Department of Justice Proposes Changes to National Prisoner Statistics Program Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), a part of the U.S. Department of Justice, is planning to update the National Prisoner Statistics program (NPS). The BJS has asked the public for comments on this plan. Comments will be accepted for 60 days, ending on September 22, 2025. Information Collected The NPS program collects yearly numbers about prisoners held by state and federal prisons. It tracks the number of people admitted and released. The information is used to report on how people move through the prison system each year. This helps the BJS show changes in the prison population and supports the work of many people. Key Changes One change is that questions about HIV/AIDS will be removed. These may come back in special health supplements in the future. The BJS also plans to test a new way to collect race and ethnicity data. This matches the rules in the 2024 OMB Statistical Policy Directive No. 15. The BJS will also check if more race and ethnicity data can be collected from the current data systems. Who Must Report NPS-1B: Used by 51 reporters (one from each state and the Federal Bureau of Prisons). NPS-1B(T): Used by five reporters from U.S. Territories or Commonwealths (Guam, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands, American Samoa). Information Required from States and Federal Prisons Each year, the 51 reporters must give details including: The number of men and women in prison as of December 31, sorted by sentence length and if they are unsentenced. How many people are housed in private, county, or other facilities. Admission types: new court commitments, parole violators, other transfers, and returns. Release types: finished sentences, commutations, probation, parole, deaths by cause, transfers, and other categories. Prisoners by race and Hispanic origin. U.S. citizenship status of prisoners. The source used for citizenship data. The capacities of prisons, broken down by sex. Information Required from Territories and Commonwealths Each year, the five reporters from the territories must provide: Number of men and women in prison as of December 31 by sentence length, and how complete those numbers are. People sent to other places to reduce overcrowding. Prisoners by race and Hispanic origin. The end-of-year capacities of correctional facilities by sex. Why This Matters The Bureau of Justice Statistics uses the collected information for government reports. These reports are used by Congress, the President, researchers, students, media, and others interested in crime and justice data. Response Details Responding to the survey is voluntary. Each of the 51 main respondents will spend about 4.5 hours each year on the NPS-1B form. The five territory respondents will each spend about 2 hours on the NPS-1B(T) form. The total estimated burden is 795 hours over three years, or about 265 hours per year. The overall cost for all respondents is estimated at $577,000 per year. Contact Information For questions or copies of the data collection forms, contact Derek Mueller, Bureau of Justice Statistics, at 999 N Capitol St. NE, Washington, DC 20531, or call 202-307-0765. If you need more information, you can also contact Darwin Arceo at the Department of Justice, 145 N Street NE, Washington, DC 20530. Publication Information This notice was published in the Federal Register, Volume 90, Number 140, on July 24, 2025. The notice number is 2025-13933. 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; Title-Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) Enrollment/National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) E-Check Enrollment Form, Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) Officer/Employee Acknowledgment of Responsibilities Under the NICS Form, Responsibilities of a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) Under the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Form
DOJ Announces Proposed Changes to Federal Firearms Licensee NICS Forms Estimated reading time: 2-3 minutes The Department of Justice (DOJ), through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), has announced a proposed revision to the information collection for Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs). This proposal was published in the Federal Register on July 24, 2025. The revision concerns important forms related to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). These forms include the FFL Enrollment/NICS E-Check Enrollment Form, the FFL Officer/Employee Acknowledgment of Responsibilities under the NICS Form, and the Responsibilities of an FFL under the NICS Form. The FBI is inviting public comments on the proposed changes. The comment period is open for 60 days, ending September 22, 2025. The changes include adding four new fields to the form. The new questions ask for the FFL’s date of birth and the mother’s maiden name for security reasons. There is also a new question for FFLs in Point of Contact (POC) states. If the FFL operates in a POC state, they must confirm they will use the FBI NICS system for authorized purposes only. The main purpose of collecting this information is to control access to the NICS and NICS Electronic (E-Check) systems. The forms help protect the privacy and security of background check information. They ensure only authorized users, like FFLs and employees in POC states, can use the NICS system. The DOJ estimates that 6,160 respondents will complete these forms each year. Completing and reading the forms takes about 15 minutes per person. This results in a total estimated burden of 1,540 hours yearly. The cost for respondents is $0, as the forms are available online and can be signed digitally. No mailing or copying costs are required. The responses are required for FFLs or POC states to obtain access to the NICS system to perform background checks for firearm sales. Anyone needing more information or wishing to review the proposed information collection can contact Jill Montgomery at the FBI NICS Section in Clarksburg, West Virginia. For official details or to send in comments, the announcement provides contact information for Darwin Arceo, the Department Clearance Officer at the Department of Justice. More information on the NICS is available at https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics. 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 Currently Approved Collection; Comments Requested: Title-Special Deputation Forms
U.S. Marshals Service Requests Comments on Special Deputation Forms Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) is seeking public comments on its Special Deputation Forms. This request was announced by the Department of Justice in the Federal Register, Volume 90, Number 140, on July 24, 2025. The USMS wants to collect feedback as part of a review required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Comments are being accepted for 60 days, ending on September 22, 2025. Collection Details The USMS is revising its current approval for forms used in the Special Deputation Program. These forms help record and track people deputized to act as Special Deputy U.S. Marshals. Special Deputation is permitted when law enforcement needs arise, as decided by the Associate Attorney General under 28 CFR 0.19(a)(3). There are two main forms: USM-3A: Application for Special Deputation/Sponsoring Federal Agency Information. USM-3C: Group Special Deputation Request. These forms are completed by State, Local, and Tribal Governments. Estimated Usage and Burden USM-3A: It is estimated that 8,000 respondents will use this form every year. Each form will take about 10 minutes to complete. This adds up to around 1,333 total annual burden hours. USM-3C: Around 300 respondents are expected to use this form annually, with each taking about 15 minutes. This totals 75 annual burden hours. The annual cost burden for both forms is estimated at $0.00. Table of Annual Burden Activity Number of Respondents Frequency (Annually) Total Annual Responses Time per Response (Mins) Total Annual Burden (Hours) USM-3A Application for Special Deputation 8,000 1 8,000 10 1,333 USM-3C Group Special Deputation Request 300 1 300 15 75 Total 8,300 1,408 Instructions for Comments The USMS is asking for comments about the following points: Is the information necessary for the agency’s work? Is the estimated burden and response time correct? Can the quality and clarity be improved? How can the burden on respondents be reduced, for example, by using electronic submissions? People needing more information or wishing to submit comments can contact Assistant Chief Karl Slazer, Management Support Division, US Marshals Service Headquarters, 1215 S Clark St., Ste. 10017, Arlington, VA 22202-4387. Phone: 703-740-2316, or email: [email protected]. If further information is needed, contact Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, Justice Management Division, U.S. Department of Justice. The notice is signed by Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, dated July 22, 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.
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Reviews, and Revocation of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, in Part
U.S. Department of Commerce Issues Final Results of Changed Circumstances Reviews on Certain Solar Cells From China Estimated reading time: 5–10 minutes Background The original duty orders were put in place on December 7, 2012. On August 28, 2024, Lutron Electronics Co., Inc. asked the Department of Commerce to review the orders. Lutron asked to remove certain small, low-wattage, off-grid CSPV cells from the orders. The Commerce Department started the review on October 21, 2024. They asked for comments from other companies and interested groups, but did not receive any comments. On April 23, 2025, Commerce said they believed most U.S. producers were no longer interested in keeping the orders for these specific products. Commerce planned to end, in part, the orders for certain CSPV cells. Commerce again allowed for comments or requests for a public hearing. No comments or requests were received. Final Results and Revocation The Department of Commerce found that there is no interest from U.S. producers to keep the orders for the products under review. No parties opposed this change. Because of this, Commerce ended the duty orders for CSPV cells with these exact features: Off-grid CSPV panels in rigid form, with or without a glass cover. Permanently attached to an aluminum extrusion that is part of an automation device controlling natural light. Total power output of 20 watts or less per panel. Maximum surface area of 1,000 cm² per panel. No built-in inverter for powering third-party devices. Scope of Orders and Other Exclusions The orders cover crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and panels. Many exclusions apply. These include products like thin film photovoltaic products and panels with very specific outputs, sizes, or applications. The order details other exclusions, such as: Panels not exceeding 10,000 mm² and permanently built into a consumer good. Specific panels with surface area, voltage, ampere, and watt constraints. Off-grid panels in rigid form of 100 watts or less per panel and certain design features. CSPV panels in rigid form with a glass cover, used for converting water vapor into water, with detailed size and feature requirements. Small portable off-grid panels with outputs of 200 watts or less and carrying features like a handle and integrated kickstands. Exclusions are detailed by product size, power output, design, and intended use. Retroactive Application Commerce will apply the change retroactively. For the AD order, it covers goods entered or withdrawn from warehouse for use on or after December 1, 2022. For the CVD order, it starts on January 1, 2022. Unliquidated entries fitting the exclusion will be liquidated without AD or CVD duties. Deposits for such duties will be refunded on these entries. Instructions will go to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, usually 35 days or more after the date of the notice. If a legal challenge is filed, liquidation of entries will be paused until the court process, with specific timelines for filing an injunction. Administrative Details This notice serves as a final reminder to companies under an administrative protective order (APO) to return or destroy APO materials as required by law. The Department of Commerce issued and published this result under sections 751(b) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act and related regulations. Date The action is effective July 24, 2025. Contact Information For questions, contact Tyler O’Daniel, Office of Policy, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, telephone: (202) 482-6030. Signed Christopher Abbott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, Department of Commerce. Federal Register Document No. 2025-13953, published July 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.
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Reviews, and Revocation of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, in Part
U.S. to Drop Duties on Some Small Solar Products from China Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has announced a new decision on special tariffs for certain solar products from China. The announcement appears in the Federal Register, Volume 90, Issue 140, dated July 24, 2025. Background In 2015, the United States began charging extra taxes called antidumping (AD) and countervailing duties (CVD) on crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) products from China. These products are often used to make solar panels. On August 28, 2024, the company Lutron, which makes and sells solar products, asked the Department of Commerce to review these duties for a special kind of product: small, low-wattage, off-grid CSPV cells. These products are used in devices that control natural light. The request asked for the duties to no longer apply to these specific products. The American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing, a group representing U.S. solar producers, said it did not oppose the request. Commerce looked for more comments, but none were received from other parties. Final Results The Department of Commerce found that U.S. producers who make this type of CSPV cell do not want the extra tariffs for these products. Because of this, the government will remove the duties on these certain small, low-wattage, off-grid CSPV solar cells from China. Details of the Excluded Products The following products are now excluded from the tariffs: Off-grid CSPV panels in rigid form, with or without a glass cover. They must be permanently attached to an aluminum frame that is part of an automation device for controlling natural light. They can be assembled into a fully completed light control device or not. The panels must meet all these conditions: The panel’s total power output is 20 watts or less. The panel’s surface area is no more than 1,000 square centimeters. The panel does not have a built-in inverter to power third-party devices. Scope of Solar Products Still Affected The anti-dumping and countervailing duties will still apply to other types of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules, panels, and laminates made or assembled in China, except for those products with specific exemptions. Some products, including thin film photovoltaic products and certain small integrated solar panels in consumer goods, were already excluded from the duties. The new exclusion adds the small, low-wattage, off-grid CSPV panels described above. Action for Importers The Department of Commerce will tell U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to remove the tariffs from all small, low-wattage, off-grid CSPV panels that were entered into the U.S. (or taken from a warehouse for use) starting from December 1, 2022, for AD duties and January 1, 2022, for CVD duties. Importers may get refunds of duties they already paid on these items. If there is a legal challenge, the CBP will pause liquidation until legal timelines end. Other Information The reminder also covers how companies under special protective orders should handle private information after the decision. This change is now final as of July 24, 2025. Contact Questions can be sent to Tyler O’Daniel, Office of Policy Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration. Phone: (202) 482-6030. The full notice is available in the Federal Register at www.gpo.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.
