Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 78799 

1See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts: 

Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review; 2012, 79 FR 36012 (June 25, 

2014) (Preliminary Results) and Memorandum to 

Paul Piquado, ‘‘Post-Preliminary Results Decision 

Memorandum for the Fourth Administrative 

Review of the Countervailing Duty Order: Citric 

Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People’s 

Republic of China,’’ dated September 5, 2014 (PostPreliminary Results). 

2See Memorandum to Eric Greynolds, Acting 

Office Director for AD/CVD Duty Operations, Office 

III, ‘‘Administrative Review of Countervailing Duty 

Order on Citric and Certain Citrate Salts: 

Verification of the Questionnaire Responses 

Submitted by the RZBC Co. Ltd. and its crossowned affiliates,’’ (October 7, 2014); see also 

Memorandum to Eric Greynolds, Acting Director, 

AD/CVD Duty Operations, Office III, 

‘‘Administrative Review of Countervailing Duty 

Order on Citric and Certain Citrate Salts: 

Verification of the Questionnaire Responses 

Submitted by the Government of the People’s 

Republic of China,’’ (October 7, 2014). 

3Petitioners are Archer Daniels Midland 

Company, Cargill Incorporated, and Tate & Lyle 

Ingredients America LLC. 

4See letter from the GOC, ‘‘GOC’s POR 4 

Administrative Case Brief in the Fourth 

Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty 

Order on Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From 

the People’s Republic of China,’’ (October 20, 2014); 

Letter from Petitioners, ‘‘Citric Acid and Certain 

Citrate Salts From The People’s Republic Of China/ 

Petitioners’ Case Brief,’’ (October 20, 2014); Letter 

from the RZBC Companies, ‘‘Citric Acid and Citrate 

Salts From the People’s Republic of China: Case 

Brief,’’ (October 20, 2014). 

5See letter from the GOC, ‘‘GOC’s Rebuttal Brief 

in the Fourth Administrative Review of the 

Countervailing Duty Order on Citric Acid and 

Certain Citrate Salts from the People’s Republic of 

China,’’ (October 27, 2014); Letter from Petitioners, 

‘‘Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From The 

People’s Republic Of China/Petitioners’ Rebuttal 

Brief,’’ (October 27, 2014); Letter from the RZBC 

Companies, ‘‘Citric Acid and Citrate Salts from the 

People’s Republic of China: Rebuttal Case Brief,’’ 

(October 27, 2014). 

6On November 24, 2014, Enforcement and 

Compliance changed the name of Enforcement and 

Compliance’s AD and CVD Centralized Electronic 

Service System (‘‘IA ACCESS’’) to AD and CVD 

Centralized Electronic Service System (‘‘ACCESS’’). 

The Web site location was changed from http://

iaaccess.trade.gov to http://access.trade.gov. The 

Final Rule changing the references to the 

Regulations can be found at 79 FR 69046 

(November 20, 2014). 

deposit rate will be the rate applicable 

to the exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.214. 

Dated: December 18, 2014. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

Appendix 

List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum 

1. Bona Fide Sale Analysis 

2. Non-Market Economy Country Status 

3. Separate Rate 

4. Surrogate Country 

5. Date of Sale 

6. Fair Value Comparisons 

7. U.S. Price 

8. Normal Value 

[FR Doc. 2014–30660 Filed 12–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–938] 

Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts: 

Final Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review; 2012 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) has completed its 

administrative review of the 

countervailing duty (CVD) order on 

citric acid and certain citrate salts (citric 

acid) from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC) for the period of review 

(POR) covering January 1, 2012, through 

December 31, 2012. On June 25, 2014, 

we published the preliminary results of 

this review and the post-preliminary 

results were completed on September 5, 

2014.1

We provided interested parties with 

an opportunity to comment on the 

Preliminary Results and PostPreliminary Results. Our analysis of the 

comments submitted resulted in a 

change to the net subsidy rate for RZBC 

Group Shareholding Co., Ltd., RZBC 

Co., Ltd., RZBC Juxian Co., Ltd., and 

RZBC Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. 

(collectively, the RZBC Companies). The 

final net subsidy rate is listed below in 

the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of the 

Review.’’ 

DATES: Effective Date: December 31, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia M. Tran and Raquel Silva, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement 

and Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–1503 and (202) 

482–6475, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Following the Preliminary Results and 

Post-Preliminary Results, on September 

11 through 19, 2014, the Department 

conducted verification of the 

questionnaire responses submitted by 

the Government of the PRC (GOC) and 

the RZBC Companies. The verification 

reports for the GOC and the RZBC 

Companies were released on October 8, 

2014.2 We received case briefs from the 

GOC, the RZBC Companies, and 

Petitioners 3 on October 20, 2014.4 On 

October 27, 2014, all parties submitted 

their rebuttal briefs.5 No hearing was 

held in this case as none was requested. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to the order 

is citric acid and certain citrate salts. 

The product is currently classified 

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States (HTSUS) item 

numbers 2918.14.0000, 2918.15.1000, 

2918.15.5000, 3824.90.9290, and 

3824.90.9290. Although the HTSUS 

numbers are provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

product description remains dispositive. 

