28186 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2018 / Notices 

1See Ripe Olives from Spain: Preliminary 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 

Alignment of Final Determination with Final 

Antidumping Duty Determination, 82 FR 56218 

(November 28, 2017) and accompanying 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum (Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum) (collectively, Preliminary 

Determination). 

2See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination for Ripe Olives 

from Spain,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby 

adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision 

Memorandum). 

3See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 

Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 

4See Ripe Olives from Spain: Initiation of 

Countervailing Duty Investigation, 82 FR 33050 

(July 19, 2017) (Initiation Notice). 

5See Memorandum, ‘‘Ripe Olives from Spain: 

Post-Preliminary Scope Clarification Decision 

Memorandum,’’ dated April 3, 2018. 

(FACA), that a meeting of the Maryland 

Advisory Committee to the Commission 

will convene by conference call at 11:00 

a.m. (EDT) on Thursday, July 12, 2018. 

The purpose of the meeting is to 

continue discussion of speaker selection 

and logistics for the August briefing on 

education disparity. 

DATES: Thursday, July 12, 2018, at 11:00 

a.m. (EDT). 

Public Call-In Information: 

Conference call-in number: 1–877–741– 

4240 and conference ID: 4020227. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Evelyn Bohor at ero@usccr.gov or by 

phone at 202–376–7533. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Interested 

members of the public may listen to the 

discussion by calling the following tollfree conference call-in number: 1–877– 

741–4240 and conference ID: 4020227. 

Please be advised that before placing 

them into the conference call, the 

conference call operator will ask callers 

to provide their names, their 

organizational affiliations (if any), and 

email addresses (so that callers may be 

notified of future meetings). Callers can 

expect to incur charges for calls they 

initiate over wireless lines, and the 

Commission will not refund any 

incurred charges. Callers will incur no 

charge for calls they initiate over landline connections to the toll-free 

conference call-in number. 

Persons with hearing impairments 

may also follow the discussion by first 

calling the Federal Relay Service at 

1–800–877–8339 and providing the 

operator with the toll-free conference 

call-in number: 1–877–741–4240 and 

conference ID: 4020227. 

Members of the public are invited to 

make statements during the open 

comment period of the meeting or 

submit written comments. The 

comments must be received in the 

regional office approximately 30 days 

after each scheduled meeting. Written 

comments may be mailed to the Eastern 

Regional Office, U.S. Commission on 

Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 

20425, faxed to (202) 376–7548, or 

emailed to Evelyn Bohor at ero@

usccr.gov. Persons who desire 

additional information may contact the 

Eastern Regional Office at (202) 376– 

7533. 

Records and documents discussed 

during the meeting will be available for 

public viewing as they become available 

at https://facadatabase.gov/committee/ 

meetings.aspx?cid=253, click the 

‘‘Meeting Details’’ and ‘‘Documents’’ 

links. Records generated from this 

meeting may also be inspected and 

reproduced at the Eastern Regional 

Office, as they become available, both 

before and after the meetings. Persons 

interested in the work of this advisory 

committee are advised to go to the 

Commission’s website, www.usccr.gov, 

or to contact the Eastern Regional Office 

at the above phone numbers, email or 

street address. 

Agenda 

Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. 

(EDT) 

• Rollcall 

• Planning Meeting to Discuss Speaker 

Selection and Logistics for August 

Briefing 

• Other Business 

• Open Comment 

• Adjourn 

Dated: June 12, 2018. 

David Mussatt, 

Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12917 Filed 6–15–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–469–818] 

Ripe Olives From Spain: Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) determines that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

ripe olives from Spain. The period of 

investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, 

through December 31, 2016. 

DATES: Applicable June 18, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Kolberg or Lana Nigro, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office I, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

(202) 482–1785, or (202) 482–1779, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 28, 2017, Commerce 

published the Preliminary 

Determination of this countervailing 

duty investigation, as provided by 

section 705 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act), in which Commerce 

found that countervailable subsidies are 

being provided to producers and 

exporters of ripe olives from Spain.1 A 

summary of the events that have 

occurred since Commerce published the 

Preliminary Determination, as well as a 

full discussion of the issues raised by 

parties for this final determination, may 

be found in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum which is hereby adopted 

by this notice.2

Scope of the Investigation 

The product covered by this 

investigation is ripe olives from Spain. 

For a complete description of the scope 

of this investigation, see Appendix I. 