Publication of Venezuela Sanctions Regulations Web General Licenses 41A, 5R, and 41B
Treasury Issues New Licenses for Venezuela Sanctions Estimated reading time: 5–7 minutes On July 23, 2025, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) published three general licenses related to the Venezuela Sanctions Regulations. The licenses are General License 41A, 5R, and 41B. Details of New Licenses General License No. 41A GL 41A was issued on March 4, 2025. This license allowed people to wind down certain transactions connected to Chevron Corporation’s joint ventures in Venezuela. These actions had to be finished before April 3, 2025. The license allowed only necessary actions related to closing out operations. This involved Chevron and its subsidiaries, along with partners like Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA) and companies owned more than 50 percent by PdVSA. GL 41A did not allow: Payment of any taxes or royalties to the Government of Venezuela. Payment of any dividends, including in-kind dividends, to PdVSA or its owned companies. Selling oil or oil products from the Chevron joint ventures to places outside the United States. Any deal with a Venezuelan company owned or controlled by a Russian company. Any activity otherwise banned by the Venezuela Sanctions Regulations, unless separately allowed. GL 41A replaced General License No. 41. General License No. 5R GL 5R was issued on March 6, 2025. This license will allow, starting July 3, 2025, all transactions related to the Petróleos de Venezuela 2020 8.5 Percent Bond. This includes financing, handling, and other dealings that would otherwise be banned by Executive Orders 13835 and 13857, and the Venezuela Sanctions Regulations. GL 5R does not permit activities otherwise disallowed by the sanctions rules in 31 CFR chapter V. It replaced General License No. 5Q. General License No. 41B GL 41B was issued on March 24, 2025, and replaced GL 41A. This license authorizes the wind down of certain transactions tied to Chevron’s Venezuela joint ventures until May 27, 2025. Like GL 41A, it allows only actions needed to close out business with Chevron joint ventures, PdVSA, and PdVSA-owned firms. GL 41B does not allow: Payment of taxes or royalties to the Venezuelan government. Payment of any dividends, including in-kind, to PdVSA or its companies. Sale of oil or oil products from these joint ventures to countries other than the United States. Deals with Venezuelan companies owned or controlled by Russian companies. Any action banned by the Venezuela Sanctions Regulations, unless specifically allowed. GL 41B also states: People must still follow rules from other federal agencies, such as the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security. The license does not allow Chevron joint ventures to start working in new oil fields in Venezuela. All these licenses were made available on OFAC’s website when issued. The Acting Director of OFAC, Lisa M. Palluconi, signed each license. 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 Collection eComments Requested; Revision and Extension of a Previously Approved Collection; Notice of Appeal From a Decision of an Immigration Judge (Form EOIR-26); Correction
Justice Department Corrects Notice on Immigration Appeal Form Fees After Recent Law Change Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The Department of Justice (DOJ) has released a correction regarding the collection of information for the Notice of Appeal From a Decision of an Immigration Judge, Form EOIR-26. The correction was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2025, by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The update relates to an earlier notice that appeared in the Federal Register on July 1, 2025. This correction adds one more change to the information collection process. EOIR will submit the updated collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. This follows rules found in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The comment period for this proposed change is still open until September 2, 2025. Anyone needing more information or wishing to comment on the public burden, response time, or methods related to this collection, can contact Justine Fuga, Associate General Counsel, at the EOIR. Contact details are: Address: 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, VA 22041 Telephone: (703) 305-0265 Email: [Contact information provided in the original source] The correction makes the instructions for how to file Form EOIR-26, both by mail and electronically, more clear. It also updates information about new filing fees. These fee changes are the result of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), H.R. 1, which became law on July 4, 2025. The corrected estimated annual cost is $12,747,978 for the public. According to EOIR estimates: 12,487 responses each year come from applicants who have to pay a filing fee. 647 responses come from Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DHS ICE) employees, who are not required to pay a filing fee. The cost per response is as follows: For regular applicants: $0.80 for printing, $10.10 for postage, and $1,010 for the filing fee. The total per response is $1,020.90. For DHS ICE: $0.80 for printing, $10.10 for postage, and no filing fee. The total per response is $10.90. Total annual costs are calculated as follows: $1,020.90 multiplied by 12,487 responses equals $12,747,978 for applicants required to pay. $10.90 multiplied by 647 responses equals $7,052 for DHS ICE. The correction is signed by Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, DOJ. This update ensures the information collection aligns with the new law and provides clarity on costs and filing instructions. The public and interested parties may continue to submit comments until September 2, 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.
Cross-Border Litigation: 2nd Instance Victory in South Korea
Fan Zhang, Director at JINGSH Chengdu, led her team to secure a court victory in a major international trade dispute case involving a Hong Kong company and a Korean company before the Suwon District Court Seongnam Branch.
Application for Relief From Disabilities Imposed by Federal Laws With Respect to the Acquisition, Receipt, Transfer, Shipment, Transportation, or Possession of Firearms
Department of Justice Proposes New Rules on Federal Firearm Rights Restoration Estimated reading time: 8–10 minutes On July 22, 2025, the Department of Justice published a proposed rule in the Federal Register. The rule sets out how people can apply for relief from federal laws that stop them from having guns. Why the Rule Is Needed The Gun Control Act makes it illegal for some people to have firearms. This includes people with certain criminal records, people with mental health commitments, and others considered dangerous. But the Act also gives people a way to ask for their rights back. This is called “relief from disabilities.” Before 2025, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) handled these requests. Problems appeared. There were not enough rules for deciding who should get their rights back. Some dangerous people got their rights restored, and later, committed crimes. Because of this, Congress stopped ATF from using funds to process these applications in 1992. Recently, the Attorney General took authority away from ATF and announced a new rule would be made. About the Proposed Rule The new rule sets out clear criteria for granting relief. It tries to keep dangerous people from getting guns, while respecting the Second Amendment. Presumptive Disqualifications Convictions for violent or dangerous felonies like murder, sexual assault, kidnapping, domestic violence, burglary, robbery, arson, and more. Felony sex offenses. People required to register as sex offenders. Anyone convicted of a felony using guns or explosives. Anyone convicted in the past 10 years of drug distribution crimes. Anyone convicted in the past 10 years for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, or shown to still be violent. Anyone convicted in the past 5 years for other felony offenses. People currently in prison or on probation, parole, or supervision. People subject to certain other gun disqualifications (like being a fugitive, using illegal drugs, being under restraining orders, or being in the country illegally). Anyone denied under these rules in the past. Looking at the Whole Story The Attorney General can look at all the facts of a person’s case—not just the official name of the crime. This means the actual conduct, not just the law’s wording, is used to decide eligibility. The rule says applications will also require input from local law enforcement. What Applicants Must Do Applicants must give: Detailed records about past convictions. Proof that criminal sentences are completed. Reference letters from people not related to them. Personal affirmations about their behavior and character. Notification to the chief law enforcement officer in their area. Applicants must show they are not dangerous and that restoring their rights is in the public interest. Fees The Department estimates about 1 million people will apply in the first year. Applicants must pay a $20 fee (unless poor, then a waiver may be requested). This covers costs for handling the applications. Reviewing Applications The Attorney General will review each applicant’s full criminal record, behavior during supervision, time since release, current mental health, community reputation, drug or alcohol use, and more. Input from police chiefs or sheriffs will be considered. Any false information in the application can cause removal of granted rights. Other Points The relief applies only to federal gun laws. State gun bans are not changed by this rule. The rule applies to people and gun dealers. Changes are made to access federal gun background system records. If rights are restored but the person commits a new crime, the relief can be taken back. How to Comment Comments on the rule are due by October 20, 2025. People can use regulations.gov or mail a comment to the U.S. Department of Justice. Impact The Department says the rule will help protect public safety, make the process clearer, and allow fair restoration of rights. It says the new system will be fair and follow the law. For more details, see the Federal Register, Volume 90, Number 138, pages 34394–34405, dated July 22, 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.
Active Anode Material From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures
U.S. Finds Chinese Active Anode Material Sold Below Fair Value Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes U.S. Finds Chinese Active Anode Material Sold Below Fair Value The U.S. Department of Commerce says that active anode material from the People’s Republic of China is likely being sold in the United States for less than fair value. This is a preliminary decision. The period being investigated is from April 1, 2024, through September 30, 2024. The Department is asking for comments on their decision. Why This Matters Active anode material is used in making batteries. It is a kind of graphite with a high purity of carbon — at least 90%. This investigation looks at the graphite whether it is coated or not. The product must also have a high energy density and be mostly made out of graphite crystals. Scope of Investigation The investigation covers active anode material from China. This includes materials that are powders, blocks, or liquids, and it covers the materials whether or not they have other things mixed in, like silicon. The product is included even if it is made as part of a battery or as part of a mixture. Most of these materials are categorized under the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule codes 2504.10.5000 and 3801.10.5000. Other codes may also include these products. How the Investigation Worked The Department of Commerce looked at sales information from China. They used special rules because China is considered a non-market economy. Most companies did not show that they are run independently from the Chinese government. So, the Department treated those companies as part of the “China-wide entity.” A very high dumping margin was assigned to this group. Dumping Margins A dumping margin means how much cheaper the product is sold in the U.S. compared to its normal value. The Department found rates of 93.50% for most producer and exporter pairs who could prove they operated independently. For companies that could not prove this, the dumping margin is even higher: 102.72%. These rates mean the products are being sold for much less than their real value. List of Companies Affected Many companies are listed. Some examples: Carbon ONE New Energy Group Co., Ltd. Canadian Solar Energy Holding Company Limited Farasis Energy (Zhenjiang) Co., Ltd. Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE Tesla (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. LG Energy Solution (Nanjing) Co. Ltd. Panasonic Energy Nandan, Co., Ltd. Samsung SDI Energy Malaysia Sdn, Bhd. Hunan Zhongke Shinzoom Co., Ltd. All these combinations are assigned a 93.50% margin. The “China-wide entity” gets a margin of 102.72%. What Happens Next U.S. Customs will stop releasing these products for regular sale. Importers will have to pay cash deposits based on the margins above. If the companies cannot prove they operate separately from the Chinese government, they will have to pay the highest margin. These rules will last until the Department of Commerce makes a final decision. The Department plans to finish the investigation by November 2025. After that, the International Trade Commission will also check if these imports hurt U.S. companies. How to Respond People or companies affected can comment on this decision within 30 days. They can also ask for a hearing about this investigation. More Information This news follows the procedures in the Tariff Act of 1930 and other U.S. trade laws. The Department of Commerce will review all comments and issue a final decision. If there was a mistake in the decisions, the Department will make corrections. Key Terms Active anode material: Graphite used in batteries, high in carbon, with high energy storage. Dumping margin: How much the import price is below its normal value. Provisional Measures: Temporary rules to collect cash deposits on imports until a final decision is made. This decision was posted by Christopher Abbott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, on July 16, 2025. The official Federal Register entry can be found at the U.S. Government website. 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.
Hardwood and Decorative Plywood From the People’s Republic of China, Indonesia, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Countervailing Duty Investigations
U.S. Delays Key Step in Plywood Import Trade Investigation Estimated reading time: 1–7 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce announced a delay in the preliminary findings of its countervailing duty investigations into hardwood and decorative plywood from China, Indonesia, and Vietnam. This update was published in the Federal Register on July 22, 2025. The investigations started on June 11, 2025. They focus on whether imports of these types of plywood from the three countries receive unfair government support, which can affect fair trade in the U.S. The original due date for the preliminary determination was August 15, 2025. However, the deadline can be extended to give the Department more time. According to U.S. law, Commerce can delay this step if the investigation is complex or if there is a request from the petitioner. On July 7, 2025, the Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood, the main group behind the complaint, formally asked Commerce to postpone the deadline. Their reason was to allow more time to fully review answers from mandatory respondents and to send out more questions if needed. The request was made at least 25 days before the original deadline. U.S. rules were followed, and Commerce did not find any reason to deny the request. Because of this, the Department of Commerce is postponing the preliminary determination. The new deadline is now October 20, 2025. This is because the 130th day after June 11 falls on a Sunday, so the decision moves to the next business day, which is Monday, October 20. The final determination in these investigations will still be due 75 days after the new preliminary determination date. For more details, the contact persons at the Department of Commerce are Rebecca Janz (China), Samuel Evans (Indonesia), and Sofia Pedrelli (Vietnam). The notice was signed by Christopher Abbott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations. 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.
Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders
U.S. Finds China-Origin Steel Pipes Shipped from Oman Circumvent Trade Orders Estimated reading time: 6–10 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has announced a preliminary decision in an important trade case. Imports of circular welded carbon quality steel pipes (CWP) made in the Sultanate of Oman, using hot-rolled steel (HRS) from the People’s Republic of China, are found to be avoiding U.S. antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on steel pipe from China. This is called “circumventing the Orders.” Background of the Case Commerce put AD and CVD orders on CWP from China in July 2008. On November 19, 2024, Commerce began investigating whether CWP shipped from Oman to the U.S., but made with steel from China, was actually covered by the existing trade Orders. Al Jazeera Steel Products Company SAOG in Oman was chosen as the main respondent for this investigation. The deadline for the preliminary decision was extended to July 17, 2025. Products Covered The products discussed are circular welded carbon quality steel pipes and tubes, which are widely used in building and industry. Pipes completed in Oman, using steel produced in China, and then sent to the U.S., are the subject of this investigation. How the Determination was Made Commerce used Section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 and other rules for its investigation. Preliminary Decision Commerce has preliminarily decided that CWP made in Oman using Chinese-origin HRS, and then sent to the U.S., is circumventing U.S. AD and CVD Orders. This means these pipe imports will now be treated as if they came from China when it comes to trade rules. Suspension of Liquidation and Cash Deposits Because of this decision, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will now “suspend liquidation” of these products. This means they will not finish processing these imports for duty payments right away. Companies must also pay cash deposits as security for estimated trade duties for shipments that came in on or after November 19, 2024. If the CWP is made in Oman with non-Chinese HRS, it is not covered by this decision. If the certifications (explained below) are met, no cash deposit or suspension is required. If certifications are missing or wrong, CBP will take action. AD cash deposits may be set at up to 85.55 percent and CVD cash deposits at 39.01 percent. Special case numbers have been created in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) for this trade issue. Certification Requirements To follow the new rules, importers and exporters must complete special certifications for each shipment. These documents prove that the pipes do not use Chinese HRS, or that another input was used. Importers must upload their certification, the exporter’s certification, invoices, and shipping paperwork into CBP’s document system at the time of entry summary. Exporters also fill out and keep their certification. They must give the importer a copy. Claims in the certifications, and any supporting documents, can be checked by Commerce or CBP. All records must be kept for at least five years, or three years after any court case about the entries finishes. For shipments between November 19, 2024, and August 13, 2025, where entries are not yet final, certifications must be finished and uploaded no later than September 8, 2025. Blanket certifications covering several shipments are allowed. Shipments declared without recognizing the AD or CVD case numbers must have their status corrected with CBP and pay any owed duties. Comments and Hearings Interested parties have seven days after the last verification report to submit case briefs. They may also submit rebuttal briefs five days later. Briefs should include a summary and a table of authorities. Hearing requests must be filed within 30 days of the notice. If held, the hearing will only discuss issues listed in the briefs. International Trade Commission Notification Commerce will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) about this decision. The ITC can ask questions or request a meeting within 60 days. If the ITC finds that including these imports would be a significant injury issue, it can provide written advice. Certifications Details There are official forms for both importers and exporters. The certifications require detailed information about the shipment, the steel’s origin, and a sworn statement that no Chinese HRS was used if claiming an exemption. Both must keep all documents, and it is a crime to make false statements. What’s Next This is a preliminary decision. Commerce may verify the information before making a final decision. The rules will stay in effect until Commerce announces otherwise. Official Contact For more information, the notice was prepared by Shawn Gregor, Office of Policy, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 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.
Certain Steel Threaded Rod From the People’s Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order
U.S. Continues Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Steel Threaded Rod from China Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The United States Department of Commerce (Commerce) has announced the continuation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain steel threaded rod from the People’s Republic of China. This action comes after findings from Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that ending the order would probably lead to more dumping and harm to U.S. industry. The effective date for the continuation of this order is July 16, 2025. Background The AD order on steel threaded rod from China was first put in place on April 14, 2009. This year, both the ITC and Commerce started a third review of the order. Commerce found that stopping the order would likely cause dumping to continue or return. The ITC also decided that revoking the order would likely hurt U.S. industry again. Scope of the Order The order covers steel threaded rod, bar, or studs made of carbon quality steel. These products must have a solid, circular cross section and can be any diameter or length. The products must be non-headed and have threads on more than 25% of their length. Several finishes or coatings may be applied to these rods, including plain oil, zinc (galvanized), and paint. Be mostly iron by weight. Have 2% or less carbon by weight. Not contain more than certain amounts of other elements like manganese, silicon, copper, aluminum, chromium, cobalt, lead, nickel, tungsten, boron, molybdenum, niobium, titanium, vanadium, or zirconium. These rods are listed under several U.S. tariff codes: 7318.15.5050 7318.15.5090 7318.15.2095 The written description is what’s important, not just the code numbers. Exclusions Not all threaded rods are part of this order. Excluded are rods that: Only have threads on one or both ends and cover 25% or less of the length. Are made to certain American standards (ASTM A193 Grade B7, ASTM A193 Grade B7M, ASTM A193 Grade B16, or ASTM A320 Grade L7). Continued Enforcement U.S. Customs and Border Protection will keep collecting AD cash deposits at the current rates for all these imports. Commerce plans to start another five-year review of this order within 30 days of the fifth anniversary of the latest ITC decision. Administrative Protective Order Parties with access to confidential business information must return or destroy these materials as required by law. Failure to do so may result in penalties. Legal References This action was published according to sections 751(c), 751(d)(2), and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4). Contact Information For more information, contact David De Falco at the U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-2178. Official Notice Dated: July 17, 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). [Document Reference: FR Doc. 2025-13788] 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 OFAC Sanctions Action
U.S. Treasury Announces New Sanctions on Iran-Linked Individuals and Groups Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes The United States Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has added new names to its Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List). These sanctions block all property and interests in property of the persons listed, when under U.S. jurisdiction. U.S. persons are generally not allowed to do business with them. Individuals Added to the List On March 22, 2019, OFAC decided that the following individuals are subject to asset blocking and sanctions: Mansur Asgari from Tehran, Iran. He was born on June 3, 1958. He acted for the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research. Mohammad Mahdi Da’emi Attaran from Mashhad, Iran. He was born on July 13, 1979. He acted for Puya Electro Saman Niru. Ruhollah Ghaderi Barmi, born in 1979, acted for Shahid Fakhar Moghaddam Group. Sa’id Borji from Abadan, Iran, born in 1958, supported Shahid Karimi Group. Gholam Reza Eta’ati from Tehran, Iran, born in 1973, acted for the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research. Mohammad Hossein Haghighian, born in 1989, acted for Kimiya Pakhsh Shargh. Jalal Emami Ghareh Hajjlu from Gha’emshahr, Iran, born on March 21, 1969, supported Shahid Karimi Group. Sayyed Asghar Hashemitabar from Sabzevar, Iran, born on August 23, 1974, acted for the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research. Mehdi Masoumian also known as Mahdi Masumian, acted for the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research. Mohammad Reza Mehdipur from Naein, Iran, born on August 6, 1975, acted for Shahid Karimi Group. Akbar Motallebizadeh from Yazd, Iran, born on July 23, 1963, supported Shahid Karimi Group. Mohammad Javad Safari from Borazjam, Iran, born on August 7, 1980, supported Shahid Fakhar Moghaddam Group. Mohsen Shafa’i from Tehran, Iran, born in 1971, acted for Puya Electro Saman Niru. Entities Added to the List The following organizations are also now sanctioned: Abu Reihan Group, Iran: Supported the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research. Bu Ali Group (also known as Boali Group): Acts for the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research. Heidar Karar Group: Acts for the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research. Kimiya Pakhsh Shargh: Acts for the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research. Paradise Medical Pioneers Company: Acts for the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research. Puya Electro Saman Niru: Supported the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research. Sadra Research Center: Acts for the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research. Shahid Avini Group: Acts for the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research. Shahid Baba’i Group: Acts for the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research. Sheikh Baha’i Science and Technology Research Center: Acts for the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research. Shahid Chamran Group: Acts for the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research. Shahid Fakhar Moghaddam Group: Acts for the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research. Shahid Karimi Group: Acts for the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research. Shahid Kazemi Group: Acts for the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research. Shahid Movahhed Danesh Group: Supported the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research. Shahid Shokri Science and Technology Research Center: Acts for the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research. Shahid Zeinoddin Group: Supported the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research. Legal Authority These actions were taken under Executive Order 13382. This order blocks property of people involved with weapons of mass destruction and those who support them. This action was filed by Lisa M. Palluconi, the Acting Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control. For more information and the full SDN List, visit the OFAC website at https://ofac.treasury.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.
Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions
U.S. Treasury Adds Venezuelan Individuals to Sanctions List Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes On July 17, 2025, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) placed several new names on its Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List). These actions were announced in the Federal Register on July 21, 2025. What This Means When someone is put on the SDN List, all their property and interests in property that are under U.S. control are blocked. People and companies in the U.S. are not allowed to do business with these persons. Who Was Added? Six individuals linked to the group “TREN DE ARAGUA” were added to the list. They are: Hector Rusthenford Guerrero Flores (also known as “Nino Guerrero”) – Born May 30, 1983, in Maracay, Venezuela – Male, Venezuelan citizen – Identified by Venezuelan ID V-17367457 Wendy Marbelys Rios Gomez – Born January 21, 1980 – Female, Venezuelan and Colombian nationality Josue Angel Santana Pena (also known as “Santanita”) – Born June 26, 1995 – Male, Venezuelan citizen Felix Anner Castillo Rondon (also known as “Arnel” or “Pure Arnel”) – Born January 12, 1984 – Male, Venezuelan citizen, also has links to Peru – Identified by Venezuelan ID V-16692836 Wilmer Jose Perez Castillo (also known as “Wilmer Guayabal”) – Born August 19, 1985, in Venezuela – Male, Venezuelan citizen – Identified by Venezuelan ID V-17789572 Yohan Jose Romero (also known as “Petrica” or “Johan”) – Born October 31, 1977, in Venezuela – Male, Venezuelan citizen Legal Reasons for Sanctions These individuals were listed due to being owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, the group TREN DE ARAGUA. This group’s property and interests in property are already blocked under U.S. law. Sanctions were applied under two main Executive Orders: Executive Order 13581, as amended, which targets transnational criminal organizations. Executive Order 13224, as amended, which targets those linked to terrorism. Each person listed faces a secondary sanctions risk under section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886. Where to Learn More The full SDN List and more information about these sanctions can be found on the OFAC website at: https://ofac.treasury.gov Contact Information For questions, contact OFAC’s Associate Director for Global Targeting at 202-622-2420, or the Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance at 202-622-2490. Official Notice Ends This action was officially signed by Lawrence M. Scheinert, Acting Deputy Director of OFAC. The official record is available in the Federal Register, Volume 90, Number 137, dated July 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.
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Previously Approved Collection; Title-Non-Profit Religious, Charitable, Social Service, or Similar Organization (Form EOIR-31)
Department of Justice Requests Public Comments on EOIR-31 Form Renewal Estimated reading time: 6–10 minutes The Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued a notice about renewing the information collection for the EOIR-31 form. This form is used by non-profit religious, charitable, social service, or similar organizations to request recognition from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The EOIR wants public comments about this information collection. Comments will be accepted for 30 days, until August 18, 2025. The DOJ is asking for feedback on the form’s necessity, how much time it takes to fill out, how to make it better, and how to make it easier to complete, possibly with new technology. The notice says this review is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DOJ will submit the request to continue using this form to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the next three years. The OMB cannot approve the form for more than three years without renewal. Form EOIR-31 is Used For: Requesting new recognition for an organization. Requesting renewal of recognition. Requesting to extend recognition from one office to another. The form lets organizations ask to be allowed to help people in immigration proceedings before EOIR and/or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This is only for non-profit organizations that want to provide legal services in immigration cases. The EOIR-31 form follows U.S. laws under 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1229a, 1362, and 8 CFR 1292.11-19. The form can be completed as a fillable PDF or through an electronic system. Recent changes to the form include updates to the Privacy Act notice, the expiration date for OMB approval, changes to the submission address, and another way to submit completed forms. Who Must Respond: Non-profit organizations who want to be recognized as legal service providers in immigration cases by the Assistant Director for Policy at EOIR. Obligation to Complete the Form: Filling out the form is voluntary. But, organizations that do not submit the required information may not have their recognition request considered. Estimated Number of Respondents Each Year: 210 organizations for new recognition. 90 organizations for renewal of recognition. 20 organizations for extension of recognition to another office. Estimated Time to Complete the Form: 2 hours for new recognition. 7 hours for renewal of recognition. 2 hours for extension to another office. Total Annual Time Burden: 1,090 hours for all respondents. Estimated Annual Other Costs: $0 (no cost except time for respondents). How to Submit Comments: Comments and recommendations should be submitted within 30 days of this notice. Go to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Click on “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or search for the title or OMB Control Number 1125-0012 to find this information collection. Need More Information? For details or a copy of the collection instrument, contact Justine Fuga, Associate General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, VA 22041. Telephone: (703) 305-0265. If you need further information, contact Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, Justice Management Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218 Washington, DC 20530. 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; Extension of a Previously Approved Collection; Title-Request by Organization for Accreditation or Renewal of Accreditation of Non-Attorney Representative (Form EOIR-31A)
Department of Justice Seeks Public Comments on Non-Attorney Representative Accreditation Form Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), part of the Department of Justice, is asking for public comments on a form used to request accreditation or renewal of accreditation for non-attorney representatives. This request is published in the Federal Register, Volume 90, Issue 136, on Friday, July 18, 2025. Background and Purpose The EOIR will send the information collection request for Form EOIR-31A to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This is for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The collection is needed for non-profit organizations seeking accreditation for their representatives who are not attorneys. These representatives can help people in immigration cases before EOIR and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). How to Comment Public comments are welcome for 30 days, until August 18, 2025. Comments can include: Whether the form is necessary for EOIR’s work and if it is useful. If the agency’s estimate of how much time the form takes is correct. Ways to make the form better or clearer. Suggestions to lessen the burden for people who fill out the form, including using electronic submissions. Written comments and recommendations should be submitted at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain by searching for OMB Control Number 1125-0013 or the form’s title. Details of the Collection Type: Extension of a previously approved collection. Title: Request by Organization for Accreditation or Renewal Accreditation of Non-Attorney Representative. Form Number: EOIR-31A. Who Responds: Non-profit organizations that want their representatives accredited or reaccredited by the EOIR’s Assistant Director for Policy. Why the Form Is Important Organizations use this form to ask for accreditation for their representatives to appear in immigration court or before DHS. The form helps EOIR decide if representatives meet the legal requirements under 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1229a, 1362, and 8 CFR 1292.11-19. The latest changes to the form include an updated Privacy Act notice, expiration date, a new address for submissions, and a new electronic submission option. Is Responding Required? The form is voluntary. However, not providing the information may stop EOIR from considering an accreditation request. Estimated Numbers and Time Initial Accreditation: 747 respondents per year, each taking about 3 hours to complete. Renewal: 314 respondents per year, each taking about 7 hours to complete. Total Annual Respondents: 1,061. Total Annual Time Burden: 4,439 hours. Estimated Other Annual Costs: $0. Contact for More Information If you want more information about this collection, you can contact: Justine Fuga, Associate General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel Executive Office for Immigration Review 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600 Falls Church, VA 22041 Phone: (703) 305-0265 For further details, you may also contact Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC 20530. Document Details DARWIN ARCEO Department Clearance Officer for PRA U.S. Department of Justice Dated: July 16, 2025 Federal Register Document Number: 2025-13519 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.
Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From the People’s Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order
Commerce Department Continues Antidumping Duty on Brown Aluminum Oxide from China Estimated reading time: 1–7 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce is continuing the antidumping duty order on refined brown aluminum oxide from the People’s Republic of China. This decision comes after both the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) found that ending the duty would likely lead to more dumping. Dumping means selling products in the United States at unfairly low prices. They also found that this would likely hurt American companies. What the Order Covers The order covers ground, pulverized, or refined brown artificial corundum. This material is also known as brown aluminum oxide or brown fused alumina. It must be in a grit size of 3/8 inch or less. The order does not include crude forms, where pieces bigger than 3/8 inch make up at least half the batch. The order includes material where pieces bigger than 3/8 inch make up less than half the batch. This product is listed under codes 2818.10.20.00 and 2818.10.20.90 in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). However, the written description decides what is covered, not just these codes. Background and Review The antidumping duty order was first put in place on November 19, 2003. Recently, the ITC started a sunset review on February 3, 2025. Commerce also began their own review. In these reviews, Commerce found that if the order was removed, dumping would likely continue or come back. On July 8, 2025, the ITC published its finding. It agreed that ending the order would probably cause harm to U.S. companies within a reasonable time. What Happens Now Because of these findings, Commerce orders the continuation of the original duty order. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will keep collecting duties on all imports of the covered product at the rates set when each shipment arrives. The date the continuation starts is July 8, 2025. Commerce says it will begin the next five-year review of this order no later than 30 days before the fifth anniversary of the latest ITC decision. Administrative Rules Companies and individuals who signed an Administrative Protective Order (APO) must still follow the rules about handling confidential information. Commerce reminds everyone to return or destroy protected information, or change it to a judicial protective order if needed. Notice to Interested Parties This notice and the sunset review follow sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and related regulations. This information is from the official Federal Register, Volume 90, Number 136, dated Friday, July 18, 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.
Hexamethylenetetramine From the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
U.S. Finds Chinese Hexamine Is Sold Below Fair Value Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has determined that hexamethylenetetramine, also known as hexamine, from China is being sold in the United States for less than fair value. This means Chinese hexamine is sold at a lower price in the U.S. than it should be. The period of investigation was from January 1, 2024, to June 30, 2024. Commerce released its final results on July 18, 2025. There were no comments from businesses or groups about the earlier findings. Scope of the Investigation The investigation covered hexamine in granular form from China. It included hexamine with a particle size of 5 millimeters or less, whether it was stabilized, mixed, or blended with other products. Products with at least 50 percent hexamine by weight were included. China-Wide Entity For this decision, Commerce used something called “adverse facts available” (AFA) for all Chinese producers or exporters, as no company got a separate rate. This means all hexamine exports from China are treated the same for this case. Dumping Margin The final dumping margin for all Chinese producers and exporters has been set at 405.19 percent. The adjusted cash deposit rate, after accounting for subsidies, is 394.65 percent. This means importers must pay a deposit based on this rate when bringing Chinese hexamine into the United States. Suspension of Liquidation U.S. Customs will continue to suspend liquidation on hexamine imports from China. This started on May 6, 2025, when the preliminary decision was published. Importers must pay a cash deposit at the rate set by Commerce. The cash deposit rate may be changed later if the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) finds that American producers are hurt by these imports. If ITC makes a final positive injury decision, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order. If ITC finds no injury, the process will end and deposits will be returned. Details About the Product Hexamine is sometimes called HMT, HMTA, or other names. Its chemical formula is C6H12N4. The product covered also includes mixes or blends with at least half hexamine by weight. The U.S. tariff classification for the product is 2933.69.5000. Next Steps The case now goes to the U.S. International Trade Commission. The ITC will decide by early September 2025 if the U.S. industry is harmed or threatened by imports of Chinese hexamine. If the ITC finds harm, extra duties will be imposed. If not, the investigation ends with no duties. Administrative Protective Order Parties involved in the investigation must handle any business confidential information carefully, as required by law. Key Date July 18, 2025: Commerce’s final decision published. For more information, contact Thomas Cloyd, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 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.
Hexamethylenetetramine From the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination
U.S. Government Confirms Subsidies on Hexamine From China Estimated reading time: 2–4 minutes What Happened On July 18, 2025, the Federal Register posted this announcement. The decision affects shipments that entered the United States from January 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023. Key Companies The following Chinese companies are involved: Changzhou Highassay Chemical Co. China Bluestar International Chemical Co., Ltd. Fengchen Group Co., Ltd. Hutubi Ruiyuantong Chemicals Co., Ltd. Jiangsu Guotai Guomian Trading Jiaozuo Runhua Chemical Industry Co. Qingdao Sun Chemical Corp. Ltd. Runhua Chemical Industry Shandong Aojin Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. All other exporters of hexamine from China are also covered. Countervailing Duty Rates All of these companies face a countervailing duty rate of 420.73 percent. This is based on available facts and an adverse inference because the companies and the Chinese government did not supply needed information. Product Details The product in question is hexamine in granular form. It has a particle size of five millimeters or less. It can be stabilized or unstabilized, blended or pure, and must have at least 50 percent hexamine by weight. This product can come under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule code 2933.69.5000. Other names for hexamine include HMT, HMTA, or hexamethylene tetramine. Method and Process The Department of Commerce says it used data and methods as outlined in the law. It used “adverse facts available” because key companies and the Chinese government did not help in the investigation. There were no changes to the methods used in the first decision. The department found the same problems as before, especially about lack of cooperation from the Chinese companies. Suspension of Liquidation U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will continue to collect cash deposits for these imports. Entries made from March 7, 2025, through July 4, 2025, are covered. Future steps will depend on a decision by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). What Comes Next Now, the ITC will decide if U.S. industries have been hurt by these imports. The ITC has 45 days to check if material injury has happened. If the ITC agrees with Commerce, a countervailing duty order will go into effect. If the ITC does not find injury, the case will end and all deposits will be returned. More Information The full issues and decision memorandum is available online at the U.S. Department of Commerce website. Dates to Remember July 18, 2025: Date of the Commerce Department’s final decision. March 7, 2025 to July 4, 2025: Imports covered by cash deposit requirements. Next 45 days: Time for the ITC decision on injury. Contact For questions, contact Eliza DeLong at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Enforcement and Compliance, phone: (202) 482-3878. 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.
Float Glass Products From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures
U.S. Finds Chinese Float Glass is Sold Below Fair Value Estimated reading time: 7-10 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has made a preliminary decision about float glass products from China. They found that these glass products are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. This is sometimes called “dumping.” The period of investigation is April 1, 2024, through September 30, 2024. What Is Float Glass? Float glass is a type of soda-lime-silica glass. It is made by floating melted glass over a bath of tin to make it flat and smooth. This glass is often used for windows, doors, and mirrors. The trade investigation covers float glass that is at least 2 millimeters thick and has at least 0.37 square meters surface area. Some float glass can have coatings, be colored, or be made stronger with special treatments. Key Findings Commerce found that many Chinese companies are exporting float glass to the U.S. at prices lower than their fair value. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins for most companies are 246.68%, with an adjusted cash deposit rate of 246.66%. The China-wide entity, which includes companies not given a separate rate, faces a margin of 311.81%, with an adjusted cash deposit rate of 311.79%. These deposit rates must be paid when float glass products are imported into the U.S. A list of exporters and producers and their dumping margins is in the official notice. Separate Rates and China-Wide Entity Commerce gave some companies “separate rates.” These are for companies that proved to the Commerce Department that they are independent from the Chinese government. For these companies, Commerce used the average rates from the original petition because the main companies being checked did not give the required information. Companies that did not reply are counted as part of the “China-wide entity.” These companies get the highest dumping rates. Scope of the Investigation The investigation covers float glass made in China. The country of origin is where the glass is first made by the float process, no matter where finishing is done. Some products are included even if they are finished or assembled differently, like laminated glass, glass units for insulation, and mirrors with LED lights. Some products are excluded, such as wired glass, car glazing certified to certain safety standards, and solar glass with very specific properties. A full description of what is covered and what is excluded is listed in Appendix I of the official notice. What Happens Next U.S. Customs will suspend liquidation of float glass from China. This means they will stop finalizing import entries and will instead collect the cash deposit amounts listed for each exporter-producer group or for the China-wide entity. Commerce will accept public comments from interested parties about non-scope issues for these findings. These comments can be submitted until 30 days after the notice date. Rebuttal briefs are due five days after case briefs. Requests for a hearing can also be made. Because the main companies under review did not cooperate, there will be no verification process. Postponement of Final Determination The final decision was postponed because a company called Shandong Jinjing requested it. Now, the final determination will happen no later than 135 days after the preliminary notice. What’s Next for the U.S. Industry The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) will look at whether these imports hurt U.S. companies. If the final determination finds injury, extra duties might remain for float glass from China. The official notice was published July 15, 2025, as required by U.S. law. For more details, see the full Federal Register notice, Volume 90, Number 133. 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.
JYA LLC d/b/a Webb’s Square Pharmacy; Decision and Order
DEA Revokes Webb’s Square Pharmacy Registration Over Illegal Drug Dispensing Estimated reading time: 4–8 minutes On July 14, 2025, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced that it has revoked the DEA registration of JYA LLC, also known as Webb’s Square Pharmacy, located in Davenport, Florida. This decision comes after findings that the pharmacy dispensed controlled substances without valid prescriptions and against legal requirements. Background On November 18, 2024, Webb’s Square Pharmacy received an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration. The DEA suspended the pharmacy’s Certificate of Registration (No. FJ2231570) because it believed that keeping the pharmacy registered was an imminent danger to the public. Hearing Process and Default The pharmacy’s contact person received the order in person on November 21, 2024. Under the law, the pharmacy had 30 days to ask for a hearing. The DEA states that the pharmacy did not request a hearing and did not respond to the charges. Because of this, the pharmacy is considered to have admitted all the facts in the order and is in default. Pharmacy Law and Responsibilities Pharmacies must follow the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The law says controlled drugs can only be dispensed for a real medical reason and with a valid prescription from a doctor. Both doctors and pharmacists are responsible for following these rules. Florida law says a pharmacist must not fill a prescription if they believe it is not for a real medical purpose or if there is no true doctor-patient relationship. Pharmacists are supposed to check that any prescription for a controlled drug is valid and should refuse to fill it if they cannot resolve their concerns. Facts Admitted by Pharmacy According to the DEA, Webb’s Square Pharmacy: Dispensed about 312 prescriptions for controlled drugs between July 2022 and March 2024. Gave out controlled drugs after multiple text message conversations between the owner/pharmacist-in-charge and other parties, including a doctor and outside individuals. Knew or should have known that these were not legitimate prescriptions. Allowed third parties with no legitimate connection to patients to pick up drugs. Repeatedly did not attempt to check if prescriptions were real or for a valid medical purpose. Details of Unlawful Dispensing Some specific details include: In July 2022 and January 2023, the pharmacy filled multiple prescriptions for drugs like promethazine with codeine and oxycodone after arrangements between the pharmacist and a doctor, knowing the prescriptions were invalid. The pharmacy dispensed drugs like promethazine with codeine, alprazolam, and oxycodone for individuals who were not patients or who had no valid prescriptions. Prescriptions were often picked up by people with no medical relationship to the patients. Basis for Revocation The DEA concluded that the pharmacy violated both federal and Florida law many times by filling prescriptions it knew or should have known were not legitimate. The DEA also found that the pharmacy did not try to defend itself or explain its actions during the official process. There was no sign the pharmacy accepted responsibility or showed it could be trusted to follow the law in the future. Decision and Sanction Based on these facts, the DEA decided to revoke the pharmacy’s Certificate of Registration. The agency also denied any pending applications to renew or modify this registration and any new applications for registration in Florida. The order officially takes effect on August 13, 2025. Authority The order is issued under the authority of Acting DEA Administrator Robert J. Murphy and is filed by Heather Achbach, the DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer. Reference Federal Register, Volume 90, Number 132, Notice pages 31244-31247, Document No. 2025-13121, dated July 14, 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.
Just Here II Pharmacy; Decision and Order
DEA Revokes Just Here II Pharmacy’s Registration in Philadelphia Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes Reason for Revocation On October 24, 2024, the DEA sent Just Here II Pharmacy an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registrations. The order explained that the pharmacy’s actions posed an imminent danger to public health and safety. The DEA said the pharmacy’s recordkeeping and inventory practices for controlled substances were not accurate. This violated federal and Pennsylvania state laws. According to the DEA, the pharmacy was unable to account for thousands of doses of controlled substances during an audit. This included large discrepancies in the records of drugs like oxycodone, alprazolam, and promethazine with codeine. For example, the DEA found differences of up to 2,930 dosage units for some medications between the pharmacy’s dispensing reports and distributor order data. In some cases, the discrepancies were as high as 100 percent. Failure to Respond Just Here II Pharmacy did not respond to the OSC/ISO or request a hearing. The DEA considers this a “default,” meaning the pharmacy is treated as if it admitted to the DEA’s allegations. The OSC/ISO was properly served to the pharmacy’s Pharmacist in Charge. Controlled Substances Law The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and its regulations require pharmacies to keep complete and accurate records of all controlled substances. Both federal and Pennsylvania state law require correct inventory and recordkeeping. Failing to record or maintain accurate data about controlled substances purchases, inventory, or sales breaks these laws. Investigation Findings The DEA determined that between September 27, 2023, and March 1, 2024, Just Here II Pharmacy did not keep accurate records. There were significant differences between the pharmacy’s dispensing data and what distributors recorded. This affected several types of controlled substances, such as: Approximately 200 dosage units of oxycodone HCL 5 mg Approximately 1,459 dosage units of oxycodone HCL 15 mg Approximately 2,930 dosage units of alprazolam 2 mg Approximately 2,839 dosage units of promethazine with codeine The DEA found that the pharmacy failed to maintain required initial and biennial inventories of its stock. Public Interest Decision The DEA considered its guidelines for public interest. Factors such as the pharmacy’s experience dispensing controlled substances and its compliance with laws were considered. The DEA found that Just Here II Pharmacy broke both state and federal laws. There was no evidence to show that the pharmacy could be trusted to follow the law in the future. Since the pharmacy did not participate in the process or accept responsibility, the DEA decided that revoking registration was necessary to protect public health and safety. Final Order The Acting Administrator of the DEA, Robert J. Murphy, signed the order on July 8, 2025. The DEA revoked the pharmacy’s registration and denied any pending applications for renewal or modification. The order takes effect on August 13, 2025. Summary Just Here II Pharmacy’s DEA registration is revoked. The decision is based on failures to keep correct records for controlled substances and not responding to the DEA’s actions. The DEA says this decision helps protect the public from the risks associated with improper recordkeeping of controlled drugs. 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.
Methylene Diphenyl Diisocyanate From the People’s Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation
U.S. Delays Preliminary Finding on Chinese MDI Imports Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce is delaying its preliminary decision in an investigation on methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) imports from China. The investigation began on March 4, 2025. It examines if MDI from China is sold in the U.S. at less than fair value. This kind of investigation is called a less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation. A preliminary determination was due by July 22, 2025. But, on June 24, 2025, the Ad Hoc MDI Fair Trade Coalition, the petitioner, requested more time. The group said this extra time is needed so Commerce can review the questionnaire responses from the mandatory respondents. It will also help Commerce ask for more information if needed. Rules say the Department of Commerce can approve this kind of delay if a request is made 25 days before the scheduled decision. The Department will allow such a request unless there is a strong reason not to. Now, the Department is postponing its preliminary determination by 50 days. This means the new deadline is September 10, 2025. The Department says there are no reasons to deny the petitioner’s request. After the preliminary decision, the final determination will be due 75 days after the preliminary result is published, unless it is postponed again. This notice was made official on July 8, 2025, by Christopher Abbott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations. This announcement follows U.S. law and federal rules. For further information, the contacts at the Department of Commerce are Christopher Maciuba at (202) 482-0413 and Kayden Jenson at (202) 482-0967. 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.
Hexamine (Hexamethylenetetramine) From China, Germany, India, and Saudi Arabia; Revised Schedule for the Subject Investigations
US International Trade Commission Revises Hexamine Investigation Schedule Estimated reading time: 1–3 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) is conducting investigations on Hexamine (Hexamethylenetetramine) from China, Germany, India, and Saudi Arabia. These investigations are under Investigation Numbers 701-TA-737-738 and 731-TA-1712-1715 (Final). The USITC announced a revised schedule for these investigations. The announcement was made on July 10, 2025. The Commission will now make its final release of information on August 11, 2025. All final party comments must be submitted by 5:15 p.m. on August 13, 2025. The investigations are being done under the authority of Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. The new dates are published in line with Section 207.21 of the Commission’s rules. For more information, Charles Cummings is the contact at the Office of Investigations, USITC. The office is located at 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. The phone number for Mr. Cummings is 202-708-1666. People with hearing impairments can get information by calling the TDD terminal at 202-205-1810. People with mobility impairments needing special access should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information about the Commission is available at https://www.usitc.gov. The investigation’s public record can be seen on the electronic docket at https://edis.usitc.gov. The notice was issued by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on July 10, 2025. The official document is listed as FR Doc. 2025-13146, and appeared in the Federal Register, Volume 90, Number 132, on Monday, July 14, 2025, page 31241. 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.
Wooden Cabinets and Vanities and Components Thereof from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2023
U.S. Releases Preliminary Results on Countervailing Duties for Wooden Cabinets from China Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes Countervailable Subsidies Determined Commerce has found that Chinese producers and exporters received subsidies that are subject to countervailing duties. The two main companies reviewed were KM Cabinetry Co., Limited and The Ancientree Cabinet Co., Ltd. Both received subsidy rates above the minimum level. KM Cabinetry Co., Limited received a preliminary net subsidy rate of 11.85 percent. The Ancientree Cabinet Co., Ltd. received a preliminary net subsidy rate of 9.33 percent. Other companies that were not individually reviewed received a review-specific average rate of 9.51 percent. Partial Review Rescission Commerce has partially rescinded this review for 31 companies. This includes 21 companies that had their requests for review withdrawn on time, and 10 companies with no reviewable entries during the review period. Lists of these companies are in Appendix II and Appendix III, respectively. Methodology and Procedures Commerce conducted this review under section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930. They found that subsidies were provided by the Chinese government and were specific to certain recipients. For companies not selected for individual review, Commerce calculated a weighted average rate, following guidelines from the Trade Act. Public Comment and Hearing Requests Commerce is inviting comments on these preliminary results. Interested parties can submit case briefs within 21 days of the notice. Rebuttal briefs may be filed within five days after case briefs. Parties who want to request a hearing must do so within 30 days after the publication of the notice. Cash Deposit and Assessment Rates After the final results, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect cash deposits at the new rates for shipments entered on or after the date of publication. For non-reviewed companies, the all-others rate of 20.93 percent remains in effect. Companies for which the review is rescinded will be assessed at their cash deposit rate during the review period. Final Results Timeline Commerce expects to issue the final results within 120 days of the publication of the preliminary results. Contact Information For more information, interested parties may contact Suresh Maniam or Michael Romani in the AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce at (202) 482-1603 or (202) 482-0198. Appendices Appendix I: Topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Appendix II: Companies that withdrew requests for review on time. Appendix III: Companies with no reviewable entries during the period. Appendix IV: Non-selected companies subject to the review. The full document and detailed procedures can be accessed via the Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) at http://access.trade.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.
Pentafluoroethane (R-125) From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024
Commerce Department Announces Preliminary Results of Antidumping Review on R-125 from China Estimated reading time: 7–10 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has released the preliminary results of its latest antidumping duty review on pentafluoroethane (R-125) imported from China. This review covers shipments made from March 1, 2023, through February 29, 2024. Antidumping Review Background An antidumping duty order on R-125 from China has been in place since March 3, 2022. The recent review was started after requests from several companies and a U.S. petitioner. The companies included Shandong Dongyue Chemical Co. Ltd. (Dongyue), Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co. Ltd. (Sanmei), and Zhejiang Yonghe Refrigerant Co., Ltd (Yonghe). Sanmei was chosen as the main respondent for this review. The Department set and changed several deadlines for reviewing the case, with the current preliminary results dated July 7, 2025. Scope of the Review The order covers pentafluoroethane (R-125) coming from China. The full scope is detailed in the preliminary decision memorandum, available online. Partial Rescission of Review The Department decided to rescind, or cancel, the review for Dongyue. There were no reviewable shipments by Dongyue during the period of review. This decision follows standard practice. Separate Rates Eligibility The Department reviewed which companies could get their own separate rates, rather than being grouped with all exporters from China. Sanmei submitted all required documents and remains eligible for a separate rate. Yonghe did not send in a separate rate certification. This means Yonghe will not get its own separate rate. Instead, it is grouped with the China-wide entity. Treatment of the China-Wide Entity Yonghe is now considered part of the China-wide group since it did not qualify for a separate rate. The China-wide entity’s rate stands at 267.51 percent and is not being changed in this review. Preliminary Dumping Margin For the review period, the Department calculated a weighted-average dumping margin of 60.08 percent for Sanmei (including its named affiliates). Next Steps The Department will release its calculations to interested parties within five days. Parties have 21 days after this publication to submit comments, called briefs. Rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments in case briefs, may be filed within five days after that. Parties must submit all briefs electronically, following the rules for formatting and service. They should also provide a summary for each issue they raise, no longer than 450 words. A hearing can be requested within 30 days. The Department intends to issue its final results within 120 days unless an extension is needed. Assessment of Duties When the review is finalized, the Department will tell U.S. Customs how much antidumping duty to collect on entries covered by the review. For Sanmei, this will be based on either entered values or quantity, depending on the details reported. For Dongyue, since the review was rescinded, duties will be assessed at the rate in place when the goods entered the U.S. For Yonghe, now part of the China-wide entity, a rate of 267.51 percent will be applied. Cash Deposit Requirements After final results are published, new cash deposit rates will take effect for future entries according to these rules: For exporters listed with new rates, those rates apply. For Chinese and non-Chinese exporters who received a separate rate previously, those rates stay the same. For all other Chinese exporters without a separate rate, the 267.51 percent rate for the China-wide entity applies. For non-Chinese exporters without a specific rate, the rate of the Chinese supplier applies. Importer Responsibilities Importers must file a certificate about reimbursement of duties. Not filing can lead to double collection of antidumping duties. Review Process These preliminary results are published according to U.S. law and regulations. The Department reminds all interested parties to comply with procedural requirements as the review continues. For more details, documents, and the full decision memorandum, see the ACCESS system at https://access.trade.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.
Pentafluoroethane (R-125) From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2023
U.S. Moves Forward With Countervailing Duties on Chinese R-125 Chemical Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has announced the preliminary results of a review of countervailing duties on pentafluoroethane (R-125) from the People’s Republic of China. This chemical is used in refrigerants. The review looked at the time from January 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023. The review was for two companies: Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co., Ltd. (Sanmei) and Zhejiang Yonghe Refrigerant Co., Ltd. (Yonghe). Other linked companies were also included as “cross-owned” with each main company. Subsidy Rates Found Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co., Ltd. and cross-owned company: Subsidy rate at 3.02 percent ad valorem. Zhejiang Yonghe Refrigerant Co., Ltd. and cross-owned companies: Subsidy rate at 182.51 percent ad valorem. Countervailing duties are taxes on imports that get subsidies from their home country. U.S. law says the government should collect them if subsidies give companies a special advantage. Process and Timeline Commerce started its review after it received requests on time. Questionnaires about subsidies were sent to the Government of China to forward to the companies. The review followed laws in the Tariff Act of 1930. The review included looking at financial help from the Chinese government and its effect. Commerce used some “facts available with adverse inferences.” This means if information was missing or unclear, decisions could be made based on facts that may not favor the company missing the data. Public Comment and Hearings Interested parties can send comments on these results. Written comments are due no later than 21 days after the notice is published. Rebuttal comments are due five days after that. All documents must be sent electronically and include a table of contents and a list of sources. Executive summaries for each issue discussed must be included at the start of briefs. If anyone wants a hearing, they must ask within 30 days of the publication of the notice. Hearings, if scheduled, will focus only on issues raised in the written briefs. Assessment and Cash Deposits Once the review is final, Commerce will tell U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) how much duty to collect on the affected imports during the review period. This will be done at least 35 days after the final results are published. After the final results, Commerce will also tell CBP to collect cash deposits on future imports at the rates in this review. Other companies not reviewed will keep using the most recent rates. Next Steps This is not the final decision. Commerce plans to finish the review within 120 days of these preliminary results, unless they extend the deadline. The public can read the full Preliminary Decision Memorandum through the online system ACCESS. Key Dates Preliminary results published: July 11, 2025 Final results expected in about 120 days Deadlines for comments and hearing requests set after publication Federal Register notice number: 2025-12956 Contact for more information: Seth Brown, AD/CVD Operations, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-0029. 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 Vertical Shaft Engines Between 99cc and 225cc, and Parts Thereof, From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Circumvention Inquiry on the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders
U.S. Department of Commerce Begins Inquiry on Engine Import Rules From China Estimated reading time: 5–7 minutes On July 11, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce began a new inquiry. This is about if some engines from China are trying to avoid U.S. import rules. These rules add extra taxes, called antidumping and countervailing duties, to certain engines from China. Briggs & Stratton, a U.S. engine maker, asked for this inquiry. They want to know if two engine models made by Chongqing Zongshen General Power Machine Co., Ltd. in China are bypassing the current rules. The models are called 5C65M0 and BC70M0. These engines are currently not included in the import rules. They are labeled “Commercial” or “Heavy Commercial” engines, which are usually excluded. But Briggs & Stratton says these two engine models were made after the original rules were set. They believe these models are only slightly different from engines already restricted, and should now be included in the list that gets the extra taxes. The U.S. Department of Commerce will look at several things, including: Do these new engines look and work the same as the ones already covered by the rules? Are the buyers’ hopes and uses the same? Are they sold the same way as the other engines? Are the engines advertised like the ones already restricted? Were these engines available in stores or ready to sell before the rule-making started? If engines are found to fit these, they may be added to the rule. This would mean the special taxes will apply. The inquiry will not only review Zongshen’s engine models. It may cover all small commercial vertical shaft engines from China. Engines without some commercial features or with some home-use features might also be part of the review, no matter who makes or sells them. The Department of Commerce expects to decide within 150 days of this notice. This means there could be a decision by the end of 2025. The engines discussed in these rules are small, spark-ignited, vertical shaft engines, with a size between 99 cubic centimeters (cc) and less than 225 cc. They are mainly used for walk-behind lawn mowers and other outdoor power tools like pressure washers. Engines covered by these rules must follow certain EPA air pollution standards. Some engines are excluded, like “Commercial” or “Heavy Commercial” types. To be excluded, an engine must: Be at least 160 cc in size, Have a cast iron cylinder liner, Have an automatic compression release, Have a muffler with at least three chambers and a volume over 400 cc. Currently, only the parts for these engines are under the extra tax if imported together. Mounting the engine on equipment does not keep it out of the rules; only the engine is taxed. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will keep holding any engines that may be part of this review. The Department of Commerce has put full details on their website. All interested companies and people have been notified about this new inquiry. More updates will come as the Commerce Department continues its review. 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 Tungsten Shot From the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination
U.S. Finalizes Countervailing Duties on Tungsten Shot from China Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes Background of Investigation The United States Department of Commerce has announced its final determination that producers and exporters of certain tungsten shot from the People’s Republic of China are receiving countervailable subsidies. The period of investigation covers January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023. This action follows a preliminary determination published on December 20, 2024, and further analysis issued on February 6, 2025. The investigation examined whether Chinese producers of tungsten shot received unfair government subsidies. There were no comments from interested parties challenging the scope of the investigation. Commerce checked documents from companies involved, especially Zhuzhou KJ Super Materials Co., Ltd. (KJ Super), using standard inspection and verification methods. Scope of the Investigation The investigation covers tungsten spheres or balls, known as shot, that are at least 92.6 percent tungsten by weight, not counting any coatings. The examined shot measures from 1.5 millimeters to 10.0 millimeters in diameter. This can also be called “Tungsten Super Shot.” The shot may be coated with other metals, and may enter U.S. customs under tariff codes 9306.29.0000 or 8101.99.8000. Final Subsidy Rates Commerce found the following subsidy rates for January 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023: Zhuzhou KJ Super Materials Co., Ltd.: 55.64% subsidy rate All others: 55.64% subsidy rate Seven other named companies: 292.84% subsidy rate* These companies are Luoyang Combat Tungsten & Molybdenum Materials Co., Ltd.; Luoyang Hypersolid Metal Tech Co., Ltd.; Mudanjiang North Alloy Tools Co., Ltd.; Shaanxi Xinheng Rare Metal Co., Ltd.; Xi’an Refractory & Precise Metals Co., Ltd.; Zhuzhou Oston Carbide Co., Ltd.; Zhuzhou Tungsten Man Materials Co., Ltd. (*Rates with an asterisk are based on facts available with adverse inferences.) Investigation Methods and Findings Commerce followed legal steps set out in section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Each subsidy program was checked for financial contributions by government authorities, benefits to companies, and whether the subsidies were targeted. Some results used “facts available” because certain information was missing. In these cases, adverse inferences were applied according to the law. Commerce also updated benchmark prices for tungsten and freight expenses, and revised certain rates after reviewing information verified during the investigation. Suspension of Liquidation U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is holding cash deposits and has suspended liquidation on tungsten shot from China for entries made on or after December 20, 2024. This suspension stopped for entries made after April 19, 2025, but remains in place for previous entries. If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) finds in its final review that the domestic U.S. industry is hurt by these imports, Commerce will issue a permanent countervailing duty order. If the ITC finds no harm, all duties collected will be refunded. ITC and Disclosure Commerce will share its final determination with the ITC. The ITC will determine within 45 days if U.S. industry is harmed or threatened by these imports. During this period, parties can see Commerce’s calculations. This includes detailed information about rates and subsidy programs. Administrative Protective Order Commerce reminded parties under an administrative protective order (APO) to destroy or return all confidential material as required by federal rules. Appendices The notice includes: Appendix I: Full technical definition of what products are covered. Appendix II: Summary topics from the Issues and Decision Memorandum, including discussion points such as calculation of benchmark prices, government role, use of adverse facts, and treatment of business information. Contact For questions, parties may contact Samuel Evans at the U.S. Department of Commerce, AD/CVD Operations, Office IX. Official Publication The notice was published in the Federal Register on July 11, 2025, by Christopher Abbott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations. 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 Corrosion Inhibitors From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2023
U.S. Sets Preliminary Subsidy Rates for Corrosion Inhibitors from China Estimated reading time: 1–2 minutes U.S. Sets Preliminary Subsidy Rates for Corrosion Inhibitors from China On July 11, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce released its preliminary findings for the 2023 countervailing duty administrative review on certain corrosion inhibitors from the People’s Republic of China. The review covers products imported into the U.S. between January 1, 2023, and December 31, 2023. Companies Reviewed The review included two main companies: Anhui Trust Chem Co., Ltd. (ATC) and Nantong Botao Chemical Co., Ltd. (Botao). The Department also looked at several other companies that were not chosen for individual examination. Preliminary Subsidy Rates The preliminary findings show: Anhui Trust Chem Co., Ltd.: 44.65% subsidy rate Nantong Botao Chemical Co., Ltd.: 44.06% subsidy rate For companies not individually examined but still under review, the preliminary subsidy rate is set at 44.36%. These companies include: Connect Chemicals China Co., Ltd. Connect Chemicals GMBH Gold Chemical Limited Kanghua Chemical Co., Ltd. Partial Rescission of Review The Department has decided to end the review early for five companies. For Jiangyin Delian Chemical Co., Ltd., the review was withdrawn by request. For Relic Chemicals, Sagar Specialty Chemicals Pvt., Ltd., Vcare Medicines, and Yasho Industries Pvt. Ltd., there were no entries of the product during the review period. Thus, no further review was needed for them. Method Used Commerce conducted its review according to U.S. law. They looked at which companies got subsidies from the Chinese government and if those matched the law’s definition of a subsidy. Some decisions relied on information from “adverse facts available” under certain situations. Verification and Public Comment The Department plans to check (verify) the information provided by ATC and Botao. Interested parties can send in case briefs and written comments. Specific timelines for these comments will be told to the parties. A short executive summary is required for each issue in briefs, and parties can also request a hearing. All documents and briefs must be filed electronically through the government’s ACCESS system. Cash Deposits and Assessment If these preliminary rates are finalized, U.S. Customs will collect cash deposits based on these subsidy rates for relevant imports from the date the final notice is published. If a company’s final rate is zero or “de minimis,” no cash deposits will be required. Companies for which the review has been rescinded will have duties assessed at the cash deposit rate in effect at the time of entry. Assessment instructions will follow after the final results are published, no sooner than 35 days after publication. Next Steps Unless the deadline changes, the Department will issue the final results within 120 days of this preliminary announcement. The final results will include analysis of arguments and further 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.