A full description of the scope of the 

order is contained in the memorandum 

from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations to Paul 

Piquado, Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance, ‘‘Issues 

and Decision Memorandum for the 

Final Results of the Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review: Citric Acid and 

Certain Citrate Salts; 2012’’ (Final 

Decision Memorandum), dated 

concurrently with this notice, and 

hereby adopted by this notice. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case briefs are 

addressed in the Final Decision 

Memorandum. A list of the issues raised 

is attached to this notice as an 

Appendix. The Final 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).6

ACCESS is available to registered users 

at http://access.trade.gov and in the 

Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the 

main Department of Commerce 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

78800 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 

7See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act 

regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) 

of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of 

the Act regarding specificity. 

8See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. 

building. In addition, a complete 

version of the Final Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ 

enforcement/. The signed Final Decision 

Memorandum and the electronic 

versions of the Final Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Methodology 

The Department conducted this 

review in accordance with section 

751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). For each of the 

subsidy programs found 

countervailable, we determine that there 

is a subsidy, i.e., a financial 

contribution from an ‘‘authority’’ that 

confers a benefit to the recipient, and 

that the subsidy is specific.7 For a full 

description of the methodology 

underlying our conclusions, see the 

Final Decision Memorandum. 

In making these findings, we relied, in 

part, on facts available and, because the 

GOC did not act to the best of its ability 

to respond to the Department’s requests 

for information, we drew an adverse 

inference in selecting from among the 

facts otherwise available.8 For further 

information, see ‘‘Use of Facts 

Otherwise Available and Adverse 

Inferences’’ in the Final Decision 

Memorandum. 

Final Results of the Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(5), we determine a net 

countervailable subsidy rate of 17.55 

percent ad valorem for the RZBC 

Companies. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department intends to issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) 15 days after the date 

of publication of these final results, to 

liquidate shipments of subject 

merchandise by the RZBC Companies 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after January 1, 

2012, through December 31, 2012. 

Cash Deposit Instructions 

The Department also intends to 

instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of 

estimated CVDs in the amount shown 

above on shipments of subject 

merchandise by the RZBC Companies 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. For all non-reviewed 

companies, we will instruct CBP to 

continue to collect cash deposits at the 

most recent company-specific or 

country-wide rate applicable to the 

company. Accordingly, the cash deposit 

rates that will be applied to companies 

covered by this order, but not examined 

in this review, are those established in 

the most recently completed segment of 

the proceeding for each company. These 

cash deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Administrative Protective Order 

This notice serves as a reminder to 

parties subject to 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 

written notification of 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 sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended. 

Dated: December 22, 2014. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II Background 

III. Scope of the Order 

IV. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and 

Adverse Inferences 

V. Subsidies Valuation Information 

VI. Benchmarks and Discount Rates 

VII. Analysis of Programs 

VIII. Analysis of Comments 

Comment 1: Whether to Reverse the 

Department’s ‘‘Authorities’’ 

Determination 

Comment 2: Whether to Find Certain 

Calcium Carbonate Producers are 

‘‘Authorities’’ 

Comment 3: Whether the Department Should 

Countervail Input Purchases Made 

Through Trading Companies and 

Produced by ‘‘Authorities’’ 

Comment 4: Whether to Find Input for LTAR 

Programs Not Specific 

Comment 5: Whether to Find the Provision 

of Caustic Soda for LTAR 

Countervailable 

A. Specificity 

B. ‘‘Authorities’’ 

C. Market Distortion 

D. Benchmark 

Comment 6: Export-Import Bank of China 

Buyer’s Credit 

Comment 7: Whether to Apply Adverse Facts 

Available (AFA) to Steam Coal and 

Sulfuric Acid Purchases 

Comment 8: Whether to Exclude Freight 

Surcharges for Limestone Flux 

Comment 9: Whether the Provision of 

Calcium Carbonate for LTAR is Specific 

to the RZBC Companies’ Purchases 

Comment 10: Whether to Average Benchmark 

Prices 

Comment 11: Whether to Use Inland Freight 

Benchmark Data for Steam Coal 

Comment 12: Whether to Include Hazardous 

Shipping Charges in International 

Freight Calculations for Sulfuric Acid 

and Caustic Soda Benchmarks 

Comment 13: How to Ensure That World 

Market Prices Used in Benchmarks Are 

Reasonably Available in China 

Comment 14: How to Treat Steam Coal 

Benchmark Data Reported on CIF Basis 

Comment 15: Whether to Account for Grade 

or Specification of Sulfuric Acid, Steam 

Coal, and Limestone Flux In Benchmarks 

Comment 16: Whether to Account for 

Quantities Sold for Limestone Flux, 

Sulfuric Acid, and Steam Coal 

Benchmarks 

Comment 17: How to Calculate Benchmarks 

Using GTIS Data 

Comment 18: Whether to Recalculate Land 

Benchmark 

IX. Conclusion 

[FR Doc. 2014–30661 Filed 12–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–014] 

53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Amended Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less-Than-Fair-Value 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is amending the 

preliminary determination of the lessthan-fair-value investigation of 53-foot 

domestic dry containers from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) to 

correct for certain ministerial errors, as 

described below, in the ‘‘Supplementary 

Information’’ section of this notice. The 

Department corrected these errors and 

recalculated the weighted-average 

dumping margins for a mandatory 

respondent and the PRC-Wide entity, as 

described below in the ‘‘Amended 

Preliminary Determination’’ section of 

this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 31, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Davis or John Drury, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES