Trade Representative, Office of United States Briefing 2025-11-07 Estimated reading time: 3 minutes 1. Notification of the Third United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Labor Council Meeting Sub: Trade Representative, Office of United States Content: The Parties to the Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada (USMCA) intend to hold the third meeting of the Labor Council on December 9-10, 2025. The meeting will include a closed in-person government-to-government Labor Council session in Ottawa, Canada, and a virtual public session on implementation of the USMCA labor chapter. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) invite comments and questions from the public in advance of the virtual public session. 2. Notice of Change to Date for Public Hearing Relating to the Operation of the Agreement Between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada Sub: Trade Representative, Office of United States Content: In a notice published on September 17, 2025, USTR announced a public hearing relating to the operation of the Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada (USMCA), scheduled for November 17, 2025, in the main hearing room of the U.S. International Trade Commission. USTR is modifying the date of the public hearing. The public hearing will convene on December 3-5, 2025, in the main hearing room of the U.S. International Trade Commission. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Title: Application To Make and Register NFA Firearm, ATF Form 5320.1 (“Form 1”)
ATF Proposes Revisions to Form 1: Application to Make and Register NFA Firearm Estimated reading time: 5–8 minutes On October 30, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) announced proposed changes to the information collection process for ATF Form 5320.1, also called “Form 1.” Form 1 is the document people use to apply to make and register a National Firearms Act (NFA) firearm. Public Comment Period Open The ATF is accepting written public comments for 30 days, until midnight on December 1, 2025. Comments should be submitted online at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. People can search for this collection using the title or OMB control number 1140-0015. What is Changing? ATF is revising Form 1 for several reasons: The number of applicants has increased. There are now an estimated 148,975 applicants, up from 25,716. The time to complete the form is now less. Better technology means fewer people need to provide fingerprints and photos, and electronic systems have made the process faster. Only one copy of the form needs to be filled out. You do not need to send an extra copy to local law enforcement anymore. Detailed Form Updates The title of the form is being revised to be clearer. The photo box is being removed. Now you can attach either a passport-style photo or a copy of a photo ID document. Race and ethnicity questions are being combined. More types of electronic and digital signatures will be allowed. The fillable PDF will now link copy 1 and copy 2, except for the checkboxes and signature. References to eForms (electronic forms) and Pay.gov are being added. The form will now include instructions on how to get a refund. The requirement to notify Chief Law Enforcement Officers (CLEOs) and submit an extra copy has been removed. Married couples jointly making, transferring, or registering a firearm will get new instructions, as an ‘other legal entity.’ Minor grammar mistakes are being fixed. There will be email addresses for questions about the form. Changes to the Tax Requirement Item 1a: Applicants must submit a $200 tax payment for each machinegun or destructive device. The tax can be paid by card, check, money order, or through Pay.gov. Item 1b: For other types of firearms, the tax is $0, and item 19 does not need to be completed. Impact on Applicants The estimated time per respondent is now 12 minutes, down from 30 minutes. The total annual time burden for all applicants is now 29,795 hours. The total estimated annual cost burden (excluding time) is $685,285. Comments and ATF Response One dealer supported removing the requirement to send a copy to CLEOs, saying this prevents CLEOs from accidentally creating a firearms registry. The commenter supported digital signatures and using copies of photo IDs, rather than photographs and fingerprints. ATF replied that the changes reflect a broader move to modernize and digitize NFA forms. The agency expects to move to online-only forms in 2026. Where to Get More Information For questions or copies of the documents, contact Meghan Tisserand at the National Firearms Act Division (304-616-3219) or Darwin Arceo at the Department of Justice. Summary ATF’s changes to Form 1 are designed to make the process of applying to make and register NFA firearms faster, easier, and more modern, with less paperwork and more digital options. Public comments are welcome until December 1, 2025. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Title: Application To Transfer and Register NFA Firearm (Tax-Paid), ATF Form 5320.4 (“Form 4”)
ATF Announces Big Changes to NFA Firearm Transfer Form (Form 4) Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is making big changes to Form 5320.4, also called “Form 4.” This is the form you use to transfer and register National Firearms Act (NFA) guns. These changes will help make the form easier and faster to fill out. The ATF is asking people to send in comments about these changes by December 1, 2025. Comments can be submitted online at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain by searching for “Application To Transfer and Register NFA Firearm (Tax-Paid)” or the OMB control number “1140-0014”. Who is Affected? This information collection affects state, local, and tribal governments, individuals and families, private businesses, and even the federal government. People with NFA firearms have to apply to the ATF for approval to transfer or register their firearm using Form 4. The approved Form 4 is proof that the gun is legally registered. Important Changes to Form 4 The number of people filling out this form has gone up a lot, from 123,339 last time to 546,424 now. The average time to finish the form is now just 12 minutes, down from 30 minutes. Many steps can now be done electronically. This lets people use digital fingerprints, digital signatures, photos from cell phones, and photocopies of IDs. The extra requirement to send a copy of the form to local law enforcement (CLEO) is being removed. The online fillable form now makes a second copy automatically. The estimated total time people will spend on this a year is now 109,285 hours, which is much less than before. The estimated total other annual costs will be $2,513,555. Updates to the Tax Section The $5 transfer tax box in Item 1 has been removed and replaced with a $0 box. The instructions now state: “The transfer tax is $200.00 for machineguns and destructive devices. The transfer tax is $0.00 for other types of firearms.” Other Major Form Revisions The title of the form is now clearer. The photo box has been removed. People can now use either a passport-style photo or a copy of a photo ID. Race and ethnicity items are now combined. More types of digital signatures can be used. The fillable online form now links copy 1 and 2, so both are filled out at the same time. New references to eForms and pay.gov have been added. There are instructions for getting a refund. The CLEO notification and extra copy are removed. There are now instructions for married couples filling out the form together as a legal entity. There are email addresses for help with different questions. Typographical and grammar corrections have been made. Public and ATF Feedback One NFA firearms dealer submitted a comment. This person supported the changes. They liked the removal of the CLEO copy requirement and the push for more digital options. They said digital signatures and allowing a photo of a photo ID or cell phone photo made things easier. ATF said they value feedback. They explained they are moving all NFA forms to electronic options. Full online submissions are planned for 2026. Other NFA forms are also getting updated. For More Information Contact Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Justice, 145 N Street NE, Suite 4W-218, Washington, DC 20530. You can also contact Meghan Tisserand at the National Firearms Act Division for more help. Deadline If you have thoughts about these changes, you must submit your comments by December 1, 2025. Visit www.reginfo.gov for more details. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Title: Application To Transfer and Register NFA Firearm (Tax-Exempt), ATF Form 5320.5 (“Form 5”)
ATF Announces Changes to NFA Firearm Transfer Form (Form 5) Estimated reading time: 5–7 minutes On October 30, 2025, the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) published a notice in the Federal Register. The notice details proposed changes to the Application To Transfer and Register NFA Firearm (Tax-Exempt), also known as ATF Form 5320.5, or Form 5. The Form and Its Purpose Form 5 is used by people who need permission to transfer and register certain firearms covered under the National Firearms Act (NFA). Sometimes, these transfers do not need a tax because of special tax exemptions. People use Form 5 to claim these exemptions. ATF uses the form to check if the transfer is legal under federal, state, and local law. Some examples of use: Transferring a firearm from an estate to a beneficiary. Transferring firearms due to bankruptcy. Temporarily transferring firearms for repair and return. Who Uses the Form? The affected public includes: Federal, state, and local government agencies. People selling unserviceable firearms. Required Information To use the form, applicants need: To provide information about themselves and the firearm. If claiming a tax exemption, to give information supporting the claim. Why Is This Important? ATF is revising this information collection for several reasons: Respondents increased from 10,591 to 17,322 over three years. Time to complete the form dropped from 30 to 12 minutes. Improvements in technology allow more of the process to be done online or electronically. Fewer people must provide fingerprints or photographs. It is now easier to use cell phone photos or photocopied IDs. Copies of the form can be filled at the same time. The requirement to send an extra copy to local law enforcement is going away. The total time burden for all users dropped by 1,866 hours. The yearly total burden is now about 3,464 hours. The estimated yearly cost is $79,672. Changes to Form 5 Some changes include: A clearer title for the form. No more photo box; applicants can attach a photo or a copy of photo ID. Race and ethnicity items are now combined. More electronic and digital signature types are allowed. The form will automatically fill in copy 2 as copy 1 is completed. References to eForms and pay.gov have been added. Instructions for the refund process are included. The CLEO (Chief Law Enforcement Officer) notification requirement and copy are removed. New instructions for married couples applying together as a legal entity. Grammar and typo corrections. Email addresses for help and questions are added. Public Comments and ATF Response One firearm dealer commented during the 60-day period. The dealer supported: Removing the need to send a form to local law enforcement. Modernizing the form, including allowing digital signatures. Accepting photo IDs instead of a 2-inch by 2-inch photograph. Ending the fingerprint requirement for each application. ATF responded positively. The agency said all NFA forms are being updated and moved to electronic versions. Electronic signatures and fillable forms are becoming available. ATF plans to have all forms online by 2026. How to Comment ATF is accepting public comments about these changes until December 1, 2025. Comments can be sent online at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain by searching for the title or OMB control number 1140-0015. For more information, contact Meghan Tisserand at the National Firearms Act Division, or Darwin Arceo at the Department of Justice. Dated: October 28, 2025 Source: Federal Register, Volume 90, Number 208, Pages 48903–48904. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
DOJ Briefing 2025-10-30
Justice Department Briefing 2025-10-30 Estimated reading time: 4 minutes 1. Application To Transfer and Register NFA Firearm (Tax-Exempt), ATF Form 5320.5 (“Form 5”) Link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/10/30/2025-19724/agency-information-collection-activities-proposed-ecollection-ecomments-requested-title-application Sub: Justice Department Content: The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 2. Application To Transfer and Register NFA Firearm (Tax-Paid), ATF Form 5320.4 (“Form 4”) Link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/10/30/2025-19723/agency-information-collection-activities-proposed-ecollection-ecomments-requested-title-application Sub: Justice Department Content: The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 3. Application To Make and Register NFA Firearm, ATF Form 5320.1 (“Form 1”) Link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/10/30/2025-19722/agency-information-collection-activities-proposed-ecollection-ecomments-requested-title-application Sub: Justice Department Content: The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 4. Antony Vanbang, M.D.; Decision and Order Link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/10/30/2025-19710/antony-vanbang-md-decision-and-order Sub: Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration 5. Tracy Amerson-Rivers, A.P.R.N.; Decision and Order Link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/10/30/2025-19709/tracy-amerson-rivers-aprn-decision-and-order Sub: Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration 6. Pharmacy Place, Llc; Decision and Order Link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/10/30/2025-19708/pharmacy-place-llc-decision-and-order Sub: Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration 7. Dawn Evert, N.P.; Decision and Order Link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/10/30/2025-19707/dawn-evert-np-decision-and-order Sub: Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration 8. Lawrence Michael Willis, D.D.S.; Decision and Order Link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/10/30/2025-19705/lawrence-michael-willis-dds-decision-and-order Sub: Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
JC Briefing 2025-10-27
Judicial Conference of the United States Briefing 2025-10-27 Estimated reading time: 3 minutes 1. Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules; Meeting of the Judicial Conference Sub: Judicial Conference of the United States Content: The Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules will hold a meeting virtually on November 6, 2025, rather than in New Orleans, LA, as previously announced. The meeting is open to the public only for remote observation with no participation. Please see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section in this notice for instructions on observing the meeting. 2. Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules; Meeting of the Judicial Conference Sub: Judicial Conference of the United States Content: The Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules will hold a meeting virtually on November 5, 2025, rather than in New Orleans, LA, as previously announced. The meeting is open to the public only for remote observation with no participation. Please see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section in this notice for instructions on observing the meeting. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
MCRGC, LLC; Decision and Order
DEA Denies Registration for MCRGC, LLC to Grow Marijuana Estimated reading time: 5–7 minutes Background On May 7, 2024, the DEA sent an Order to Show Cause to MCRGC, LLC. This order explained that MCRGC, LLC’s application to grow marijuana might be denied because it did not meet certain legal requirements. Reasons for Denial The DEA found that MCRGC, LLC did not have: A physical location where it could grow marijuana and that the DEA could inspect. A DEA Schedule I researcher certificate of registration for marijuana. A real supply agreement with a registered DEA Schedule I researcher who has an approved research plan. A complete and accurate application as required. Hearing Process MCRGC, LLC was told it could ask for a hearing about its application. The DEA mailed and emailed the Order to Show Cause to the company. MCRGC, LLC replied to the email but did not ask for a hearing within 30 days. Because of this, the company was considered in default. This means that the DEA viewed all the facts in the Order as true. Legal Standards The law says that the DEA can only give registration to grow controlled substances like marijuana if doing so is consistent with the public interest. The DEA must also follow treaty obligations and make sure there are controls to prevent illegal use or theft. Rules require that the DEA can inspect where the drugs would be made. For marijuana, there are extra criteria, including having proper researcher registration and supply agreements. Findings Because MCRGC, LLC did not respond in time, its admission that it had no physical facility, no researcher registration, no supply contract, and an incomplete application was accepted. The DEA reviewed the facts and found that approving the application would not be in the public interest. Order and Authority The DEA Administrator officially denied the application from MCRGC, LLC. Any other applications from the company to grow marijuana are also denied as of November 20, 2025. Document Details This decision was signed by DEA Administrator Terrance Cole on October 9, 2025. The document was filed and made official by Heather Achbach, the DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer. The Federal Register published this notice on October 21, 2025. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