Certain Tungsten Shot From the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
U.S. Sets High Dumping Rate on Tungsten Shot From China Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On July 11, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced a final finding in its investigation of certain tungsten shot from China. Officials found that tungsten shot from China is being sold in the United States at less than fair value. The time covered by this investigation is from January 1, 2024, to June 30, 2024. Scope of the Investigation The products covered are tungsten spheres or balls, often called shot or “Tungsten Super Shot.” These are 92.6% or more tungsten by weight. Their sizes range from 1.5 millimeters to 10.0 millimeters in diameter. The product may also have coatings such as copper, nickel, iron, or metal alloys. It is usually classified under HTSUS codes 9306.29.0000 and 8101.99.8000. Investigation and Comments No changes were made to what is considered part of this investigation, as no interested parties commented on the scope after the first decision. The Department could not verify information sent by Zhuzhou KJ Super Materials Co., Ltd. (KJ Super) due to restrictions by the Chinese government. Final Decision and Dumping Margin The Commerce Department reviewed all the information and comments. They used adverse facts available (AFA) against KJ Super because the information given could not be verified. As a result, KJ Super is considered part of the “China-wide entity” for the purposes of this decision. The final estimated dumping margin (or the rate of price undercutting) for the China-wide entity is 201.32 percent. This was the highest rate claimed in the original petition. Suspension of Liquidation Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will continue to hold up liquidation of any tungsten shot from China, entered or withdrawn from a warehouse for use since February 19, 2025. Importers must pay a cash deposit as security for possible antidumping duties. The Department of Commerce did not adjust the dumping rate because there is no active countervailing duty (CVD) order involving export subsidies for this product. Next Steps and ITC Role The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) will decide if the U.S. industry has been hurt by these imports. The ITC has 45 days from July 11, 2025, to make its final decision. If the ITC finds injury or threat of injury, an antidumping duty order will be issued, and duties must be paid on all relevant tungsten shot imports from China. If the ITC does not find injury, the investigation will end, cash deposits will be returned, and held imports will be released. Additional Information Anyone handling private information for this investigation must follow the rules for returning or destroying such information. The written description of the tungsten shot is the official scope of this finding, even though product codes are listed for convenience. For full details, see Federal Register, Volume 90, Number 131 (July 11, 2025), pages 30849-30850. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is available through the Enforcement and Compliance’s electronic system, ACCESS. The decision was signed by Christopher Abbott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations. 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.
Disposable Aluminum Containers, Pans, Trays, and Lids From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Circumvention Inquires on the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders
U.S. Launches Inquiry Into Circumvention of Aluminum Container Duties Estimated reading time: 4–7 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has started formal investigations into imports of disposable aluminum containers, pans, trays, and lids made in Thailand and Vietnam using Chinese aluminum foil. Officials are checking if these products are avoiding existing antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum containers from China. Who Requested the Inquiry The inquiry follows a request from the Aluminum Foil Containers Manufacturers Association and its members. These include Durable Packaging International; D&W Fine Pack, LLC; Handifoil Corp.; Penny Plate, LLC; Reynolds Consumer Products, LLC; Shah Foil Products, Inc.; Smart USA, Inc.; and Trinidad/Benham Corp. Scope of the Duties The duties in question target disposable aluminum containers, pans, trays, and lids produced from flat-rolled aluminum. This includes aluminum containers of any shape or size, whether wrinkled or smooth. What is Being Investigated The focus is on aluminum containers made in Thailand and Vietnam using Chinese-origin aluminum foil, and then shipped to the United States. Investigators want to know if these steps are used to bypass existing trade duties on Chinese products. Legal Background Commerce is acting under section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 and specific federal rules. The rule states that if products are completed in a third country from materials or goods subject to a trade order, and the final step is minor or adds little value, then those products can also be included under the original duty orders. Investigators will consider several points: Is the final assembly or processing in Thailand or Vietnam minor or basic? How much value does the Chinese aluminum add compared to the final product’s value? What are the investment and production levels in the third countries? Are there changes in trade patterns since the duties on China started? Are the companies in Thailand or Vietnam tied to those in China? Next Steps Commerce has found enough information to start a country-wide inquiry. They will ask certain companies in Thailand and Vietnam about their aluminum container production and exports to the U.S. Using U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, Commerce will choose the companies to contact. They will update their electronic system, ACCESS, within five days of this notice. Interested parties can comment within seven days after the data is posted. If the companies do not answer fully, Commerce may use available facts, which could include adverse conclusions. Suspension of Liquidation CBP will continue holding the entries of these aluminum products and require cash deposits as if they were covered under current duty orders. If Commerce eventually decides these products are avoiding duties, the suspension will continue, and additional measures may be taken for entries after November 4, 2021, per current regulations. Timeline Commerce aims to make a preliminary decision in 150 days and a final ruling in 300 days from the July 11, 2025 notice date, unless extended or changed. Official Notice This investigation is led by Christopher Abbott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations. The public can see detailed rules and findings through the Federal Register and related checklists. Contact Information For more information: – Justin Enck: (202) 482-1614 – Yun Liang (Vietnam): (202) 482-3108 – Ann Marie Caton (Thailand): (202) 482-2607 These officials are with the Trade Remedy Counseling and Initiations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 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.
Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2023
U.S. Department of Commerce Issues Final Results in PVLT Tires Countervailing Duty Review Estimated reading time: 1–7 minutes The U.S. Department of Commerce has released the final results of the administrative review for countervailing duties on certain passenger vehicle and light truck (PVLT) tires from China. This review covers the period from January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023. The review was conducted by the International Trade Administration, part of the Department of Commerce. The Department found that countervailable subsidies were provided to producers and exporters of PVLT tires from China during the review period. No comments were received from interested parties on the preliminary results, so the Department adopted the preliminary results as final. No changes have been made, and therefore, no decision memorandum was issued with this final notice. Scope of the Order The order covers passenger vehicle and light truck tires imported from China. For a full description of the products involved, reference is made to the Preliminary Decision Memorandum associated with this review. Final Subsidy Rates The Department determined the following net countervailable subsidy rate for the period under review: Company Subsidy Rate (Percent ad valorem) Jiangsu General Science Technology Co., Ltd. 125.50 Disclosure Normally, Commerce releases its calculation methods to interested parties. In this case, because there were no changes from the preliminary results, there are no new calculations to disclose. Assessment Rates According to U.S. law, Commerce will have Customs and Border Protection (CBP) assess countervailing duties at the rates listed above. This will apply to all proper entries of the subject merchandise. Assessment instructions will be issued to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of these final results. If a summons is filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade, CBP will not liquidate the relevant entries until the period to file for a statutory injunction expires, which is within 90 days of publication. Cash Deposit Requirements Commerce will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the rates shown above for shipments entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results. The cash deposit instructions will remain in effect until further notice. Administrative Protective Order (APO) The notice reminds parties subject to an Administrative Protective Order (APO) to follow procedures for the return or destruction of proprietary information. Failure to comply with APO rules can result in sanctions. Notification to Interested Parties The Commerce Department published these results in accordance with applicable sections of U.S. trade law. The notice was dated July 7, 2025, and signed by Christopher Abbott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the 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.
Certain Steel Racks and Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2022-2023
U.S. Finalizes Antidumping Duty Review on Steel Racks from China Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes On July 10, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced the final results of its administrative review of antidumping duties for certain steel racks and parts from China. This review covers the period from September 1, 2022, to August 31, 2023. Background and Review Process The Department of Commerce began this review on October 10, 2024. Interested parties were invited to comment. The deadline for the review was extended several times, with the final results issued on July 3, 2025. The review follows the Tariff Act of 1930. Steel racks and parts are under the scope of this order, as detailed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Key Results The Department found that some Chinese exporters sold steel racks in the U.S. at prices below normal value. Jiangsu Nova Intelligent Logistics Equipment Co., Ltd., along with Nanjing Jinshidai Storage Equipment Co., Ltd. and Hebei Nova Intelligent Logistics Equipment Co., Ltd., received a final weighted-average dumping margin of 11.18 percent. Jiangsu Starshine Industry Equipment Co., Ltd. did not get a separate rate and was treated as part of the China-wide entity. The China-wide entity’s dumping margin remains at 144.50 percent and was not reviewed or changed. Differential Pricing Analysis The Commerce Department made changes in its analysis methods for these results. This is based on recent court decisions about statistical tests used to find dumping. The agency used a revised method for analyzing differential pricing, as explained in its memorandum. The method for calculating dumping margins did not change from the preliminary results. Separate Rates Jiangsu Nova received separate rate status. Jiangsu Starshine did not and is included in the China-wide group. This decision is unchanged from the preliminary results. No parties commented on this decision. Assessment Rates Commerce will tell U.S. Customs and Border Protection how much antidumping duty to assess on these products. These instructions will be given no earlier than 35 days after publication of these results. For Jiangsu Nova, assessment rates are based on the total amount of dumping over the value of goods sold to each importer. If the rate for an importer is zero or very small, duties will not be collected. If Jiangsu Nova did not report a sale for certain shipments, those entries will be assessed at the China-wide rate of 144.50 percent. For Starshine, the assessment rate is 144.50 percent, the China-wide rate. Cash Deposit Requirements Jiangsu Nova: 11.18 percent. Exporters with separate rates not reviewed: their current rate. Other China exporters without a separate rate: 144.50 percent. Non-China exporters without a separate rate: the rate for their China supplier. These rates remain until further notice. Reminders for Importers Importers must file a certificate if antidumping duties have been reimbursed, before liquidation of entries. If not filed, Commerce may assume reimbursement and double the duties. Administrative Protective Order (APO) Parties under APO must return or destroy proprietary information as required. Failure to do so can lead to penalties. Legal Notices These results are issued under sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2) and 351.221(b)(5). For more details, the Issues and Decision Memorandum is available online at the Enforcement and Compliance’s website. Contact Information Questions should be directed to Jonathan Hill at (202) 482-3518, U.S. Department of Commerce. Dated: July 3, 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.