Scope Comments 

In accordance with the preamble to 

Commerce’s regulations,3 the Initiation 

Notice set aside a period of time for 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage (i.e., scope). No interested 

party commented on the scope of the 

investigation as it appeared in the 

Initiation Notice during the scope 

comment period.4 For the Preliminary 

Determination, Commerce did not 

modify the scope language as it 

appeared in the Initiation Notice. 

However, the issue of cocktail mixes 

arose in the context of the companion 

antidumping duty (AD) investigation on 

ripe olives from Spain. In the April 3, 

2018, post-preliminary we issued with 

respect to the scope of the investigation, 

we found that: (i) Ripe olives contained 

in cocktail mixes are in the scope, but 

that the remaining ingredients are not in 

the scope, and (ii) we clarified the scope 

by adding language concerning ripe 

olives contained in cocktail mixes.5 As 

a result of our analysis of comments 

received in response to this postpreliminary analysis, we have modified 

the scope of this investigation for this 

final determination. For a summary of 

the product coverage comments and 

rebuttal responses submitted to the 

record for this final determination, and 

accompanying discussion and analysis 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2018 / Notices 28187 

6See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 30. 

7See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. 

8See the ‘‘Discussion of the Issues’’ section of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum and the 

company-specific analysis memoranda dated 

concurrently with, and hereby incorporated by, this 

notice. 

9For a complete analysis of the data, see 

Memorandum, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation 

of Ripe Olives form Spain: Calculation of the AllOthers Calculation Rate for the Final 

Determination,’’ dated concurrently with this 

notice. 

10 In the companion AD investigation, this 

company’s name is spelled as Aceitunas 

Guadalquivir S.L. 

11 In the companion AD investigation, this 

company’s name is spelled as Agro Sevilla 

Aceitunas S.Coop Andalusia. 

of all comments timely received, see the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum.6

Methodology 

Commerce is conducting this CVD 

investigation in accordance with section 

701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy 

programs found to be countervailable, 

we determine that there is a subsidy 

(i.e., a financial contribution by an 

‘‘authority’’ that gives rise to a benefit to 

the recipient) and that the subsidy is 

specific. For a full description of the 

methodology underlying our final 

determination, see the Issues and 

Decisions Memorandum. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, in February and March 2018, we 

conducted verification of the 

information submitted by the European 

Commission, the Government of Spain, 

and the mandatory respondents 

Aceitunas Guadalquivir S.L. (AG), Agro 

Sevilla Aceitunas S.COOP.And. (Agro 

Sevilla) and Angel Camacho 

Alimentacion S.L. (Camacho) for use in 

Commerce’s final determination. We 

used standard verification procedures, 

including an examination of relevant 

accounting records and original source 

documents provided by the 

respondents. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

The subsidies programs under 

investigation and all issues raised in the 

case and rebuttal briefs that were 

submitted by parties in this 

investigation are addressed in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum. A list of 

these issues is attached to this notice as 

Appendix II. The Issues and Decision 

Memorandum is a public document and 

is on file electronically via Enforcement 

and Compliance’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (ACCESS). 

ACCESS is available to registered users 

at http://access.trade.gov, and to all 

parties in the Central Records Unit, 

room B8024 of the main Department of 

Commerce building. In addition, a 

complete version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ 

frn/. 

Adverse Facts Available 

If necessary information is not 

available on the record, or an interested 

party withholds information, fails to 

provide requested information in a 

timely manner, significantly impedes a 

proceeding by not providing 

information, or information provided 

cannot be verified, Commerce will 

apply facts available, pursuant to 

section 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. For 

purposes of this final determination, 

Commerce relied, in part, on facts 

available and, because certain 

respondents did not cooperate by not 

acting to the best of their ability to 

respond to the Commerce’s requests for 

information, we drew an adverse 

inference, where appropriate, in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available.7 A full discussion 

of our decision to rely on adverse facts 

available is presented in the 

‘‘Application of Facts Otherwise 

Available and Use of Adverse 

Inferences’’ section of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on Commerce’s analysis of the 

comments received and its findings at 

verification, Commerce made certain 

changes to the subsidy rate calculations 

for AG, Agro Sevilla and Camacho.8 In 

addition, Commerce revised the subsidy 

rate calculations for the respondents to 

reflect the reliance on partial facts 

available with an adverse inference 

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. 

Because of these changes to the 

estimated subsidy rate for each 

mandatory respondent we have also 

revised the subsidy rate applicable to all 

other prroducers and exporters (the allothers rate). 

All-Others Rate 

Section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act 

provides that in the final determination, 

Commerce shall determine an estimated 

subsidy rate for all exporters or 

producers not individually examined. 