DOJ Briefing 2025-10-21
Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration Briefing 2025-10-21 Estimated reading time: 2 minutes 1. MCRGC, LLC; Decision and Order Sub: Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration 2. Hil Rizvi, M.D.; Decision and Order Sub: Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration 3. Enyibuaku Uzoaga, M.D.; Decision and Order Sub: Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration 4. Mert Kivanc, D.O.; Decision and Order Sub: Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
James Orrington, II, D.D.S.; Decision and Order
DEA Revokes Dr. James Orrington II’s Right to Handle Controlled Substances Estimated reading time: 5 minutes The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has revoked the registration of Dr. James Orrington II, D.D.S., of Chicago, Illinois. This action means Dr. Orrington can no longer handle controlled substances in the state of Illinois. The DEA sent an Order to Show Cause to Dr. Orrington on May 23, 2025. The order said he was not allowed to handle controlled substances in Illinois. The order also warned that if he did not respond, he would lose his right to a hearing. Dr. Orrington did not answer the order or ask for a hearing. This means he is in default. The DEA explained how they tried to contact Dr. Orrington. First, they tried to call him and visit his address. When these steps failed, they mailed the order to his address. The mail was not returned. Then, they emailed the order to him. That email was also not returned. Because none of these attempts failed, the DEA said Dr. Orrington was given enough notice. According to the facts, Dr. Orrington’s Illinois dental and controlled substance licenses were suspended on May 23, 2024. The DEA checked online records and confirmed that his licenses remain suspended. This means Dr. Orrington is not allowed to practice as a dentist or handle controlled substances in Illinois. The law says a dentist must have a valid state license to handle these substances. The Controlled Substances Act requires practitioners to have state authority. Since Dr. Orrington’s licenses are suspended, he does not meet this rule. The DEA cited laws and past cases to support its decision. According to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General can revoke a registration if a state license is suspended. Illinois law defines who can dispense controlled substances, and Dr. Orrington is not currently authorized to do so. Because his licenses are not active, Dr. Orrington cannot keep his DEA registration. The DEA’s final order says Dr. Orrington’s registration number BO7484811 is revoked. Any requests by Dr. Orrington to renew, change, or add new registrations in Illinois are also denied. This order takes effect on November 19, 2025. The order was signed by DEA Administrator Terrance Cole on October 9, 2025. The official document was filed for publication in the Federal Register by the DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer, Heather Achbach. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Abolghasem Rezaei, M.D.; Decision and Order
DEA Revokes Dr. Abolghasem Rezaei’s Registration to Handle Controlled Substances in Oklahoma Estimated reading time: 1–7 minutes On October 20, 2025, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced that it is revoking the Certificate of Registration No. FR0228747 for Dr. Abolghasem Rezaei of Lawton, Oklahoma. The decision was published in the Federal Register, Volume 90, Number 200. Order to Show Cause Issued On May 22, 2025, the DEA issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Dr. Rezaei. The OSC stated that Dr. Rezaei was “currently without authority to prescribe, administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of Oklahoma.” This was the state where Dr. Rezaei was registered with the DEA. Dr. Rezaei was informed of his right to request a hearing. He did not file a request, and as a result, the DEA considered him to be in default. This meant that he admitted to the factual claims in the OSC. Oklahoma License Suspended The facts listed in the OSC proved that on December 5, 2024, the Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control (OBNDD) suspended Dr. Rezaei’s OBNDD registration. On February 13, 2025, the OBNDD upheld the suspension. Oklahoma online records confirmed Dr. Rezaei’s OBNDD registration is inactive. This means he is not allowed to handle controlled substances in Oklahoma. Legal Requirements for Registration Federal law, under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), says the DEA can revoke a registration if the state’s license is suspended or revoked. For a medical practitioner to have a DEA registration, they must have state authority to dispense controlled substances. Oklahoma law requires every person who dispenses, prescribes, or uses controlled substances in the state to have an OBNDD registration. Dr. Rezaei’s registration is not active, so he cannot handle controlled substances. Final Decision and Order Based on these facts, the DEA found that Dr. Rezaei is not authorized to handle controlled substances in Oklahoma. Because of this, he cannot keep his DEA registration. Dr. Rezaei’s DEA Certificate of Registration No. FR0228747 is revoked. Any pending applications by Dr. Rezaei to renew or modify this registration are also denied. Any other pending applications for registration in Oklahoma are also denied. Effective Date This order is effective as of November 19, 2025. Authority The official decision was signed on October 9, 2025, by DEA Administrator Terrance Cole. The document was prepared for publication by Heather Achbach, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Ali Elhorr, M.D.; Decision and Order
DEA Denies Registration Application of Dr. Ali Elhorr Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes On October 20, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) published a decision to deny Dr. Ali Elhorr’s application for a DEA Certificate of Registration. Dr. Elhorr is a physician from Dearborn, Michigan. Reasons for Denial Dr. Elhorr’s application was denied for two main reasons: Mandatory Exclusion from Federal Health Programs: Dr. Elhorr was found to be excluded from Medicare, Medicaid, and all Federal health care programs. This exclusion began on February 20, 2017, for a minimum of 15 years. The exclusion was issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, after Dr. Elhorr pled guilty to health care fraud in 2016. Material Falsification of DEA Application: On October 19, 2022, Dr. Elhorr applied for a DEA registration to prescribe controlled substances. The application asked if he had ever been excluded from Medicare or state health programs. Dr. Elhorr answered “No.” At the time, he was already excluded from these programs. The DEA found this to be a false statement and a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Procedural Details Dr. Elhorr was personally served an Order to Show Cause (OSC) on June 3, 2025. He was informed that he could request a hearing. The DEA did not receive any response or request for a hearing from Dr. Elhorr. This counted as a default, meaning Dr. Elhorr was found to admit to all facts in the OSC. Legal Findings The DEA reviewed all evidence. The agency decided that Dr. Elhorr: Was mandatorily excluded from federal programs. Falsified his DEA application when he answered “No” to being excluded. Did not accept responsibility for these actions since he did not respond to the OSC. Each of these reasons, by themselves, was enough for the DEA to deny his application. Importance of Compliance The DEA stated that strict rules are important for controlling drugs and fighting drug abuse. Allowing someone who did not follow the rules to receive a registration would send a wrong message. Final Order The DEA denied Dr. Elhorr’s application for DEA registration, as well as any other pending applications in Michigan. This order is effective as of November 19, 2025. Official Signatures The document was signed by Administrator Terrance Cole on October 9, 2025. The notice was officially published by the Federal Register Liaison Officer of the DEA, Heather Achbach. References This news post is based on Federal Register Volume 90, Number 200 (Monday, October 20, 2025), pages 48375-48378. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Chantal F. Nouvellon, D.O.; Decision and Order
DEA Revokes Registrations of Dr. Chantal F. Nouvellon, D.O. Estimated reading time: 4 minutes The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has revoked the Certificates of Registration for Dr. Chantal F. Nouvellon, D.O. The decision was announced in the Federal Register on October 20, 2025. On April 2, 2025, the DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Dr. Nouvellon. The DEA proposed revoking her DEA registrations, BN5595775 and FN5439016. The reason was that Dr. Nouvellon no longer had authority to handle controlled substances in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. These are the states where she was registered with the DEA. The Order to Show Cause told Dr. Nouvellon she could ask for a hearing. She did not request a hearing. The DEA decided she was in default. By regulation, default means she gave up her right to a hearing and admitted the facts in the DEA’s order. The DEA served the order by email to Dr. Nouvellon’s attorney and later directly to her. Dr. Nouvellon responded by saying she was not prescribing since her suspension. There was no further response from her. According to the DEA, Dr. Nouvellon’s Massachusetts medical license was suspended on October 17, 2024. Online records show her Massachusetts license is still suspended. The DEA also found that her New Hampshire license was suspended on December 20, 2024, and it remains suspended. Because Dr. Nouvellon is not licensed in either state, she cannot practice medicine or handle controlled substances there. The rules say a doctor must have state authority to handle controlled substances. Without a valid state license, a doctor cannot have a DEA registration. Massachusetts law defines a “practitioner” as a person registered to handle controlled substances in the state. New Hampshire law says that only a properly licensed practitioner may prescribe, administer, or dispense controlled drugs. With both state licenses suspended, Dr. Nouvellon is not allowed to handle controlled substances in either state. As a result, her DEA registrations for those states have been revoked. The order, signed by DEA Administrator Terrance Cole, also denies any pending applications for Dr. Nouvellon to renew or change her DEA registrations. It also denies any new applications for registration in Massachusetts or New Hampshire. The order takes effect on November 19, 2025. The order was processed according to DEA procedures and published for official record. Source: Federal Register, Volume 90, Number 200, October 20, 2025, Pages 48378-48379. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
DOJ Briefing 2025-10-20
Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration Briefing 2025-10-20 Estimated reading time: 3 minutes 1. Chantal F. Nouvellon, D.O.; Decision and Order Sub: Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration Link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/10/20/2025-19600/chantal-f-nouvellon-do-decision-and-order 2. Ali Elhorr, M.D.; Decision and Order Sub: Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration Link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/10/20/2025-19599/ali-elhorr-md-decision-and-order 3. Abolghasem Rezaei, M.D.; Decision and Order Sub: Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration Link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/10/20/2025-19598/abolghasem-rezaei-md-decision-and-order 4. James Orrington, II, D.D.S.; Decision and Order Sub: Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration Link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/10/20/2025-19597/james-orrington-ii-dds-decision-and-order Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Grace S. Joanita, N.P.; Decision and Order
DEA Revokes Registration of Cincinnati Nurse Practitioner for False Fee Exemption Claim Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has revoked the DEA registration for Grace S. Joanita, N.P., a nurse practitioner based in Cincinnati, Ohio. The action was taken after Ms. Joanita was found to have provided false information on her DEA registration renewal application. Background on the Case On December 7, 2021, Ms. Joanita submitted a renewal application for her DEA registration number MJ5209677. The application included questions about whether she qualified for an exemption from paying the registration fee. On the form, Ms. Joanita listed a certifying official and claimed a fee exemption. An investigation found that Ms. Joanita had not worked for the named certifying official since November 20, 2019. This meant that her claim for fee exemption was false at the time she filed her renewal application. Because of her answers on the application, her registration was renewed without payment of the required fee. Opportunities to Correct the Filing The DEA contacted Ms. Joanita in December 2021, January 2022, and August 2022. They provided her the opportunity to pay the required registration fee and to fill out a form regarding any changes to her fee exemption status. At the time the Order to Show Cause (OSC) was issued, Ms. Joanita had neither paid the fee nor submitted the required update form. Legal Process and Default On February 6, 2023, the DEA sent Ms. Joanita an Order to Show Cause, proposing to revoke her DEA registration. She was informed of her right to request a hearing and answer the allegations. Ms. Joanita did not request a hearing, file an answer, or respond to the OSC in any way. The DEA determined that Ms. Joanita was therefore in default and that she had admitted to the factual allegations made in the OSC. The facts in the OSC were accepted as the basis for the Agency’s decision. Findings The DEA found that Ms. Joanita: Submitted a false statement on her renewal application by naming a certifying official she no longer worked for. Claimed fee exemption status when she was not entitled to it. Did not pay her registration fee as required by law and regulations. Did not respond to written requests or correct her application when given a chance. Material Falsification The DEA explained that providing false information on a renewal application is a serious violation. False statements about fee exemption are considered material because they affect the DEA’s decision to grant or renew a registration. The government’s evidence was found to be clear and convincing. The Agency decided it met the legal standard needed to prove that Ms. Joanita materially falsified her application. Sanctions and Final Order When someone is found to have submitted a materially false application, the burden shifts to them to show they can be trusted with DEA registration. Ms. Joanita did not respond or accept responsibility for the violation. The DEA stated that allowing a registrant to keep their registration after making false statements would send the wrong message. The Agency said that they must enforce the laws and require honest applications. As a result, the DEA issued an order: Revoking DEA Certificate of Registration No. MJ5209677 for Grace S. Joanita, N.P. Denying any pending applications for renewal or modification of this registration. Denying any other pending applications for additional registration in Ohio from Ms. Joanita. Order Effective Date This order is effective November 17, 2025. The order was signed by Administrator Terrance Cole of the Drug Enforcement Administration on October 1, 2025. The document was published in the Federal Register by Heather Achbach, DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Shannon Wagner, D.O.; Decision and Order
DEA Grants Registration to Dr. Shannon Wagner After Review Estimated reading time: 7–9 minutes On October 17, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced its decision in the case of Dr. Shannon Wagner, D.O., from Green Bay, Wisconsin. Dr. Wagner had applied for a DEA Certificate of Registration, which allows doctors to prescribe certain medicines. The Government had given Dr. Wagner an Order to Show Cause on August 13, 2024. This means the government asked Dr. Wagner to explain why they should not deny her application. The Government said Dr. Wagner had been excluded from all federal health care programs, like Medicare and Medicaid, under 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(a). There was a hearing before DEA Administrative Law Judge Teresa A. Wallbaum. She gave her decision on February 21, 2025, and said Dr. Wagner’s application should be granted. The DEA reviewed the whole record and agreed with the judge. Background and Events On August 21, 2014, in a Michigan federal court, Dr. Wagner pleaded guilty to conspiracy to pay and receive health care kickbacks and to filing a false tax return. Based on these crimes, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) excluded her from all federal health care programs for 13 years, starting from December 18, 2014. This exclusion will end in 2027. The DEA found clear proof that Dr. Wagner is currently excluded from these programs. The law lets the DEA deny a registration if the person is excluded from federal health care programs. Dr. Wagner’s Response Dr. Wagner admitted to her mistakes. She said her actions were wrong and took the blame for her crimes. She said she should have stopped the illegal activity and accepted responsibility for everything, including not stopping her husband’s actions when he managed their business. Dr. Wagner also said she learned important lessons while in prison and working other jobs after her release. She worked as a waitress, delivery driver, cleaner, and more. She said these jobs humbled her and made her understand how important her medical license was. To get her medical license back in Wisconsin, Dr. Wagner worked under a limited license for a year with regular reports to the Wisconsin Medical Board. After that, she got her full license. She also took about 240 hours of continuing medical education credits, much more than the state’s minimum. Dr. Wagner is making monthly restitution payments and intends to pay off the full amount of $270,000. Remedial Measures Dr. Wagner is not married to her co-conspirator anymore. The ALJ and the DEA said that this and her actions after prison showed she took steps to make sure her crimes would not happen again. She now plans to use her medical skills to help people in prison. Other Factors The DEA said Dr. Wagner’s crimes were very serious. She was part of a seven-year health care fraud conspiracy and filed a false tax return. She spent 17 months in prison, served supervised release, lost property, and has been making consistent restitution payments. Her criminal conduct ended over 13 years ago. The DEA said Dr. Wagner’s punishment and state licensing actions were enough to prevent her from doing wrong again and to deter others. The DEA said denying her application was not needed as more punishment. Final Decision The DEA found that Dr. Wagner could be trusted with a DEA registration. She accepted responsibility, took real steps to correct her behavior, and showed insight into her past crimes. The DEA granted her application for a DEA Certificate of Registration. This order is effective immediately. The decision was signed by DEA Administrator Terrance Cole on October 1, 2025, and published in the Federal Register. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Hovic Pharmacy; Decision and Order
DEA Revokes Hovic Pharmacy’s Controlled Substance Registration After Violations Estimated reading time: 5–7 minutes Background On October 20, 2021, the DEA issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) against Hovic Pharmacy. The DEA wanted to revoke the pharmacy’s registration number FH5569112. The DEA said that Hovic’s continued registration would not be in the public interest. The case focused on Hovic Pharmacy’s filling of controlled substance prescriptions. The prescriptions were often filled outside the usual course of pharmacy practice. The pharmacy did not follow its “corresponding responsibility” under federal rules and Texas law. Investigations and Findings DEA presented evidence from an independent pharmacy expert and several declarations. The expert found multiple “red flags” in prescription data. These red flags showed a risk of drug abuse and diversion for illegal street sales. A person known as “Recruiter” was at the center of the scheme. Recruiter pled guilty to conspiracy to dispense and distribute hydrocodone. Recruiter’s declaration showed that the scheme ran from at least 2017 to 2020. Recruiter recruited others to act as patients. They got controlled substance prescriptions from doctors, then filled them at Hovic. Recruiter picked up the drugs, forging patient signatures or signing their own name. The drugs were then sold on the street. Hovic Pharmacy’s staff rarely questioned the prescriptions. The staff did not ask for identification or proof of authority for pick-up. Hovic’s pharmacists even told Recruiter how to pick up drugs for others and suggested signing the signature log with fake or real names. One pharmacist lent Recruiter up to $800 to pay for doctor visits, expecting to be repaid after street sales. Expert Review Dr. Diane Ginsburg, a registered pharmacist and expert, reviewed the government’s evidence. She explained that pharmacy law requires pharmacists to catch and resolve red flags before filling prescriptions for dangerous drugs. These drugs included hydrocodone, alprazolam, carisoprodol, and promethazine with codeine. Dr. Ginsburg found that Hovic’s staff did not try to resolve red flags and did not document consultations as required by law. Hovic Pharmacy filled about 138 prescriptions with combinations of these drugs, called “cocktails.” These cocktails are known to be high-risk for abuse. The pharmacy also filled monthly or repeated prescriptions for promethazine with codeine for three people, which is a red flag for abuse. The pharmacy filled many prescriptions from doctors who issued the same or similar prescriptions to different people, known as “pattern prescribing.” Hovic filled these without investigating the red flags. Some individuals also used “pharmacy shopping,” getting controlled substances at multiple pharmacies, including Hovic. Again, Hovic failed to resolve the red flags. Over eighteen months, Hovic Pharmacy released about 13,135 controlled substance tablets and about a 3,478 days’ supply of promethazine with codeine into the community. These drugs are commonly abused and frequently diverted. Legal Standards and Violations Federal law says a prescription for a controlled substance must be for a legitimate medical purpose. Both the prescribing doctor and the pharmacist have responsibilities. Texas law also sets standards and requires pharmacists to identify and resolve red flags. Written records are required for consultations with doctors about prescriptions. The DEA determined that Hovic Pharmacy broke both federal and Texas laws. The pharmacy failed to resolve questions about prescriptions and released large amounts of dangerous drugs into the community. This included filling prescriptions for known street dealers, filling prescriptions for others based on forged signatures, and failing to follow professional standards. Sanction Hovic Pharmacy did not show up for its scheduled hearing and presented no evidence in its defense. The DEA found that Hovic did not show any responsibility for its actions or offer any plan to prevent future issues. The DEA found that allowing Hovic to keep its registration would not protect the public. Based on the evidence, the DEA revoked Hovic Pharmacy’s certificate of registration. The DEA also denied any pending application by Hovic for renewal or modification of registration in Texas. The revocation takes effect on November 17, 2025. The DEA stressed the need to maintain trust and safety in the pharmacy community. The decision aims to deter similar conduct by others. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
David S. Pecora, P.A.; Decision and Order
DEA Denies Registration Application of David S. Pecora, P.A. Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On October 17, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced the denial of an application for DEA controlled substances registration submitted by David S. Pecora, P.A., of Bemidji, Minnesota. The application control number was W23054133M. Reasons for Denial The DEA denied Mr. Pecora’s application because he was found to have made false statements on five DEA registration applications, including the most recent application in May 2023. The agency also found that granting registration to Mr. Pecora would not be in the public interest. Default in Proceedings Mr. Pecora was notified of the allegations and given a chance to respond. He did not request a hearing, submit an answer, or respond. Because of this, the DEA determined he was in default. By default, he was also considered to have admitted to the facts stated in the notice. Materially False Applications The DEA determined that Mr. Pecora submitted applications with answers that were false or incomplete. On earlier applications, he answered “no” to questions about past suspensions or denials of state professional licenses, when in fact: In July 2007, his West Virginia registered nursing license was suspended. In October 2008, his Florida registered nursing license was suspended. In July 2012, his application for a physician assistant license in North Dakota was denied. His Minnesota physician assistant license was suspended and reinstated several times between 2014 and 2023. He also failed to truthfully report if he ever surrendered a DEA registration for cause. Repeated False Answers On his applications from January 2012, October 2013, January 2016, February 2020 (renewal), and May 2023, Mr. Pecora did not disclose all adverse actions taken against his medical and nursing licenses or his previous surrenders of DEA registrations. The DEA found these omissions and false statements to be material, which means they were important for making a decision on whether to grant or deny a registration. Findings About Controlled Substance Abuse and Diversion The DEA record shows: In 2007, Mr. Pecora was addicted to zolpidem, a controlled substance, and underwent addiction treatment. In 2013, while being monitored for drug abuse, he wrote prescriptions for carisoprodol (Soma) for two volleyball teammates, in return for some of the pills for his own use. He ordered carisoprodol online for personal use while in addiction treatment. He tested positive without a prescription for carisoprodol. In November 2020, Mr. Pecora stole propofol, another controlled substance, from an operating room for personal use. Public Safety and DEA Standards The DEA found that Mr. Pecora’s actions included diverting controlled substances for himself by fraudulent prescriptions and theft. He demonstrated a lengthy history of substance abuse and failed to comply with controlled substances laws. Under the Controlled Substances Act, the DEA must deny a registration if granting it would not be in the public interest. The agency found Mr. Pecora’s conduct threatened public health and safety. Sanction and Final Decision Mr. Pecora’s failure to respond was considered a lack of acceptance of responsibility for his actions. The DEA concluded he could not be trusted with a DEA registration. Therefore, the DEA denied his application for registration. The denial also affects any other pending applications from Mr. Pecora for registration in Minnesota. The order is effective as of November 17, 2025. Document Signed This decision was signed by DEA Administrator Terrance Cole on October 1, 2025. Heather Achbach, Federal Register Liaison Officer, confirmed the publication. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
DOJ Briefing 2025-10-17
Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration Briefing 2025-10-17 Estimated reading time: 2 minutes 1. David S. Pecora, P.A.; Decision and Order Sub: Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration 2. Hovic Pharmacy; Decision and Order Sub: Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration 3. Shannon Wagner, D.O.; Decision and Order Sub: Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration 4. Grace S. Joanita, N.P.; Decision and Order Sub: Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-OpenGMSL Association
Department of Justice Receives Membership Update from OpenGMSL Association Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. Department of Justice has announced an update related to the OpenGMSL Association. This update was published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2025. On September 22, 2025, OpenGMSL Association filed written notifications with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission. These notifications are required under Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993. This law helps limit the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages in certain situations. The update lists new members that have joined the OpenGMSL Association. The new members are: Alfamation, an InTest Company, Lissone, Italy Analog Devices Inc., Wilmington, MA ASTRODESIGN, Inc., Tokyo, Japan Beijing ESWIN Computing Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, People’s Republic of China Core Microelectronics, Sariyer, Turkey Granite River Labs, Santa Clara, CA Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Kyoto, Japan Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, CA ROHM Co., Ltd., Kyoto, Japan Rsemi Zhiyuan (Hangzhou) Semiconductor Science and Technology Limited Company, Hangzhou City, People’s Republic of China Samsung Electronics, Hwaseong-si, Republic of Korea SmartSens Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Shanghai, People’s Republic of China TDK Corporation, Tokyo, Japan Valeo Comfort and Driving Assistance, Creteil, France No other changes have been made to the group’s membership or planned activities. The OpenGMSL Association states that membership remains open. The association plans to file more notifications for any future changes in membership. The original notification about this group was filed on June 30, 2025. It was published in the Federal Register on August 13, 2025, under entry 90 FR 38998. This update was formally published by Suzanne Morris, Deputy Director for Civil Enforcement Operations at the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
DOJ Briefing 2025-10-03
Justice Department, Antitrust Division Briefing 2025-10-03 Estimated reading time: 2 minutes 1. Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-OpenGMSL Association Sub: Justice Department, Antitrust Division 2. Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Sub: Justice Department, Antitrust Division 3. Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-The Open Group, L.L.C. Sub: Justice Department, Antitrust Division Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
URAL Airlines JSC, Utrenniy Lane 1-g, Yekaterinburg, Russia 620025; Order Renewing Temporary Denial of Export Privileges
U.S. Extends Export Restrictions on Ural Airlines JSC Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced a renewed order to deny export privileges to Ural Airlines JSC of Russia. The decision extends the current temporary denial order (TDO) for one year. The order aims to stop possible violations of U.S. export rules. Background of the Export Ban The first TDO against Ural Airlines was signed on October 13, 2022. It lasted for 180 days and was designed to prevent violations of U.S. export laws. The original order was made because Ural Airlines flew aircraft that were subject to U.S. regulations into Russia without the required licenses. This TDO has been renewed several times: April 10, 2023 October 6, 2023 October 4, 2024 In each case, BIS explained that the renewal was needed to protect the public interest and prevent violations of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). Rules About Exporting and the EAR Under the EAR, an order like this can be put in place if there is evidence of a likely or ongoing violation. A violation is called “imminent” if it might happen soon or is very likely. The TDO blocks a company and its partners from using U.S. exports or U.S. technology without special permission. For Ural Airlines, the only exception is if it relates directly to flight safety. How Ural Airlines Violated the Rules U.S. officials have been tracking how Ural Airlines uses its planes. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. made strict rules to block Russia from getting certain technology, especially items for airplanes and related parts. These rules were meant to limit Russia’s military and economic abilities. Since March 2, 2022, airplanes and parts on a special U.S. control list could not go to Russia without a U.S. license. Ural Airlines is accused of flying U.S.-controlled planes into Russia and within Russia, without such a license. The BIS provided examples of flights showing Ural Airlines using airplanes listed in the EAR, both before and after the first denial order. Recent Evidence The most recent evidence submitted by BIS on September 9, 2025, shows Ural Airlines continued to fly these airplanes, in violation of the existing ban. Flight records from January through September 2025 show many trips by Ural Airlines using Airbus A320 and A321 aircraft. These flights included travel from places like: Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan to Yekaterinburg, Russia Dushanbe, Tajikistan to Samara, Russia Khujand, Tajikistan to Yekaterinburg, Russia Osh, Kyrgyzstan to Moscow, Russia There were also several flights within Russia, such as from Kaliningrad to Yekaterinburg and from Moscow to Omsk. Order Details With this renewed order, the following rules apply to Ural Airlines JSC: Ural Airlines and anyone working on its behalf cannot take part in transactions involving U.S. goods, technology, or software. This includes applying for licenses (unless it concerns flight safety), buying, selling, using, or shipping U.S.-controlled goods or services. Other people or companies cannot sell, supply, or help Ural Airlines get U.S.-controlled items, except for what is directly needed for flight safety. No one can service Ural Airlines’ planes using U.S. items, unless it is directly related to safety of flight. Related companies or individuals linked to Ural Airlines may also become subject to the same ban after an official process. What Ural Airlines Can Do Ural Airlines can appeal the renewed ban by filing a statement with the U.S. Administrative Law Judge. The company can also oppose future renewals by sending a written response before the order’s expiration date. Effective Date This renewed order is effective immediately and lasts for one year, starting October 3, 2025. Official Source The full text of the order was published in the U.S. Federal Register, Volume 90, Number 190, on October 3, 2025. The order was signed by Ross Kennedy, Senior Advisor at the Bureau of Industry and Security. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
BIS Briefing 2025-10-03
Commerce Department, Industry and Security Bureau Briefing 2025-10-03 Estimated reading time: 2 minutes 1. URAL Airlines JSC, Utrenniy Lane 1-g, Yekaterinburg, Russia 620025; Order Renewing Temporary Denial of Export Privileges Sub: Commerce Department, Industry and Security Bureau 2. URAL Airlines JSC, Utrenniy Lane 1-g, Yekaterinburg, Russia 620025; Order Renewing Temporary Denial of Export Privileges Sub: Commerce Department, Industry and Security Bureau 3. URAL Airlines JSC, Utrenniy Lane 1-g, Yekaterinburg, Russia 620025; Order Renewing Temporary Denial of Export Privileges Sub: Commerce Department, Industry and Security Bureau 4. URAL Airlines JSC, Utrenniy Lane 1-g, Yekaterinburg, Russia 620025; Order Renewing Temporary Denial of Export Privileges Sub: Commerce Department, Industry and Security Bureau 5. URAL Airlines JSC, Utrenniy Lane 1-g, Yekaterinburg, Russia 620025; Order Renewing Temporary Denial of Export Privileges Sub: Commerce Department, Industry and Security Bureau Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Barium Carbonate From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Sunset Review and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order
U.S. Revokes Antidumping Duty Order on Barium Carbonate from China Estimated reading time: 3 minutes On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced it is ending the Antidumping Duty (AD) Order on barium carbonate from the People’s Republic of China. The Department of Commerce started the fourth review of the AD Order on July 1, 2025. This “sunset review” looked at whether the duty order should continue. In these cases, U.S. law allows for review every five years. No company or party in the United States responded to Commerce’s notice about this review. According to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, if no one responds, the Department of Commerce must revoke the order after 90 days. Barium carbonate is covered by this order, no matter what form or grade it is. Its tariff code is 2836.60.0000 under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. The written description of the product matches the legal definition given in the order. Because no U.S. parties responded, the Department of Commerce is revoking the AD Order. This means the order will no longer apply starting from August 20, 2025. Entries of barium carbonate made before this date will still have to follow the earlier rules. The Department of Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to lift all suspensions for the period after August 20, 2025. Any requests for reviews about imports before August 20, 2025, may still be considered. Details of this decision are published in Federal Register Volume 90, Number 190, on October 3, 2025. For more information, you may contact David De Falco of the Trade Agreements Policy and Negotiations team at the U.S. Department of Commerce. His phone number is (202) 482-2178. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Calcium Hypochlorite From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the Second Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
United States Keeps Antidumping Duties on Calcium Hypochlorite from China Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes Background The U.S. Department of Commerce has announced the results of its second expedited sunset review of the antidumping duty order on calcium hypochlorite from the People’s Republic of China. The Department found that ending the antidumping duty order would likely cause dumping from China to continue or happen again. The dumping margins could be as high as 210.52 percent. On January 30, 2015, the Department of Commerce put an antidumping duty order on calcium hypochlorite from China. On June 2, 2025, the Department started the second sunset review, as required by law. Innovative Water Care, LLC (IWC), a company in the U.S., showed support for keeping the duties. IWC sent a notice of intent to participate by June 17, 2025. IWC is a domestic producer of a similar product. The Department gave notice to the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that there was support from a domestic interested party. This notice went to the ITC on July 1, 2025. IWC sent its full response by July 2, 2025, staying within the 30-day deadline. There were no responses from any parties in China. No hearing was requested. On July 21, 2025, the Department again notified the ITC that no responses were received from any Chinese parties. Since only the U.S. party responded, the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review. Scope of the Order The order covers calcium hypochlorite from China. Details on the product scope are listed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, available at http://access.trade.gov. Analysis and Final Results All issues brought up in the sunset review were discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. This document is public and can be found on the Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). The Department has decided that ending the antidumping order would likely let dumping continue or happen again. Dumping margins could be up to 210.52 percent. Administrative Protective Orders This notice reminds interested parties who are under an Administrative Protective Order (APO) to follow the rules on handling information, as stated in 19 CFR 351.305. Publication These results and this notice are issued and published under sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and related regulations. The notice is dated 2025-09-26, and signed by Christopher Abbott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations. For more details, readers can review the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India, Indonesia, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine: Continuation of Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders
U.S. Continues Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel from Six Countries Estimated reading time: 7 minutes On September 23, 2025, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and the Department of Commerce announced the continuation of antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products. The countries affected are India, Indonesia, the People’s Republic of China (China), Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine. Why Did This Happen? The ITC and the Department of Commerce found that removing these duties would likely lead to more dumping and subsidies. This could hurt industries in the United States. Because of these findings, the duties will stay in place. What Are These Duties About? Antidumping duties are extra taxes on foreign products sold at unfairly low prices. Countervailing duties are extra taxes on goods that get unfair help from foreign governments. These duties help U.S. companies compete fairly. History of These Orders The duties on these steel products started between November 29 and December 3, 2001. Since then, the government reviews whether to keep these orders every five years. The most recent reviews, called “sunset reviews,” began on July 1, 2024. In these reviews, both the Commerce Department and the ITC agreed that ending the orders would hurt U.S. businesses. Scope of the Orders The steel products covered include hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel in rectangular shapes. These are at least 0.5 inch wide and less than 4.75 mm thick. The steel must also meet certain chemical requirements, such as having low amounts of manganese, silicon, copper, and other elements. Some steel products are excluded, like: Alloy hot-rolled steel with higher levels of certain elements Steel grades SAE/AISI 2300 and up Ball bearing steel Tool steel Silicon electrical steel with high silicon Some specialty and abrasion-resistant steels The affected steel is mainly listed under certain tariff codes in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). What Happens Next? U.S. Customs and Border Protection will keep collecting the AD and CVD cash deposits on these steel imports. The effective date for this continuation is September 23, 2025. The Department of Commerce will review these orders again within five years. Legal References This decision is based on sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as well as related federal regulations. For More Information For details, contact: Yang Jin Chun (AD India, Indonesia, China, Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine): (202) 482-5760 Peter Zukowski (CVD India and Indonesia): (202) 482-0189 Thomas Cloyd (CVD Thailand): (202) 482-1246 End of Notice Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024
U.S. Department of Commerce Releases Preliminary Results in Review of Chinese Chlorinated Isocyanurates Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce, through its International Trade Administration, has released the preliminary results of its antidumping duty administrative review on chlorinated isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China. This review covers shipments during the period June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2024. Who Is Involved The review covers two producers and exporters from China: Heze Huayi Chemical Co., Ltd. Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co., Ltd. These companies applied for “separate rate” status, which means they requested to be treated individually in the review instead of as part of the “China-wide entity.” What Was Found Commerce made preliminary findings that both Heze Huayi and Kangtai sold chlorinated isocyanurates in the U.S. for less than normal value, which is the basis for determining dumping. The following dumping margins were calculated: Heze Huayi Chemical Co., Ltd.: 18.39% Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co., Ltd.: 4.77% The China-wide rate remains 285.63% because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity. How the Review Was Done Commerce used data and methods based on U.S. law, using specific sections from the Tariff Act of 1930. China is considered a “non-market economy,” so special rules are used to calculate the normal value of products. The review looked at prices, sales, and other records provided by the companies. Product Details The products covered are called chlorinated isocyanurates. These chemicals are derivatives of cyanuric acid and are also known as chlorinated s-triazine triones. They are used for purposes like disinfectants and are identified under certain codes in the U.S. tariff schedule. Next Steps and Public Comments Interested parties can submit written comments or case briefs on these preliminary results. The deadlines are set at 21 days after the publication of the notice for main comments and 5 days later for rebuttal comments. Parties are asked to include a summary at the start of their briefs. If anyone wants a public hearing about these results, a written request must be submitted within 30 days of the notice’s publication. Assessment and Cash Deposit Requirements After the final results, Commerce and U.S. Customs and Border Protection will assess duties on the entries reviewed. If the company-specific rates are not zero or very low (de minimis), duties will be collected at those rates. If margins are very low or zero, the entries will not have duties collected. New cash deposit rates will be set for future imports as follows: For companies getting a separate rate, the new cash deposit rate will be based on the final review results. Companies not reviewed or without a separate rate will keep their current rates, including the higher China-wide rate of 285.63%. Importer Responsibilities Importers must file certificates stating whether they were reimbursed for antidumping or countervailing duties. Not doing so can lead to the assumption that reimbursement happened, resulting in doubled duties. When Results Become Final Final results are expected within 120 days after this notice. All procedures follow U.S. law as cited in the Federal Register notice. Official Contacts Questions about this review can be directed to Brian Warnes at the U.S. Department of Commerce, at (202) 482-0028. These results were signed by Christopher Abbott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, on September 29, 2025. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Certain Non-Refillable Steel Cylinders From the People’s Republic of China: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2024
U.S. Department of Commerce Rescinds Review of Countervailing Duties on Certain Steel Cylinders from China Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register. The notice announces that the Department is rescinding its administrative review of countervailing duties (CVD) on certain non-refillable steel cylinders from the People’s Republic of China. The review would have covered the period from January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. Sanjiang Kai Yuan Co., Ltd. (SKY) had requested the review on May 22, 2025. No other requests for a review were received. On June 25, 2025, Commerce started the review process. On July 9, 2025, Commerce checked data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) about shipments of the subject merchandise by SKY during the review period. The data showed there were no such shipments. Commerce informed interested parties of its intent to rescind the review and allowed them to comment. No comments were submitted. According to Commerce rules, an administrative review of a CVD order is only done when there are entries of the subject merchandise during the review period for which liquidation is suspended. In this case, there were no entries from SKY, so there was nothing to review. Because of this, Commerce is ending the review completely, in line with federal regulations. There will be no change to the cash deposit rates because of this rescission. The current cash deposit requirements will stay the same until Commerce issues further notice. Commerce will instruct CBP to assess duties at the cash deposit rates that were required at the time of entry, as stated in the federal regulations. These instructions will be issued at least 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. The notice also reminds parties who are under an Administrative Protective Order (APO) of their responsibility to return or destroy any protected information according to Commerce’s regulations. Failure to do so could result in sanctions. This notice is issued under sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(l) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and Commerce regulations. The notice was signed by Scot Fullerton, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
ITA Briefing 2025-10-03
Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Briefing 2025-10-03 Estimated reading time: 6 minutes 1. Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From Malaysia: Preliminary Results and Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024 Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Content: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on prestressed concrete steel wire strand (PC strand) from Malaysia for the period of review (POR) June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2024. Commerce preliminarily finds that Kiswire Sdn. Bhd. (Kiswire) and Wei Dat Steel Wire Sdn. Bhd. (Wei Dat) did not make sales of subject merchandise at prices below normal value (NV) during the POR. Additionally, we are rescinding this review, in part, with respect to one company for which there were no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. 2. Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Content: In accordance with the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is automatically initiating the five-year reviews (Sunset Reviews) of the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders and suspended investigations listed below. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notice of Institution of Five-Year Reviews which covers the same orders and suspended investigations. 3. Chlorinated Isocyanurates From Spain: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024 Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Content: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that sales of chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain were not sold in the United States at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2024. Additionally, Commerce is rescinding this administrative review with respect to two companies under review. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. 4. Certain Non-Refillable Steel Cylinders From the People’s Republic of China: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2024 Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Content: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain non-refillable steel cylinders (non-refillable cylinders) from the People’s Republic China (China), covering the period of review (POR) January 1, 2024, though December 31, 2024, because, as explained below, there are no reviewable suspended entries for the company subject to this review. 5. Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024 Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Content: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that chlorinated isocyanurates (chlorinated isos) from the People’s Republic of China (China) were sold in the United States at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2024. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. 6. Raw Honey From Argentina: Preliminary Results and Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024 Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Content: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that Asociación De Cooperativas Argentinas Cooperativa Limitada (ACA), NEXCO S.A. (NEXCO), and certain companies not selected for individual examination for which a review was requested made sales of raw honey from at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR), June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2024. We are also rescinding this review, in part, with respect to eight companies that had no suspended entries. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. 7. Glycine From India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2023 Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Content: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies were provided to producers and exporters of glycine from India, during the period of review January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023. In addition, Commerce is rescinding this review, in part. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. 8. Certain Non-Refillable Steel Cylinders From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024 Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Content: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping (AD) order on certain cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel (cold-drawn mechanical tubing) from India for the period of review (POR) June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2024. Commerce preliminarily finds that Goodluck India Limited (Goodluck) did not make sales of subject merchandise at prices below normal value (NV) during the POR, and Tube Products of India, Ltd., a unit of Tube Investments of India Limited (TII) made sales of subject merchandise at prices below normal NV during the POR. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. 9. Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Intent To Rescind, In Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024 Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Content: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that Nan Ya Plastics Corporation (Nan Ya) made sales of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET film) from Taiwan, at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024. Further, we preliminarily find that Shinkong Materials Technology Corporation (SMTC) and Shinkong Synthetic Fiber Corporation (SSFC), which we consider to be a single entity (SMTC/SSFC), had no reviewable entries during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review. 10. Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India, Indonesia, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine: Continuation of Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Content: As a result of the determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India, Indonesia, the People’s Republic of
Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year Review
U.S. International Trade Commission Schedules Expedited Review of Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from China Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has announced that it will conduct an expedited five-year review of the antidumping duty order on electrolytic manganese dioxide imported from China. The review is being done under the Tariff Act of 1930. This is to decide if removing the antidumping duty would lead to more injury to U.S. businesses in the near future. Important Dates The schedule began on September 5, 2025. A report about the investigation will be shared with approved parties on October 30, 2025. The public version of the report will be released later. Parties who are part of this review and have responded correctly can send their written comments to the Commission. These comments are due by 5:15 p.m. on November 5, 2025. The comments must not have any new facts. Anyone who is not a party in this case can also send a short written statement by November 5, 2025. These statements also cannot contain new facts. Who Is Involved The Commission said the domestic interested parties’ responses were enough. It noted that the responses from the opposing parties were not enough. Because of this, the Commission is moving forward with an expedited review instead of a full review. The companies, EMD Acquisition LLC d/b/a Borman Specialty Materials and Vibrantz Technologies Inc., were found to have provided sufficient responses. Comments from other interested parties will not be accepted. Filing Procedures If anyone files documents for the review, a certificate of service must be included. This means that each filing must also be sent to all other parties in the review. If the Department of Commerce takes more time to finish its part of the review, the deadline for comments will shift. In this case, comments would be due three business days after Commerce’s results. More rules about this are in the Commission’s Handbook on Filing Procedures, which can be found on the USITC website. Extended Timeline The Commission has decided that this is an extraordinarily complicated review. Because of this, the review period may be extended for up to 90 more days, as allowed by law. Contact and Additional Information For more information, contact Laurel Schwartz at 202-205-2398. The public record is available at https://edis.usitc.gov. This review is being held under the authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. The notice was published as required by Section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. This order was issued by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on September 30, 2025. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
USITC Briefing 2025-10-03
International Trade Commission Briefing 2025-10-03 Estimated reading time: 3 minutes 1.Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year Review Sub: International Trade Commission Content: The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 ("the Act") to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on electrolytic manganese dioxide from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. 2.Certain Photodynamic Therapy Systems, Components Thereof, and Pharmaceutical Products Used in Combination With the Same; Notice of Request for Submissions on the Public Interest Sub: International Trade Commission Content: Notice is hereby given that on September 30, 2025, the presiding administrative law judge ("ALJ") issued an Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337. The ALJ also issued a Recommended Determination on remedy and bonding should a violation be found in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting submissions on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief should the Commission find a violation. This notice is soliciting comments from the public and interested government agencies only. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Designation of P2P Methyl Glycidic Acid as a List I Chemical
DEA Proposes to Regulate P2P Methyl Glycidic Acid as a List I Chemical Estimated reading time: 4–8 minutes The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has proposed a new rule. The rule would make P2P methyl glycidic acid, also called 2-methyl-3-phenyloxirane-2-carboxylic acid or BMK glycidic acid, a List I chemical. This chemical and its different forms are used to make illegal drugs such as methamphetamine and amphetamine. Background of the Chemical P2P methyl glycidic acid is an important chemical for making schedule II drugs like phenyl-2-propanone (P2P), methamphetamine, and amphetamine. People in illegal labs use this chemical to make these drugs. The DEA has found that this chemical does not have any legal or industrial use, other than for research or laboratory tests in small amounts. Reports have shown that large amounts of P2P methyl glycidic acid and its salts are being made and shipped internationally, mainly from China and mostly seized in the Netherlands. Over 47 metric tons of the sodium salt and 51 metric tons of the acid have been seized since 2012. Reason for the Rule The United Nations added P2P methyl glycidic acid and its esters to its international drug control list in 2024. This means the United States is required to take action to control this chemical. By creating this rule, the DEA is meeting its obligations under the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Details of the Proposed Rule All forms of P2P methyl glycidic acid will be regulated, including its: Esters Optical and geometric isomers Salts Salts of its isomers and esters Any chemical mixture containing even a small amount of P2P methyl glycidic acid will be controlled. There will be no set minimum amount (threshold) for regulation. All amounts will be covered by the rules. Registration and Compliance Anyone who handles this chemical—manufacturers, distributors, importers, or exporters—must register with the DEA. Separate registrations are needed for different activities and locations. There is a process for temporary exemption while registration is being processed, as long as an application is submitted within 30 days after the final rule is published. Warehouses that only store the chemical for DEA-registered businesses do not need to register, but they cannot distribute the chemical to others without registration. Recordkeeping and Reporting DEA registrants must keep records and make reports of every transaction involving P2P methyl glycidic acid. These records must be kept for two years. Bulk manufacturers must file annual reports on manufacturing, inventory, and use. Any strange or suspicious transactions, losses, or thefts must be reported to the DEA. Import and Export Controls Importing and exporting P2P methyl glycidic acid will require following DEA rules and regulations. Security and Inspections Registrants must provide security to prevent theft or diversion of the chemical. The DEA can inspect places where the chemical is handled or stored. Impact and Costs The DEA states there is little to no legal use for P2P methyl glycidic acid in the United States. Any possible costs will be only for registration fees, mainly for businesses who choose to keep handling the chemical. Nine businesses have been found to offer the chemical, but actual sales likely are small. Costs to these businesses are expected to be minimal. Public Comments The DEA is asking for public comments. Comments must be submitted by November 3, 2025. Comments can be made online at https://www.regulations.gov by looking up Docket No. DEA-1395. Legal References If the rule becomes final, handling P2P methyl glycidic acid without DEA approval will be illegal. Civil, criminal, and administrative penalties can apply. How to Learn More For more information or questions, people can contact Terrence L. Boos at the DEA’s Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section by phone at (571) 362-3249. The full proposed rule is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
DOJ Briefing 2025-10-02
Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration Briefing 2025-10-02 Estimated reading time: 6 minutes 1. Designation of P2P Methyl Glycidic Acid as a List I Chemical Sub: Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration Content: The Drug Enforcement Administration is proposing the control of the chemical 2-methyl-3-phenyloxirane-2-carboxylic acid (also known as P2P methyl glycidic acid and BMK glycidic acid) and its esters, its optical and geometric isomers, its salts, salts of its optical and geometric isomers and its esters, and any combination thereof, whenever the existence of such is possible, as a list I chemical under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). P2P methyl glycidic acid is important to the manufacture of the schedule II controlled substances phenylacetone (also known as phenyl-2-propanone or P2P), methamphetamine, and amphetamine, and it is used in clandestine laboratories to illicitly manufacture these controlled substances. If finalized, this proposed rule would subject handlers of P2P methyl glycidic acid to the chemical regulatory provisions of the CSA and its implementing regulations. This rulemaking does not establish a threshold for domestic and international transactions of P2P methyl glycidic acid. As such, all transactions of P2P methyl glycidic acid, regardless of size, shall be regulated. In addition, chemical mixtures containing P2P methyl glycidic acid are not exempt from regulatory requirements at any concentration. Therefore, all transactions of chemical mixtures containing any quantity of P2P methyl glycidic acid shall be regulated pursuant to the CSA. However, manufacturers may submit an application for exemption for those mixtures that do not qualify for automatic exemption. 2. Specific Listing for 1-boc-4-piperidone, a Currently Controlled List I Chemical Sub: Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration Content: The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is establishing a specific listing and DEA Chemical Code Number for tert-butyl 4- oxopiperidine-1-carboxylate (also known as 1-boc-4-piperidone; and CAS Number: 79099-07-3) and its salts as a list I chemical under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Although 1-boc-4-piperidone is not specifically listed as a list I chemical of the CSA with its own unique Chemical Code Number, it has been regulated as a list I chemical in the United States as a carbamate of 4-piperidone, a list I chemical, since May 12, 2023. Therefore, DEA is simply amending the list of list I chemicals in its regulations to separately include 1-boc-4-piperidone. 3. Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of MDMB-4en-PINACA in Schedule I Sub: Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration Content: The Drug Enforcement Administration proposes placing methyl 3,3-dimethyl-2-(1-(pent-4-en-1-yl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamido)butanoate (other name: MDMB-4en-PINACA), including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible, in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. This action is being taken, in part, to enable the United States to meet its obligations under the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances. If finalized, this action would make permanent the existing regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to schedule I controlled substances on persons who handle (manufacture, distribute, import, export, engage in research, conduct instructional activities or chemical analysis with, or possess) or propose to handle MDMB-4en-PINACA. 4. Controlled Substances Ordering System (CSOS) Modernization Sub: Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration Content: This rule is amending the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) regulations to conform to the Controlled Substances Ordering System (CSOS) modernization effort by requiring all CSOS enrollment applications and supporting materials to be submitted through the Diversion Control Division secure online portal. These amendments improve the enrollment process by aligning it with DEA's current requirements for other online form submissions. The online submission of enrollment applications and supporting material through the secure online portal increases the efficiency of the enrollment, modification, and revocation processes, and ensures DEA's receipt of accurate documentation in a more timely and organized manner. 5. Requiring Online Submission of Applications for and Renewals of DEA Registration: Technical Correction Sub: Justice Department, Drug Enforcement Administration Content: This final rule updates an existing Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulation by removing the reference to paper payments by check or money order for all applications for DEA registrations and renewal of those registrations. This action makes no substantive changes to this regulation. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
ITA Briefing 2025-10-01
Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Briefing 2025-10-01 Estimated reading time: 2 minutes 1. Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From the Republic of Türkiye: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2024 Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Content: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from the Republic of T[uuml]rkiye (T[uuml]rkiye), covering the period January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024, because, as explained below, there are no reviewable suspended entries for the sole company subject to this review. The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from the Republic of T[uuml]rkiye (T[uuml]rkiye), covering the period January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024, because, as explained below, there are no reviewable suspended entries for the sole company subject to this review. 2. Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review and Join Annual Inquiry Service List Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration 3. Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset Review Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Monosodium Glutamate From China and Indonesia; Institution of Five-Year Reviews
