Ripe Olives From Spain: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 33050-33054 [2017-15143]

Download as PDF 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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 
http://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