This rate shall be an amount equal to 

the weighted average of the estimated 

subsidy rates established for those 

exporters and producers individually 

examined, excluding any zero and de 

minimis countervailable subsidy rates, 

and any rates based entirely under 

section 776 of the Act. In this 

investigation, we calculated 

individually estimated countervailable 

subsidy rates for AG, Agro Sevilla and 

Camacho, that are not zero, de minimis, 

or based entirely on facts otherwise 

available. Because there are three 

estimated subsidy rates available and 

doing so would not reveal business 

proprietary information, we calculated 

the all-others rate using a weightedaverage of the individually estimated 

subsidy rates calculated for the 

examined respondents using each 

respondent’s business proprietary data 

for the merchandise under 

consideration.9

Final Determination 

We determine that the following 

estimated countervailable subsidy rates 

exist: 

Exporter/producer 

Subsidy 

rate 

(percent) 

Aceitunas Guadalquivir S.L.10 .... 27.02 

Agro Sevilla Aceitunas 

S.COOP.And.11 ....................... 7.52 

Angel Camacho Alimentacion 

S.L. .......................................... 13.22 

All-Others .................................... 14.75 

Disclosure 

We intend to disclose to interested 

parties the calculations and analysis 

performed in this final determination 

within five days of any public 

announcement or, if there is no public 

announcement, within five days of the 

date of publication of this notice in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Suspension of Liquidation 

As a result of our Preliminary 

Determination, and pursuant to sections 

703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we 

instructed U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation 

of all entries of merchandise under 

consideration from Spain that were 

entered or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption, on or after November 

28, 2017, the date of publication of the 

Preliminary Determination in the 

Federal Register. In accordance with 

section 703(d) of the Act, effective 

March 28, 2018, we instructed CBP to 

discontinue the suspension of 

liquidation of all entries at that time, but 

to continue the suspension of 

liquidation of all entries between 

November 28, 2017, and March 27, 

2018. 

If the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (ITC) makes a final 

affirmative injury determination we will 

issue a CVD order, reinstate the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
28188 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2018 / Notices 

12Some 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. 

suspension of liquidation under section 

706(a) of the Act, and require a cash 

deposit of estimated CVDs for such 

entries of subject merchandise in the 

amounts indicated above. If the ITC 

determines that material injury or threat 

of material injury does not exist, the 

proceeding will be terminated and all 

estimated duties deposited as a result of 

the suspension of liquidation will be 

refunded or cancelled. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 705(d) of 

the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC 

of its final determination. Because the 

final determination in this proceeding is 

affirmative, in accordance with section 

705(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the ITC will 

make its final determination as to 

whether the domestic industry in the 

United States is materially injured, or 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of imports of ripe olives from 

Spain no later than 45 days after 

Commerce’s final determination. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice serves as a reminder to 

parties subject to an administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials, or conversion to 

judicial protective order, is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and the terms of an APO is 

a violation subject to sanction. 

This determination and this notice are 

issued and published pursuant to 

sections 705(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: June 11, 2018. 

Gary Taverman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, 

performing the non-exclusive functions and 

duties of the Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance. 

Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation 

The products covered by this investigation 

are certain processed olives, usually referred 

to as ‘‘ripe olives.’’ The subject merchandise 

includes all colors of olives; all shapes and 

sizes of olives, whether pitted or not pitted, 

and whether whole, sliced, chopped, minced, 

wedged, broken, or otherwise reduced in 

size; all types of packaging, whether for 

consumer (retail) or institutional (food 

service) sale, and whether canned or 

packaged in glass, metal, plastic, 

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. 

Subject merchandise includes ripe olives 

that otherwise meet the definition above that 

are packaged together with non-subject 

products, where the smallest individual 

packaging unit (e.g., can, pouch, jar, etc.) of 

any such product—regardless of whether the 

smallest unit of packaging is included in a 

larger packaging unit (e.g., display case, 

etc.)—contains a majority (i.e., more than 50 

percent) of ripe olives by net drained weight. 

The scope does not include the non-subject 

components of such product. 

Excluded from the scope are: (1) Specialty 

olives 12 (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 

investigation is currently classifiable under 

subheadings 2005.70.0230, 2005.70.0260, 

2005.70.0430, 2005.70.0460, 2005.70.5030, 

2005.70.5060, 2005.70.6020, 2005.70.6030, 

2005.70.6050, 2005.70.6060, 2005.70.6070, 

2005.70.7000, 2005.70.7510, 2005.70.7515, 

2005.70.7520, and 2005.70.7525 HTSUS. 