U.S. Reviews Antidumping Orders on MSG from China and Indonesia Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has started a new review. This is the second five-year review of antidumping duty orders on monosodium glutamate (MSG) from China and Indonesia. The main question is if removing the orders would harm U.S. companies again. Key Dates for the Review The review began on October 1, 2025. Anyone interested must send their responses by October 31, 2025. Comments about whether responses are good enough must be filed by December 11, 2025. What Is Being Reviewed MSG is the product under review. MSG is mainly produced in the U.S. by Ajinomoto North America, Inc. Imports from China and Indonesia are being checked. The USITC wants to know if ending duties would bring back problems for U.S. producers. Who Can Take Part Any person or group who uses, sells, or produces MSG can join. This includes industrial users, sellers, and consumer groups. To join, they must file an entry within 21 days after October 1, 2025. What Is Needed From Participants Participants must give specific details. This includes: Their name, address, and contact details. If they are an “interested party” under U.S. trade law. If they will help in the review. How removing the duties might affect them or the entire U.S. industry. A list of all U.S. MSG makers and related parties. A list of all U.S. importers and export firms since 2019. Names and contacts of big U.S. buyers. Places to find info on MSG prices. Data about their operations with MSG during 2024, including production, capacity, sales, and profits. Special Rules for Submissions Every document must be filed electronically at EDIS. No paper filings are allowed now. Any data sent must be certified as correct. If a party cannot give all information, they must explain why, or the Commission might assume the worst (“adverse inference”). Some sensitive business information can be given under a protective order. Definitions Subject Merchandise: MSG covered in the review. Subject Countries: China and Indonesia. Domestic Like Product: All MSG made in the U.S. Domestic Industry: U.S. companies making MSG, mainly Ajinomoto North America, Inc. Importer: Companies that bring MSG from China or Indonesia into the U.S. Confidential Information Sensitive details can be protected if the company asks within 21 days of the notice. Only authorized people will see it. Burden Estimate The average reporting time is 15 hours per response. The deadline for this is June 30, 2026. Cost and Business Changes Parties are asked if there have been big supply or demand changes for MSG since 2019, and what future changes might happen. Authority This review is under Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. The official notice was published by Secretary Lisa Barton on September 24, 2025. For more information, contact Rachel Devenney at the USITC, or visit usitc.gov. End of Notice Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China; Institution of a Five-Year Review
U.S. Reviews Duties on Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from China Estimated reading time: 5–7 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has started a five-year review of the antidumping duty order on tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol from China. This review will decide if ending the antidumping duties would likely hurt U.S. industry again. The USITC first put duties on imports of tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol from China in August 2004. Since then, the order has been kept in place after three other five-year reviews, with the most recent update made in November 2020. The fourth review started on October 1, 2025. The USITC wants interested parties to send detailed information for its decision. Responses are due by October 31, 2025. Comments on these responses are due by December 11, 2025. Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol is the product being reviewed. The country involved is China. The USITC will look at if the U.S. industry making tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol will be hurt if the duties are removed. Anyone who wants to be a party in this review must file an entry of appearance within 21 days after this notice. The USITC keeps a list of all parties. People who worked for the Commission in the past can take part in this review, even if they worked on earlier reviews or the original investigation. Business proprietary information can be shared under an administrative protective order if requests are made in time. All information submitted must be certified as complete and accurate. The USITC has asked all interested parties to give specific data, including: Name and contact information of the company or person responding. If the company is a U.S. producer, importer, exporter, or related party. Willingness to provide information for this review. How removing the duties would affect the U.S. industry and the company. Lists of U.S. producers, importers, and Chinese producers of tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol. Names of main U.S. buyers and known price sources. Detailed production, sales, and financial data for the year 2024. Lists of important supply and demand changes since 2019. Information must be sent electronically through the USITC’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS). No paper filings are accepted. All detailed requirements for filing can be found in the USITC’s filing handbook online. Firms that cannot provide all the requested information should explain why and suggest alternative details. This review is being done under Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. For more information, contact Alec Resch in the USITC Office of Investigations at 202-708-1448 or visit https://www.usitc.gov. The notice was signed by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on September 24, 2025. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
USITC Briefing 2025-10-01
International Trade Commission Briefing 2025-10-01 Estimated reading time: 5 minutes 1. Hexamine From Germany, India, and Saudi Arabia; Supplemental Schedule for the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations Sub: International Trade Commission 2. Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From Brazil, India, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, and Thailand; Institution of Five-Year Reviews Sub: International Trade Commission The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on prestressed concrete steel wire strand (“PC strand”) from Brazil, India, Mexico, South Korea, and Thailand, and the antidumping finding on PC strand from Japan, as well as revocation of the countervailing duty order on PC strand from India, would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission. 3. Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From China; Institution of a Five-Year Review Sub: International Trade Commission The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted a review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission. 4. Commodity Matchbooks From India; Institution of Five-Year Reviews Sub: International Trade Commission The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to determine whether revocation of the countervailing and antidumping duty orders on commodity matchbooks from India would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission. 5. Monosodium Glutamate From China and Indonesia; Institution of Five-Year Reviews Sub: International Trade Commission The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on monosodium glutamate (“MSG”) from China and Indonesia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission. 6. Certain Rolled-Edge Rigid Plastic Food Trays; Notice of Commission Determination to Permanently Rescind a Limited Exclusion Order; Termination of the Rescission Proceeding Sub: International Trade Commission Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to permanently rescind a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) issued in the underlying investigation. The rescission proceeding is terminated. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Expansion of End-User Controls To Cover Affiliates of Certain Listed Entities
U.S. Updates Export Rules: Affiliate Companies Now Covered by Entity List Restrictions Estimated reading time: 8–9 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce Has Changed the Export Administration Regulations On September 30, 2025, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced new rules for the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The changes apply strict export controls to companies owned by parties on the Entity List and certain other restricted lists. This new rule is called the “Affiliates rule.” Who Is Affected by the New Rule? Any company owned 50% or more by one or more parties on the Entity List is now automatically covered by the same restrictions as those parties. This applies whether the ownership is direct or indirect, and whether it is all from one listed company or spread across several. The same rule now also covers: Companies 50% or more owned by parties on the “Military End-User” (MEU) List. Companies 50% or more owned by parties who are Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) under certain sanctions. What Is the Entity List? The Entity List is a record of organizations and people that the U.S. government thinks could harm national security or foreign policy. Businesses on this list need special licenses to receive certain exports, imports, or technologies from U.S. companies. What Has Changed? Before this rule, only companies listed by name on the Entity List were covered. Now, any foreign company owned 50% or more by one or more listed parties is also covered. This aligns the BIS rules with those already used by the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). What Are Businesses Required to Do? Businesses that export, reexport, or transfer items controlled by the EAR must: Check if another party in their transaction is 50% or more owned by one or more parties on the Entity List, the MEU List, or is a certain SDN. Do due diligence to figure out the ownership structure of their partners. Resolve any “Red Flags” — warnings in the regulations that mean a business must do more checking before shipping. If they cannot tell if a business partner meets the 50% threshold, exporters must apply for a license or find a valid exception before moving forward. If different owners have different restrictions, the strictest rule applies. Details About the 50% Rule The rule covers both direct and indirect ownership. The 50% can come from multiple owners. For example: If two separate Entity List companies each own 25% of another company, that company is covered. The rule does not apply to U.S. companies, only to foreign companies. Temporary General License (TGL) for Some Affiliates A Temporary General License allows certain exports to or within specific countries that meet control group requirements, even if the recipient is now covered under the new Affiliates rule. This TGL will expire on December 1, 2025. Red Flags and Due Diligence A new “Red Flag 29” has been added to compliance guidance. If an exporter knows or suspects that a business they are dealing with has a listed owner, they must: Check ownership percentages. If unsure or missing information, apply for a license or identify a valid license exception. Process for Removal or Modification If a foreign company is now covered because it is 50% or more owned by a listed entity, it may request removal or a change to its listing by writing to BIS and providing reasons. FDP Rule Changes Foreign-Direct Product (FDP) rules are also updated. When a company is 50% or more owned by listed parties, the rules for foreign-produced products made with U.S. technology may also apply to them. Penalties Exporters can be held strictly liable if they export to a now-restricted affiliate without the proper checks and permissions, even if they didn’t know about the ownership. Summary Table Provided A detailed table in the official rule helps businesses understand how the new rule applies in different types of cases. Effective Dates and Comments The rule takes effect on September 29, 2025. The temporary general license runs until December 1, 2025. Comments on the rule are due by October 29, 2025. Where to Find More Information For detailed information and the official text, visit regulations.gov or the Federal Register. Businesses with questions can contact the Chair, End-User Review Committee at the Bureau of Industry and Security, phone: (202) 482-5991, or by email as provided in the rule. Conclusion The U.S. now restricts exports to any foreign business that is 50% or more owned by companies on certain restricted lists. Companies must check ownership carefully before shipping. The change aims to improve national security by stopping restricted parties from evading export controls through affiliates. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
BIS Briefing 2025-09-30
Commerce Department, Industry and Security Bureau Briefing 2025-09-30 Estimated reading time: 4 minutes 1. Expansion of End-User Controls To Cover Affiliates of Certain Listed Entities Sub: Commerce Department, Industry and Security Bureau Content: In this interim final rule (IFR), the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to address diversion concerns involving entities on the Entity List and certain other restricted end users. Under this IFR, any entity that is at least 50 percent owned by one or more entities on the Entity List will itself automatically be subject to Entity List restrictions. This is a marked improvement over the current standard, which excludes all entities that are not specifically included on the Entity List, regardless of affiliation with Entity List entities. This IFR similarly applies restrictions to entities at least 50 percent owned by listed `military end users’ and certain sanctioned parties. The 50 percent ownership standard in this IFR is designed to be consistent with longstanding Department of the Treasury practice, so as to limit the additional burden on the business community. 2. Revision of Firearms License Requirements Sub: Commerce Department, Industry and Security Bureau Content: On April 30, 2024, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published an interim final rule (Firearms IFR) that imposed new export license requirements for firearms and related ammunition and components. American firearms manufacturers estimated that these regulatory restrictions would cost them hundreds of millions of dollars per year in lost sales. BIS, informed by public comments on the Firearms IFR, has determined that the Firearms IFR should be rescinded in its entirety–with the only exception being to maintain new Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs). This final rule also amends the EAR by removing the Congressional notification requirement for certain semi-automatic firearms license applications. By restoring export controls on firearms to the state they were in at the end of the first Trump Administration, BIS is advancing the Administration’s commitment to reducing regulatory burdens on industry and law-abiding firearms owners. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Thermoformed Molded Fiber Products From the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
U.S. Finds Thermoformed Molded Fiber Products From China Are Sold Below Fair Value Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has made its final decision about thermoformed molded fiber products from China. The Department found that these products are being sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). This covers sales from April 1, 2025, to September 30, 2025. What Are Thermoformed Molded Fiber Products? These are items made from cellulose fibers using heated molds. They include plates, bowls, clamshells, trays, lids, food packaging, and more. They can be made from any kind of cellulose fiber and may be colored, printed, or have special treatments. The U.S. government looks at these products under special tariff codes for customs. Investigation Details On May 12, 2025, the Department published a preliminary decision that these products were sold below fair value. People affected by the decision had a chance to comment. Some companies claimed there were errors in the decision, but after further checks and changes, the Department moved forward. The Department followed normal procedures. This included reviewing records and checking information given by important companies in China. The team looked at how much it cost to make the products and how much they were sold for. Scope of the Investigation The products included are all types of thermoformed molded fiber items. This includes anything made with this method, no matter the size, color, or shape. Some products are not included, such as certain paper plates and items used only to package other merchandise for sale. Final Dumping Margins The Department found that many companies made these products and exported them to the U.S. at prices below their fair value. The margins, or percentages by which prices were lowered, are as follows: Guangxi Firstpak Environmental Technology Co., Ltd.: 49.08 percent Zhejiang Zhongxin Environmental Protection Technology Group Co., Ltd. (and its related companies): 283.89 percent Several other companies: 214.73 percent China-wide entity: 477.97 percent (for companies not assigned a separate rate) A full list of companies and their rates is included in the official notice. Customs Instructions U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to “suspend liquidation.” This means they will continue to hold off on making the final decision about the amount of duties owed until the process is complete. Importers must pay cash deposits equal to the dumping margin listed next to their producer-exporter combination in the table. These instructions are in effect until further notice. Export Subsidies Some companies received export subsidies. The Department adjusted the dumping margins to account for these. More adjustments could happen if the International Trade Commission (ITC) makes a final positive finding about injury to U.S. industry. Next Steps The Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC will decide if the U.S. industry was hurt by these imports within 45 days. If there is no injury, all deposits will be refunded and duties will not be collected. If there is injury, antidumping orders will be issued. Official Information These results are in Federal Register Notice 2025-18891. More details, like the list of companies and discussion topics, are available through official government websites. Contact For more information, parties can contact the Department of Commerce, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, at (202) 482-5973 or (202) 482-7976. Appendix: Scope Description Thermoformed molded fiber products from China include many kinds of packaging and serving items made with heated molds from cellulose fibers. The products are covered whether alone or combined with other items, unless specifically excluded. Official: Dated 2025-09-24Christopher Abbott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, U.S. Department of Commerce Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Thermoformed Molded Fiber Products From the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination
U.S. Announces Final Countervailing Duty Determination on Chinese Thermoformed Molded Fiber Products Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On September 30, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce published its final results in the countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of thermoformed molded fiber products from the People’s Republic of China. The Department found that Chinese producers and exporters received countervailable subsidies during the period from January 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023. Summary of the Investigation The investigation covered certain molded fiber products made in China. These products are made from cellulose fibers using heated molds. They are used as plates, bowls, trays, lids, and packaging. The Department looked at many kinds of these products, in any shape, color, or size. The U.S. Department of Commerce used verification methods to check information from Chinese companies. Two main companies were investigated: Guangxi Firstpak Environmental Technology Co., Ltd. (Firstpak), and Zhejiang Zhongxin Environmental Protection Technology Group Co., Ltd. (Zhejiang Zhongxin). Final Subsidy Rates The Department found the following estimated subsidy rates: Guangxi Firstpak Environmental Technology Co., Ltd.: 7.56% Zhejiang Zhongxin Environmental Protection Technology Group Co., Ltd. (and cross-owned companies): 97.82% Shaoneng Group Guangdong Luzhou Paper Mould Packing Products Co., Ltd.: 319.92% (rate based on adverse facts available) All other Chinese producers/exporters: 62.66% Scope of Investigation Thermoformed molded fiber products included in the investigation are made from virgin or recycled cellulose fibers and are formed using heat. They have smooth surfaces and can have any design, color, or function. They may include additives to improve usefulness, such as making them heat-resistant or waterproof. Items excluded are some packaging materials and any products already covered by earlier antidumping or countervailing duty orders. Suspension of Liquidation Because of the earlier preliminary determination, the Department had already ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect cash deposits and suspend liquidation of entries from China, starting March 14, 2025. Imports entered or withdrawn from warehouse after July 11, 2025, are not under suspension, but any entered before that date remain suspended. If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) finds that these imports injure U.S. industry, the Department will issue a CVD order. If not, the proceeding will end and any cash deposits will be refunded. Next Steps The Department will share its findings with the ITC. The ITC will decide in 45 days whether U.S. industry has been harmed by these imports from China. If the ITC rules there is no injury, all deposits will be returned. If it finds injury, countervailing duties will be put in place on all such products from China. Full Details Available The Department’s full memoranda, calculations, and all related documents are available via the Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) at https://access.trade.gov. Contact Information Questions about this investigation can be directed to Allison Hollander at the International Trade Administration: (202) 482-2805. Published September 30, 2025 Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Antidumping Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results
Court Decision Changes Antidumping Duties for Chinese Wood Flooring Company Estimated reading time: 5–7 minutes On September 15, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) made a final decision about duties on multilayered wood flooring from China. The case is called Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. et al. v. United States, Court No. 22-00190. This case is about how much extra tax, or “antidumping duty,” should be added to certain wood flooring from China. The review covered products imported between December 1, 2019, and November 30, 2020. The Department of Commerce had first set a dumping margin of 39.27 percent for Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd. Commerce used Malaysian data for certain types of logs and Brazilian data for other materials. For plywood, Commerce used adjusted Brazilian import data. Jiangsu Senmao and others challenged this decision in court. The CIT told Commerce to review and better explain the data choices three separate times. The court’s main concerns were: Commerce did not clearly explain why Brazilian data was not good enough. Commerce did not follow usual rules by using data from two countries. Commerce did not put all used documents on the record. Commerce needed to check and use the most accurate data for plywood. During three remand rounds, Commerce had to adjust and explain its calculations: First Remand: Commerce gave more documents and reasons for using different data sources. Second Remand: Commerce provided more explanation about using data from more than one country. Third Remand: Commerce changed its method and used Malaysian data for plywood, replacing the Brazilian data. After these changes, Commerce revised Jiangsu Senmao’s dumping margin to 14.35 percent. On September 15, 2025, the CIT agreed with Commerce’s new margin. This final court judgement is not in harmony with Commerce’s original decision. As a result, the Department of Commerce is now officially changing its earlier decision. The new weighted-average dumping margin for Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd. is 14.35 percent. Cash Deposit and Liquidation Details Jiangsu Senmao already has a new cash deposit rate from a review after this case, so Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will not get new deposit instructions. The current cash deposit rate will not change. The Department of Commerce is still ordered by the court not to liquidate (finalize) certain wood flooring entries for Jiangsu Senmao imported between December 1, 2019, and November 30, 2020. This hold will remain while any further court appeals happen. If there are no more appeals, or if an appeal is unsuccessful, Commerce will tell CBP to use the new antidumping rate to calculate duties on the affected flooring imports. If the final rate for certain imports is zero or too small to count, CBP will not collect any duties for those. Official Information This change is announced under sections 516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Dated: September 25, 2025. Christopher Abbott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Reviews and Intent To Revoke the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, in Part
U.S. Moves to Partly End Duties on Some Solar Products from China Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce said it may take away some trade duties on certain solar cell products from China. This comes after a request by Nextracker LLC, an importer of solar cells. The government shared its early plan on September 30, 2025. People and companies can comment on this plan. Background The U.S. put special taxes on solar cells from China in December 2012. Nextracker asked for a review of these taxes in June 2025. The company wants the government to stop the duties on certain products. Nextracker says it is an interested party because it brings these solar cells into the country. Other groups and companies involved in making solar cells in the U.S. said they do NOT oppose Nextracker’s request. The following groups sent letters of no opposition: The American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing Bila Solar, Inc. Sunspark Group Jinko Solar Canadian Solar Current Scope of Duties The rules right now cover: Crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells. Modules, panels, and laminates with these cells. Parts for final solar products, even if assembled after shipment. Some items are NOT included. These are: Thin film solar made from amorphous silicon, cadmium telluride, or copper indium gallium selenide. Tiny solar cells (10,000mm² or less) built into consumer goods that use the power for their function. Modules and panels made outside China from Chinese cells ARE included. Modules and panels assembled in China from third-country cells are NOT included. What Products Are Part of the Proposed Change? The U.S. may remove duties for “off-grid” solar cell panels that: Have a glass cover. Have an aluminum frame. Output 140 watts or less per panel. Are long and skinny (the long side is at least 3.5 times the short side). Are less than 8,200 cm² in area. Connect using 12-16 AWG wires, 1200-1310 mm long. Do not include a built-in inverter. Nextracker says these products are used: As a controller for panel tilt and tracker position. As a weather sensor to protect from extreme weather. These items are smaller and less powerful than normal solar panels. They are used only to power Nextracker parts, not to compete with other solar products. Why the Change May Happen The law lets Commerce change or cancel duties if most U.S. makers of these goods agree. If these makers show they no longer want the duties, the government can end them in part or whole. The Commerce Department says that at least 85% of U.S. makers must agree. For these reviews, almost all the main U.S. solar cell makers said they do NOT oppose Nextracker’s plan. The Commerce Department says this shows there is enough support for the change. Next Steps Anyone interested can send written arguments by 14 days after this notice. Replies can be sent five days after that. These documents must include a summary of each point, limited to 450 words per topic. If Commerce decides to go forward, duties would be ended on the special off-grid solar cell panels. This change would apply only to solar panels that entered the U.S. after January 1, 2024 (for one order) and December 1, 2024 (for the other). If the rules are changed, Customs will not collect the duties and will give refunds for deposits made on these products after those dates. The review should finish within 270 days, or 45 days if all parties agree. More Details You can read the full notice and updates at the Federal Register or at access.trade.gov. Contact For questions, contact Maureen Shaheen at the U.S. Department of Commerce, phone (202) 482-3004. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
ITA Briefing 2025-09-30
Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Briefing 2025-09-30 Estimated reading time: 6 minutes 1. Silicon Metal From the Kingdom of Thailand: Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Less-Than-Fair-Value Determinations Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration 2. Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether Or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Reviews and Intent To Revoke the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, in Part Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Content: Based on a request from Nextracker LLC (Nextracker), the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is initiating and issuing preliminary results of changed circumstances reviews (CCRs) of the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells (solar cells), whether or not assembled into modules, from the People's Republic of China (China) to revoke the orders, in part, with respect to certain products. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. 3. Unwrought Palladium From the Russian Federation: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration 4. Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Antidumping Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Content: On September 15, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment in Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. et al. v. United States, Court No. 22-00190, sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce's (Commerce) third remand results pertaining to the administrative review of antidumping duty (AD) order on multilayered wood flooring (MLWF) from the People's Republic of China (China) covering the period 12/1/2019 through 11/30/2020. Commerce is notifying the public that the CIT's final judgment is not in harmony with Commerce's final results of the administrative review, and that Commerce is amending the final results with respect to the dumping margin assigned to Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu Senmao). 5. Raw Honey From Brazil: Preliminary Results and Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024 Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Content: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping (AD) order on raw honey from Brazil for the period of review (POR) June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2024. Commerce preliminarily finds that Melbras Importadora E Exportadora Agroindústria Ltda. (Melbras) and Minamel Agroindústria Ltda. (Minamel) made sales of subject merchandise at prices below normal value (NV) during the POR. Additionally, we are rescinding this review, in part, with respect to certain companies for which there were no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR, and for which requests for review were timely withdrawn. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. 6. Certain Freight Rail Couplers and Parts Thereof From India: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration 7. Silicon Metal From the Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Content: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that silicon metal from the Lao People's Democratic Republic (Laos) is being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. 8. Silicon Metal From Angola: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Content: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that silicon metal (silicon) from Angola is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2024, through March 30, 2025. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. 9. Thermoformed Molded Fiber Products From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Content: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of thermoformed molded fiber products (molded fiber products) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) during the period of investigation (POI), January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023. 10. Thermoformed Molded Fiber Products From the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Content: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of thermoformed molded fiber products (molded fiber products) from the People's Republic of China (China). The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023. 11. Thermoformed Molded Fiber Products From the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Content: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that thermoformed molded fiber products (molded fiber products) from the People's Republic of China (China) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) during the period of investigation (POI) April 1, 2025, through September 30, 2025. 12. Thermoformed Molded Fiber Products From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Content: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that thermoformed molded fiber products (molded fiber products) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2024, through September 30, 2024. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer,
Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains From the People’s Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order and Countervailing Duty Order
