided comments on the countervailability of the alleged
programs and requested clarification on the procedural timelines. The
GOS and the EC submitted their comments in written form that same
day.\7\ 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 Department Letter re: General Issues Supplemental
Questions, dated June 23, 2017 (General Issues Supplemental);
Department Letter re: Second General Issues Supplemental Questions,
dated June 28, 2017 (Second General Issues Supplemental); and
Department Letter re: Countervailing Duty Petition Supplement
Question, dated June 27, 2017.
\3\ See The petitioner's July 3, 2017 Supplement to the CVD
Petition (CVD 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).
\7\ See Ex-Part[eacute] Memorandum, ``Ripe Olives from Spain
Countervailing Duty Petition: Consultations with Officials from
Spain and European Union,'' dated July 11, 2017. See, also European
Commission and the Government of Spain Consultation Comments, dated
July 10, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the GOS and the European
Union are providing countervailable subsidies within the meaning of
sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to manufacturers, producers, or
exporters of ripe olives from Spain, and that imports of such ripe
olives are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an
industry in the United States. Additionally, consistent with section
702(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information
reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations of
subsidy programs in Spain on which we are initiating a CVD
investigation.
The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on
behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested
party, as
[[Page 33051]]
defined by section 771(9)(F) 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 CVD
investigation.
Period of Investigation
Because the Petition was filed on June 22, 2017, the period of
investigation (POI), the period for which we are measuring subsidies,
is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
Scope of the Investigation
The products covered by this Petition 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 the 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.\8\ As a result of those exchanges, the scope of the
Petition was modified to clarify the description of merchandise covered
by the Petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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,\9\ we
are setting aside a period of time for interested parties to raise
issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope). The Department will
consider all comments received 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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296,
27323 (May 19, 1997).
\10\ 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 investigations be submitted
during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that
additional factual information pertaining to the scope 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).\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act, the Department
notified representatives of the GOS and the EU of its receipt of the
Petition and provided them with the opportunity for consultations
regarding the CVD allegations.\12\ On July 10, 2017, the Department
held consultations with the GOS and the EU.\13\ All letters and
memoranda pertaining to these consultations are available via ACCESS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Department Letter, ``Ripe Olives from Spain: Invitation
for Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition,''
June 23, 2017.
\13\ See Department Memorandum, ``Countervailing Duty Petition
on Ripe Olives from Spain: Consultations,'' July 11, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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,\14\ 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.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\15\ 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''
[[Page 33052]]
(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.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in
these cases, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation
Checklist: Ripe Olives from Spain (CVD 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
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigation,'' in the Appendix to
this notice. The petitioner provided the 2016 production of the
domestic like product by its members.\17\ 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.\18\ We relied
on data the petitioner provided for purposes of measuring industry
support.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Volume I of the Petition, at 5 and Exhibit I-3.
\18\ Id., at 5; see also General Issues and AD Supplement, at 2
and Exhibit I-17.
\19\ Id. For further discussion, see AD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 5, 2017, we received comments on industry support from
ASEMESA.\20\ The petitioner responded to the letter from ASEMESA on
July 7, 2017.\21\ 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.).\22\ For further discussion of these
comments, see the AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 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.
\21\ See July 7, 2017, Response.
\22\ 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.\23\ 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).\24\ Second, the domestic producers (or
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 Petitions account for at least 25 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product.\25\ Finally, the
domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for
industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for
more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or
opposition to, the Petition.\26\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\24\ See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also CVD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\25\ See CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\26\ 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 CVD investigation that
it is requesting that the Department initiate.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury Test
Because Spain is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act
applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine
whether imports of the subject merchandise from Spain materially
injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are
benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are
causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry
producing the domestic like product. The petitioner alleges that
subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under
section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 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, and reduction in olive acreage under cultivation.\29\ We
assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material
injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we determined
that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and
meet the statutory requirements for initiation.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Id., at 18-34 and Exhibits I-6 and I-8--I-16.
\30\ See CVD 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a
CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on
behalf of an industry that (1) alleges the elements necessary for the
imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act and (2) is
accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner
supporting the allegations.
The petitioner alleges that producers/exporters of ripe olives in
Spain benefited from countervailable subsidies bestowed by the GOS and
the EU. The Department examined the Petition and finds that it complies
with the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in
accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a CVD
investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, and/or
exporters of ripe olives from Spain receive countervailable subsidies
from the GOS and/or the EU, as alleged by the petitioner.
The Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 (TPEA) made numerous
[[Page 33053]]
amendments to the AD and CVD laws.\31\ 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.\32\ The amendments to
sections 776 and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations
made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to this CVD
investigation.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law
114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
\32\ 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) (Applicability Notice).
\33\ Id., at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on the six
alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision
to initiate on each program, see CVD Initiation Checklist. A public
version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available
on ACCESS.
In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary
determination in this investigation no later than 65 days after the
date of initiation.
Respondent Selection
The petitioner named numerous companies as producers/exporters of
ripe olives from Spain.\34\ The Department intends to follow its
standard practice in CVD investigations and calculate company-specific
subsidy rates in this investigation. 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
investigation under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) numbers listed in the ``Scope of the
Investigation,'' in the Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Petition, Volume I, at 28 and Exhibit 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 6, 2017, the Department released CBP data under
Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to
information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties
wishing to comment regarding the CBP data must do so within three
business days of the announcement of the initiation of the CVD
investigation.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Memorandum, ``Ripe Olives from Spain Countervailing
Duty Petition: Release of Customs Data from U.S. Customs and Border
Protection Release of CBP Data,'' dated July 6, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such
applications may be found on the Department's Web site at 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 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been
provided to the GOS and the European Commission via ACCESS. Because of
the particularly large number of producers/exporters identified in the
Petition,\36\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Petition, Volume I at Exhibit 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITC Notification
We will notify 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 of the date on
which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication
that imports of ripe olives in Spain are materially injuring, or
threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.\37\ A negative ITC
determination will result in the investigation being terminated; \38\
otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.
\38\ See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the accuracy and completeness of that information.\39\
[[Page 33054]]
Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR
351.303(g).\40\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if
the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\40\ See also Certification of Factual Information to Import
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule). Answers to
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule are 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 letters of appearance, as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and
777(i) of the Act.
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 Petition 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 \41\
(including ``Spanish-style,'' ``Sicilian-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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ 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 petition is currently
classifiable under subheadings 005.70.0230, 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 petition; rather, the written description of the subject
merchandise is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2017-15143 Filed 7-18-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