Subject merchandise may also be imported 

under subheadings 2005.70.0600, 

2005.70.0800, 2005.70.1200, 2005.70.1600, 

2005.70.1800, 2005.70.2300, 2005.70.2510, 

2005.70.2520, 2005.70.2530, 2005.70.2540, 

2005.70.2550, 2005.70.2560, 2005.70.9100, 

2005.70.9300, and 2005.70.9700. Although 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and US Customs purposes, they 

do not define the scope of the investigation; 

rather, the written description of the subject 

merchandise is dispositive. 

Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed 

in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Scope of the Investigation 

IV. Scope Comments 

V. Subsidies Valuation 

VI. Loan Interest Rate Benchmarks and 

Discount Rates 

VII. Application of Facts Otherwise Available 

and Use of Adverse Inference 

VIII. Analysis of Programs 

IX. Discussion of the Issues 

Comment 1: Whether Section 771B of the 

Act is Applicable in This Investigation 

Comment 2: Whether a Pass-Through 

Analysis is Required 

Comment 3: Whether the EU CAP Pillar I 

–BPS, SPS, and Greening Programs are 

Countervailable 

Comment 4: Whether EU CAP Pillar II 

Agricultural Fund for Rural 

Development is Specific 

Comment 5: Whether Commerce Should 

AFA to the Non-Cooperating Growers 

Comment 6: Whether Commerce used the 

Correct Calculation Methodology to 

Measure Subsides Received by the 

Respondents 

Comment 7: Whether Commerce Should 

Remove Non-Growers and Adjust the 

Calculation of Benefits to Exclude the 

Olive Volume of Non-Producing 

Suppliers 

Comment 8: Whether Commerce Should 

Apply AFA to Agro Sevilla Regarding 

Cross-Ownership with its First-Tier 

Suppliers 

Comment 9: Whether Grant Funding 

Sourced From the ERDF is Regionally 

Specific 

Comment 10: Whether the EU Sustainable 

Energy Development of Andalusia 

Scheme Program is Specific 

Comment 11: Whether the PROSOL 

Program is Specific 

Comment 12: Whether the EU Regional 

Development Fund and IDEA Program is 

Specific 

Comment 13: Whether the EU Environment 

and Climate Action (LIFE) Program is 

Specific 

Comment 14: Whether the SAIS Program is 

Specific 

Comment 15: Whether Financing Sourced 

from the Spanish Official Credit Institute 

(ICO) is Countervailable 

Comment 16: Whether Commerce Should 

Adjust the Interest Rate Used in Certain 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2018 / Notices 28189 

1See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Steel Propane Cylinders 

from the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, and 

Thailand: Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties,’’ dated 

May 22, 2018 (the Petitions). For the purposes of 

the instant notice, all references to ‘the Petition,’ 

herein, refer specifically to the CVD Petition, and 

all references to ‘‘AD Petitions,’’ herein refer 

specifically to the petitioners filed in the 

companion AD proceedings. 

2See Petition at Volume I at 1–2. 

3See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Steel Propane Cylinders 

from the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, and 

Thailand: Petitioners’ Amendment to Volume I 

Relating to General Issues,’’ dated May 24, 2018 

(Scope Amendment). 

4See Department Letter re: Petition for the 

Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of 

Steel Propane Cylinders from the People’s Republic 

of China: Supplemental Questions, dated May 25, 

2018; and Department Letter re: Petitions for the 

Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties on Imports of Steel Propane Cylinders from 

the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, and 

Thailand: Supplemental Questions, dated May 25, 

2018 (Petition Supplemental Questions). 

5See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Steel Propane Cylinders 

from the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, and 

Thailand—Petitioners’ Supplement to Volume I 

Relating to General Issues,’’ dated May 30, 2018 

(General Issues Supplement); see also Petitioners’ 

Letter, ‘‘Steel Propane Cylinders from the People’s 

Republic of China, Taiwan, and Thailand— 

Petitioners’ Amendment to Volume V Relating to 

the People’s Republic of China Countervailing 

Duties,’’ dated May 30, 2018 (China CVD Petition 

Supplement). 

6See General Issues Supplement at 11–12. 

7See ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the 

Petition’’ section, infra. 

8See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). 

9See Petition Supplemental Questions; see also 

General Issues Supplement at 11–12. 