U.S. Issues New Duties on Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains From China Estimated reading time: 2–4 minutes What Is Covered The orders cover sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains made with at least 94% aluminum oxide. These grains may also have other materials like titanium dioxide or silicon dioxide. They come in sizes from 0.85 mm to 0.0395 mm. Shapes can include angular, blocky, round, and more. The grains are extremely hard and can be various colors like blue or white. These grains are included in the duties whether imported in bulk or already made into products like abrasive papers or grinding wheels. However, only the ceramic grains inside the finished products are covered, not the entire product. Duties for Dumping The U.S. determined that ceramic abrasive grains from China were sold below fair value. Importers must pay antidumping duties at a weighted-average dumping margin of 88.32 percent. This rate applies to all producers from China and is based on facts available with adverse inferences. Duties for Subsidies The investigation found that Chinese companies producing these grains received unfair government support. Countervailing duties were set at a subsidy rate of 165.05 percent. This rate applies to several named companies and all others not listed. How Duties Are Applied U.S. Customs and Border Protection must collect cash deposits for these duties on imports from China. For antidumping duties, this started for products entered or withdrawn for consumption on or after June 2, 2025. For countervailing duties, this started for products entered on or after May 22, 2025. There was a temporary pause for the subsidy duties after September 18, 2025, until publication of the final injury determination. Duties collection resumed with the new order. Legal Process and Ongoing Requirements The orders were put in place after both Commerce and the International Trade Commission found that dumped and subsidized grains from China hurt the U.S. industry. These rules are upheld under the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The orders also include instructions about how interested parties and lawyers can be added to annual inquiry service lists to receive updates and take part in future matters related to the orders. Special instructions apply for both U.S. petitioners and the Government of China. A full list of affected Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) codes is provided in the orders, with the written description taking priority over any classification. Where to Find More Information The notice was signed by Christopher Abbott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations. The full list of existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders is available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html. These new duties are effective as of September 29, 2025. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
ITA Briefing 2025-09-29
Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Briefing 2025-09-29 Estimated reading time: 4 minutes 1. Paper File Folders From Sri Lanka: Antidumping Duty Order Link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/29/2025-18886/paper-file-folders-from-sri-lanka-antidumping-duty-order Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Content: Based on affirmative final determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing an antidumping duty (AD) order on paper file folders (file folders) from Sri Lanka. 2. Certain Chassis and Subassemblies Thereof From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures Link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/29/2025-18885/certain-chassis-and-subassemblies-thereof-from-the-socialist-republic-of-vietnam-preliminary Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Content: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that certain chassis and subassemblies thereof (chassis) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. 3. Certain Chassis and Subassemblies Thereof From Thailand: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures Link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/29/2025-18884/certain-chassis-and-subassemblies-thereof-from-thailand-preliminary-affirmative-determination-of Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Content: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that certain chassis and subassemblies thereof (chassis) from Thailand are being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. 4. Certain Chassis and Subassemblies Thereof From Mexico: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures Link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/29/2025-18883/certain-chassis-and-subassemblies-thereof-from-mexico-preliminary-affirmative-determination-of-sales Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Content: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that certain chassis and subassemblies thereof (chassis) from Mexico are being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. 5. Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains From the People’s Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order and Countervailing Duty Order Link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/29/2025-18882/sol-gel-alumina-based-ceramic-abrasive-grains-from-the-peoples-republic-of-china-antidumping-duty Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Content: Based on affirmative final determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains (ceramic abrasive grains) from the People's Republic of China (China). 6. High Purity Dissolving Pulp From Brazil: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation Link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/29/2025-18881/high-purity-dissolving-pulp-from-brazil-postponement-of-preliminary-determination-in-the Sub: Commerce Department, International Trade Administration Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Previously Approved Collection
Federal Bureau of Investigation Seeks Comments on ViCAP National Crime Database Information Collection Estimated reading time: 5–10 minutes The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG), is submitting an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This request is in line with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Comments are being accepted for 30 days, until October 27, 2025. If you have comments about the time it will take to respond, how the collection is done, or suggestions to improve it, you can contact Nathan Graham, Program Manager at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. The phone number is (703) 632-4309. The proposed collection was previously published for a 60-day comment period on September 17, 2025. The FBI welcomes written comments and suggestions on: If the collection of information is necessary. The accuracy of the estimated burden to the public. How to improve the quality and clarity of the information. Ways to reduce the burden, including electronic methods. Written comments and recommendations should be submitted within 30 days of the notice. They must be submitted at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Use “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or search “OMB Control Number 1110-0011” to find the request. The DOJ seeks approval for this information collection for three years. OMB cannot authorize for more than three years without another review. Details about the Collection ViCAP is a unit of the FBI that analyzes serial violent and sexual crimes. The ViCAP National Crime Database is the largest collection of major violent crime case data in the United States. It gathers data about the following: Homicides (and attempts) believed to be part of a series, random, or sexually oriented. Sexual assaults suspected to be part of a series or committed by a stranger. Missing persons cases that suggest foul play and the person is still missing. Unidentified human remains where the death is known or suspected to be homicide. Overview of the Information Collection This is a revision of a previously approved collection. The collection is named “ViCAP National Crime Database.” There is no specific agency form number. The respondents are state, local, and tribal governments. Participation is voluntary. There are an estimated 5,700 respondents. The estimated time per respondent is 20 minutes. Users decide how often to respond, but for calculation, it is counted as once per year. The total estimated annual time burden is 1,900 hours. There are no other annual costs. For more information, contact Darwin Arceo at the Department of Justice, at 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC 20530. This information was published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2025. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
DOJ Briefing 2025-09-26
Justice Department Briefing 2025-09-26 Estimated reading time: 2 minutes 1. Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Previously Approved Collection Sub: Justice Department Content: The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Notice of Request for Public Comments on Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Personal Protective Equipment, Medical Consumables, and Medical Equipment, Including Devices
U.S. Commerce Department Announces Investigation on Medical Imports Estimated reading time: 4–7 minutes On September 2, 2025, the Secretary of Commerce started an investigation. The investigation will look at how importing personal protective equipment (PPE), medical consumables, and medical equipment, including devices, affects U.S. national security. This investigation is under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) will run this investigation. They invite the public and interested parties to send in written comments, data, or other information. The deadline to submit comments is October 17, 2025. What Is Being Investigated? The investigation covers: PPE used in health care settings, like surgical masks, N95 respirators, gloves, and gowns. Medical consumables, which are single-use or short-term-use items, such as syringes, needles, IV pumps, IV bags, catheters, bandages, gauze, sutures, and laboratory reagents. It does not include pharmaceuticals like drugs, which are part of another investigation. Medical equipment, which means durable equipment and tools, like wheelchairs, hospital beds, and crutches. Medical devices, such as pacemakers, insulin pumps, coronary stents, hearing aids, prosthetics, blood glucose monitors, MRI machines, ventilators, and x-ray machines. How to Submit Comments Comments can be sent through the Federal rulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov. The regulations.gov ID is BIS-2025-0258. Use XRIN 0694-XC134 in all comments. If you send business confidential information, mark those pages “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL.” Also give a non-confidential version marked “PUBLIC.” File names should start with “BC” for confidential and “P” for public. Comments sent without these markers will be made public. Main Issues BIS Wants Comments On The Department is looking for information especially on: The current and future demand for PPE, medical consumables, and equipment in the U.S. How much domestic production can meet this demand. The role of foreign supply chains, especially major exporters, in supplying these goods. If many U.S. imports come from only a few foreign countries and if this is a risk. The impact of foreign government subsidies and unfair trade practices on U.S. manufacturers. The economic impact of low prices caused by unfair foreign trade or overproduction. If foreign countries could restrict exports or control supplies, and if this could be used against the U.S. Whether it is possible to increase domestic manufacturing to use fewer imports. The impact of current trade policies and if tariffs or quotas are needed for national security. Whether foreign countries could control or exploit supply chains. If foreign-made PPE, consumables, or equipment could be used to harm the U.S. Any other relevant factors. Confidentiality and Contact Business confidential comments will be protected as required by the law. Comments from U.S. Government agencies will not be made public. The BIS website has information and resources at https://efoia.bis.doc.gov/. For help, call (202) 482-0795. For any more information, contact Stephen Astle, Director, Defense Industrial Base Division, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, BIS, at (202) 482-4506, or visit www.bis.doc.gov/232. Signed, Julia A. Khersonsky, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic Trade Federal Register Vol. 90, No. 185 (September 26, 2025) Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
Notice of Request for Public Comments on Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Robotics and Industrial Machinery
U.S. Commerce Department Seeks Public Comments on Risks From Imported Robotics and Industrial Machines Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On September 2, 2025, the United States Department of Commerce started a national security investigation. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is leading this work. The focus is on imports of robotics and industrial machinery. The Department wants to know how these imports may affect United States national security. The investigation is under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The public can send comments and data. The deadline to submit is October 17, 2025. Robotics and industrial machinery in this investigation include robots and mechanical systems run by computers. It also covers CNC machines, turning and milling machines, grinding equipment, and stamping and pressing machines. Other types include automatic tool changers, jigs, fixtures, and machine tools for cutting, welding, or handling work pieces. It also covers metalworking equipment like autoclaves, industrial ovens, and laser or water-cutting tools. This investigation does not look at unmanned aircraft systems. Those are studied in a different review. The Department wants comments on many issues, including: How much demand there is in the United States for robotics and industrial machinery now, in the future, and in the best case. How much of this demand can be met by makers in the United States. The role of foreign supply chains, especially from top exporting countries. How much U.S. imports come from only a few suppliers or countries. Also, any risks because of this. The impact of money or support from foreign governments that could hurt U.S. makers. If foreign countries keep prices low on purpose or make too much, hurting U.S. jobs or businesses. The chance that foreign countries could limit exports or use control over supplies for harm. If it is possible to increase U.S. capacity to depend less on other countries. How current trade rules affect U.S. makers, and if more steps are needed, like tariffs or limits on imports. Effects on U.S. jobs from using, or not using, robotics and industrial machines. If foreign countries or people could control or misuse the supply chain. The risk that foreign-built machines or parts could be misused. The future importance of robotics and industrial machines for U.S. national security items or work. Any other points the public thinks matter. The BIS will accept business confidential information, if marked as required. Public comments will be posted unless marked as confidential. The Department will not make U.S. government communications public. Instructions for submitting comments and for business confidential information are listed in the official notice. Anyone with questions can contact Stephen Astle, Director at the Defense Industrial Base Division, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, at (202) 482-4506. More information is available at www.bis.doc.gov/232. Records connected to this investigation can also be found at https://efoia.bis.doc.gov/. The Department of Commerce asks all interested parties to share their views and information by October 17, 2025. The official responsible for this notice is Julia A. Khersonsky, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic Trade. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
BIS Briefing 2025-09-26
Commerce Department, Industry and Security Bureau Briefing 2025-09-26 Estimated reading time: 4 minutes 1. Notice of Request for Public Comments on Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Robotics and Industrial Machinery Sub: Commerce Department, Industry and Security Bureau Content: On September 2, 2025, the Secretary of Commerce initiated an investigation to determine the effects on the national security of imports of robotics and industrial machinery. This investigation has been initiated under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (Section 232). Interested parties are invited to submit written comments, data, analyses, or other information pertinent to the investigation to the Department of Commerce’s (Department) Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security. This notice identifies issues on which the Department is especially interested in obtaining the public’s views. 2. Notice of Request for Public Comments on Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Personal Protective Equipment, Medical Consumables, and Medical Equipment, Including Devices Sub: Commerce Department, Industry and Security Bureau Content: On September 2, 2025, the Secretary of Commerce initiated an investigation to determine the effects on the national security of imports of personal protective equipment (PPE), medical consumables, and medical equipment including devices. This investigation has been initiated under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (Section 232). Interested parties are invited to submit written comments, data, analyses, or other information pertinent to the investigation to the Department of Commerce’s (Department) Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security. This notice identifies issues on which the Department is especially interested in obtaining the public’s views. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.


