Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2012, 78799-78800 [2014-30661]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 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] 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 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 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 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES AGENCY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:02 Dec 30, 2014 Jkt 235001 1 See 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). 2 See 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). 3 Petitioners are Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill Incorporated, and Tate & Lyle Ingredients America LLC. 4 See 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); PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 78799 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 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). 5 See 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). 6 On 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). E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM 31DEN1 78800 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 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. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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 7 See 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. 8 See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. 22:02 Dec 30, 2014 Jkt 235001 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 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 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. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 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 AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM 31DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78799-78800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30661]


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

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 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 (Post-Preliminary Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We provided interested parties with an opportunity to comment on 
the Preliminary Results and Post-Preliminary 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 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 cross-owned 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).
    \3\ Petitioners are Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill 
Incorporated, and Tate & Lyle Ingredients America LLC.
    \4\ See 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).
    \5\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 78800]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ On 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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