10See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 

1997) (Preamble); see also General Issues 

Supplement, at 4 and 8–9. On June 11, 2018, the 

petitioners filed proposed revisions to the scope 

language for Commerce’s consideration. See letter 

Continued 

Long-Term ICO Financing to Angel 

Camacho 

Comment 17: Whether Commerce Should 

Adjust the Calculation of European 

Investment Bank (EIB) Financing 

Received by Agro Sevilla 

Comment 18: Whether To Apply AFA to 

the CDTI Program 

Comment 19: Whether the CDTI Program is 

Export Specific 

Comment 20: Whether Commerce Should 

Apply AFA to Angel Camacho’s 

Unreported Grant Presented at 

Verification 

Comment 21: Whether Commerce Should 

Rely on ‘‘Unverified’’ Information 

Comment 22: Whether Commerce Should 

Adjust the Volume of Raw Olives 

Purchased to Account for Waste Loss 

Comment 23: Whether Commerce Should 

Accept Rejected Submission from the 

GOS and the Respondents 

Comment 24: Comments on the 

Verification Reports 

Comment 26: Whether Commerce’s 

Conduct in This Investigation Meets the 

Requirements of the ASCM 

Comment 26: Whether Other Discovered 

Subsidies Should be Included in this 

Investigation and Whether Other 

Assistance Can Form the Basis for 

Applying AFA 

Comment 27: Whether Commerce Should 

Include the Corrections of the Alleged 

Ministerial Errors 

Comment 28: Commerce Must Use 

Corrected and Revised Data in the 

Calculations 

Comment 29: Whether To Clarify the Scope 

of the Investigation to Include Ripe 

Olives Contained in Cocktail Mixes 

Comment 30: The Product to Which the 

Countervailing Duty Applies 

X. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2018–12990 Filed 6–15–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–087] 

Steel Propane Cylinders From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation 

of Countervailing Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Applicable June 11, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Samuel Brummitt, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–7851. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On May 22, 2018, the U.S. 

Department of Commerce (Commerce) 

received a countervailing duty (CVD) 

petition concerning imports of steel 

propane cylinders from the People’s 

Republic of China (China), and 

antidumping duty (AD) petitions 

concerning imports of steel propane 

cylinders from China, Taiwan, and 

Thailand filed in proper form on behalf 

of Worthington Industries and 

Manchester Tank & Equipment Co. (the 

petitioners).1 The petitioners are 

domestic producers of steel propane 

cylinders.2

The petitioners amended the scope of 

the petitioners on May 24, 2018.3 On 

May 25, 2018, Commerce requested 

supplemental information pertaining to 

certain areas of the petition.4 The 

petitioners filed responses to these 

requests on May 30, 2018.5 On May 30, 

2018, the petitioners submitted certain 

revisions to the scope.6

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act), the petitioners allege that the 

Government of China (GOC) is 

providing countervailable subsidies, 

within the meaning of sections 701 and 

771(5) of the Act, to producers of steel 

propane cylinders in China and imports 

of such products are materially injuring, 

or threatening material injury to, the 

domestic steel propane cylinders 

industry in the United States. Consistent 

with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged 

programs on which we are initiating a 

CVD investigation, the petition is 

accompanied by information reasonably 

available to the petitioners supporting 

their allegations. 

Commerce finds that the petitioners 

filed the petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because the 

petitioners are interested parties as 

defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. 

We also find that the petitioners 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the initiation of 

this CVD investigation that the 

petitioners are requesting.7

Period of Investigation 

Because the petition was filed on May 

22, 2018, the period of investigation is 

January 1, 2017, through December 31, 

2017.8

Scope of the Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are steel propane cylinders 

from China. For a full description of the 

scope of the investigation, see the 

Appendix to this notice. 

Comments on Scope of the Investigation 

During our review of the petition, 

Commerce issued questions to, and 

received responses from, the petitioners 

pertaining to the proposed scope to 

ensure that the scope language in the 

petition is an accurate reflection of the 

product for which the domestic industry 

is seeking relief.9 As a result of these 

exchanges, the scope of the petition was 

modified to clarify the description of 

merchandise covered by the petition. 

The description of the merchandise 

covered by this initiation, as described 

in the Appendix to this notice, reflects 

these clarifications. 

As discussed in the Preamble to 

Commerce’s regulations, we are setting 

aside a period for interested parties to 

raise issues regarding product coverage 

(scope), including comments on 

whether it is appropriate to refer to the 

subject merchandise as ‘‘steel propane 

cylinders’’ (emphasis added) or just as 

‘‘steel cylinders,’’ given that the 

petitioners intend to cover all products 

that meet the physical description of the 

scope regardless of whether they 

ultimately contain or transport 

compressed or liquefied propane gas.10


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1