Steel Propane Cylinders From the People’s Republic of China and Thailand: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders and Countervailing Duty Order
U.S. Continues Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Steel Propane Cylinders from China and Thailand Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes Background The U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) have decided to continue antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on steel propane cylinders from the People’s Republic of China and Thailand. On August 15, 2019, the Department of Commerce first published AD orders on steel propane cylinders from China and Thailand, and a CVD order on steel propane cylinders from China. On July 1, 2024, both Commerce and the ITC began their first five-year “sunset” review of these orders. After reviewing the case, both agencies found that removing these orders would likely lead to new or ongoing dumping, more countervailable subsidies, and harm to the U.S. industry. On July 1, 2025, the ITC confirmed that ending these orders would probably cause continued or new injury to the U.S. industry within a reasonably short time. As a result, the orders will remain in place. Scope of the Orders The affected products are steel cylinders used for compressed or liquefied propane or other gases. These cylinders meet certain specifications, like USDOT 4B, 4BA, or 4BW, Transport Canada 4BM, 4BAM, or 4BWM, or United Nations ISO 4706. Steel propane cylinders included range in capacity from 2.5 pounds (about 6 pounds water capacity and 4-6 pounds empty weight) up to 42 pounds (about 100 pounds water capacity and 28-32 pounds empty weight). They can have up to two ports and may come assembled or unassembled. Products such as collars and foot rings for these cylinders are also included. Unfinished or unassembled cylinders (such as unwelded cylinder halves or cylinders missing collars or valves) are covered. Cylinders that fit other standards like ASME or ANSI are included only if they also match the listed USDOT, Transport Canada, or ISO standards. Items that only have extra processing in a third country, such as additional welding, painting, or testing, are still covered by the orders if the processing does not change the basic nature of the propane cylinder. Excluded from the orders are seamless steel propane cylinders, stainless steel cylinders, aluminum cylinders, and composite fiber cylinders. The products mainly fall under Harmonized Tariff Schedule numbers 7311.00.0060 and 7311.00.0090, but the written scope matters most. Continuation of Orders With the agencies’ determinations, the Commerce Department has ordered the continuation of the AD and CVD orders. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will keep collecting duties (AD and CVD cash deposits) at the rates that are currently in effect for all imports of these products. The effective date for the continuation is July 1, 2025. The next required five-year review is planned before the fifth anniversary of the latest ITC determination. Administrative Protective Order (APO) and Notification This notice reminds all parties of their responsibilities under the APO about returning or destroying confidential information. Timely written notification or conversion of materials is required. Violations of the APO are subject to sanctions. The review and this notice are in line with sections 751(c), 751(d)(2), and 777(i) of the Tariff Act, as well as 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4). For More Information Contact Samuel Brummitt at the Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230. Phone: (202) 482-7851. Date of Issue Dated: July 7, 2025. Christopher Abbott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations Acting for 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.
Certain Cochlear Implant Systems and Components Thereof; Notice of a Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation by Settlement; Termination of Investigation
U.S. International Trade Commission Ends Investigation on Cochlear Implants Estimated reading time: 2–3 minutes The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has ended its investigation into certain cochlear implant systems and parts. This decision comes after a joint motion by the parties involved to settle the case. The investigation began on September 23, 2024. The case was based on a complaint by Advanced Bionics AG of Switzerland and Advanced Bionics LLC of California. They believed that MED-EL Corporation, USA, and MED-EL Elektromedizinische Gerate GmbH of Austria brought products into the U.S. that infringed on their patents. The patents involved were U.S. Patent No. 7,317,945 and U.S. Patent No. 8,422,706. The complaint also said a U.S. industry exists for these products. On April 21, 2025, the ITC ended part of the case. Some claims of both patents were dropped after Advanced Bionics made a motion to withdraw parts of their complaint. On May 30, 2025, the parties asked together to end the investigation because they had reached a confidential settlement. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations supported this request. On June 12, 2025, the Administrative Law Judge approved the joint motion to end the investigation. The judge found no other agreements between the parties besides the settlement. The judge also said that ending the case would not hurt the public interest and would save resources. No one asked the Commission to review the judge’s decision. On July 7, 2025, the Commission agreed not to review it. The investigation is now officially over. The investigation followed Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. For more information, the ITC can be reached at their Washington, DC office or online via their Electronic Docket (EDIS) system. Issued by: Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission [July 7, 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 Composite Intermediate Bulk Containers; Notice of Commission Decision Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting a Motion To Amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation
U.S. International Trade Commission Allows Amendment in Patent Case on Bulk Containers Estimated reading time: 2–3 minutes The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has made a decision in Investigation No. 337-TA-1434, which involves certain composite intermediate bulk containers. The Commission decided not to review an initial determination (Order No. 12) made by the Chief Administrative Law Judge. This decision grants an unopposed motion to amend the complaint and the notice of investigation. This decision allows additional patent claims to be asserted against two of the respondents. The investigation began on January 27, 2025, after a complaint was filed by Schütz Container Systems, Inc. of North Branch, New Jersey, and Protechna S.A. of Fribourg, Switzerland. These two companies are together called the “Complainants.” The complaint said that six patents were being infringed. The investigation was opened because of possible section 337 violations of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337). The respondents named in this investigation are: Shandong Jinshan Jieyuan Container Co., Ltd. of Zhengjiang City, China (“Jinshan”) Zibo Jielin Plastic Pipe Manufacture Co. Ltd. of Zibo City, China (“Jielin”) Shanghai Sakura Plastic Products Co., Ltd. (d/b/a Shanghai Yinghua Plastic Products Co., LTD) of Shanghai, China (“Sakura”) Hebei Shijiheng Plastics, Co., Ltd. of Zhongjie Huanghua City, China (“Hebei Shijiheng Plastics”) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is also part of the case. Before this, some claims were removed from the investigation after the complaint was withdrawn for those parts. The complaint details were also updated to reflect a new address for Hebei Shijiheng Plastics. On May 20, 2025, the Complainants asked to update the complaint to add claims 1-3 and 5 of the ’150 patent against Jinshan and claims 1-3 of the ’150 patent against Sakura. The respondents who took part in the investigation (Jinshan, Jielin, and Sakura) did not oppose this request, but they mentioned concerns about how the changes would affect the schedule. The Commission’s investigative attorney also supported the request but had scheduling concerns. The Chief Administrative Law Judge looked at these concerns and, on June 13, 2025, issued an initial determination granting the motion to amend. The judge found there was good cause for these changes because the Complainants learned about more product models that might infringe after the first complaint was filed. No one filed a petition to review this initial determination. The Commission voted on July 7, 2025, not to review the judge’s decision, which means the amendment is allowed. The legal authority for this decision is section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) and Part 210 of the Commission’s rules (19 CFR part 210). This order was signed by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on July 7, 2025. For more information, documents can be found on the Commission’s website at https://edis.usitc.gov and https://www.usitc.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.
Certain Audio Players and Components Thereof (I); Notice of a Commission Determination To Adopt an Initial Determination Granting Summary Determination of Invalidity and Finding No Violation; Termination of Investigation
USITC Ends Investigation into Audio Player Patent Dispute, Finding Claims Invalid Estimated reading time: 1–7 minutes Background of the Case The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) ended its investigation into certain audio players and their parts. This decision was made on July 7, 2025. The case number is 337-TA-1329. The investigation began on September 15, 2022. The complaint was filed by Google LLC, based in Mountain View, California. Google claimed that Sonos, Inc., from Santa Barbara, California, broke U.S. trade law. Google said Sonos imported, sold, or offered for sale audio players that violated certain U.S. patents. The patents listed were U.S. Patent Nos. 7,705,565, 10,593,330, and 10,134,398. Progress of the Investigation The ‘565 patent was removed from the investigation on November 2, 2022, by order of the Commission. On January 19, 2023, there was a hearing about how to define the term “low power mode” in the patents. This term became very important in the case. Throughout 2023 and 2024, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) was also reviewing the two other patents (‘330 and ‘398 patents). On May 15, 2024, the PTAB decided that all challenged claims in these patents were invalid. Sonos filed motions saying the patent claims were either indefinite or unpatentable. Google opposed these motions. On February 4, 2025, the judge asked the parties if the case should end because of the PTAB decisions. On March 7, 2025, the judge decided that the key term “low power mode” was indefinite. This means the meaning of the term was not clear enough for the patents to be enforced. Because of this, the judge said the claims were invalid. Commission Review and Final Decision No party asked for a review of this decision at first. On April 8, 2025, the Commission agreed that the patent claims were invalid as indefinite. The investigation was ended with no violation found. After this, Google filed a late petition, saying it had not been served the initial decision on time. The Commission accepted this petition and reopened the investigation. Sonos responded on June 5, 2025. After reviewing all submissions, the Commission kept its earlier decision. The Commission found that the claims in the ‘330 and ‘398 patents were invalid because “low power mode” was indefinite. The Commission’s rules say there must be infringement of a valid patent claim to find a violation. Here, the claims were not valid. The investigation was formally ended with a finding of no violation as of July 7, 2025. Legal Authority This decision was made under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337), and the Commission’s own rules (19 CFR part 210). The order was signed by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. Contact and Further Information Additional documents are available at https://edis.usitc.gov. For questions, contact Carl P. Bretscher, Esq., USITC Office of the General Counsel, at (202) 205-2382. 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 Human Milk Oligosaccharides and Methods of Producing the Same; Notice of Commission Decision To Institute a Rescission Proceeding and To Rescind the Limited Exclusion Order; Termination of the Rescission Proceeding
USITC Rescinds Limited Exclusion Order on Human Milk Oligosaccharides Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has ended a limited exclusion order that barred some human milk oligosaccharides (HMOs) from entering the United States. The decision follows a settlement between the parties involved. The case began on June 21, 2018, when Glycosyn LLC of Waltham, Massachusetts, filed a complaint. Glycosyn said that certain imports from Jennewein Biotechnologie GmbH (now Chr. Hansen HMO GmbH) infringed on their patents. These patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,453,230 and 9,970,018, deal with HMOs and how to make them. The USITC investigated the case and issued a limited exclusion order on May 19, 2020. This order stopped the unlicensed import of some HMOs made with bacterial strains found to infringe Glycosyn’s patent. The order stopped Jennewein Biotechnologie GmbH from importing these HMOs into the U.S. The Federal Circuit Court affirmed this decision in September 2021. On June 6, 2025, Glycosyn filed a petition to rescind, or reverse, the order. They explained that they had reached a settlement with Jennewein Biotechnologie GmbH. The petition was unopposed; no responses were filed against it. The USITC found that the reasons for the limited exclusion order no longer exist now that Glycosyn and Jennewein have settled. The Commission decided to start a rescission proceeding and then rescinded the order. This action was taken under section 337(k) of the Tariff Act of 1930 and Commission Rule 210.76(a). The action terminates the rescission proceeding and officially lifts the ban. The Commission notified the Secretary of the Treasury about its decision on July 7, 2025. The legal authority for these decisions comes from section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and from Part 210 of the USITC’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. The vote for the decision took place on July 7, 2025. For more information, documents related to this investigation can be found through the USITC’s electronic docket. General details about the Commission are online at www.usitc.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.
Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest
U.S. International Trade Commission Receives Complaint About Wearable EEG Devices Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has received a complaint about certain wearable electroencephalogram (EEG) devices and systems, including their parts. The complaint, known as DN 3837, was filed by Ceribell, Inc. on July 7, 2025. The USITC is asking for comments from the public, interested parties, and government agencies. The Commission wants to know about any issues this complaint may cause, especially how it may affect public health, safety, and the economy in the United States. The complaint says that three companies are breaking the law by importing, selling for import, or selling in the U.S. these EEG devices. The companies named are: Natus Medical Incorporated of Middleton, Wisconsin Excel-Tech Ltd. (“XLTEK”) of Canada Natus Neurology Incorporated of Middleton, Wisconsin Ceribell, Inc. asks the Commission to take several actions. These include a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and a requirement that the companies pay a bond for the products during the 60-day Presidential review period. The USITC will look at multiple questions: How are these EEG devices used in the United States? Are there any public health, safety, or welfare issues if the requested orders are issued? Are there similar products made in the U.S. that could replace these if they are excluded? Can U.S. companies or suppliers provide enough products to replace the excluded devices in a reasonable time? How would these actions affect U.S. consumers? Comments from the public or interested groups must be sent to the USITC no later than eight days after this notice is published in the Federal Register. Replies to these comments must be filed within three days after the original comment deadline. Comments must be no longer than five pages and filed electronically. Confidential information can be sent in, but a special request for confidential treatment must go to the Secretary of the Commission. All non-confidential submissions will be available for public inspection online. This investigation will be carried out under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and certain Commission rules. The public can read the full complaint and learn more about the case on the USITC’s Electronic Document Information System at https://edis.usitc.gov. For questions about filing, the Secretary’s office can be contacted by email. This notice was issued by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on July 8, 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 OFAC Sanctions Action
U.S. Treasury Adds More Entities and Vessels to Sanctions List Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has placed several companies, one person, and multiple vessels on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List). This action was issued on July 3, 2025. Blocked Companies The following companies are now blocked under Executive Order 13902 for operating in the petroleum sector of Iran: TRANS ARCTIC GLOBAL MARINE SERVICES PTE. LTD. (Singapore) EGIR SHIPPING LTD (Seychelles) FOTIS LINES INCORPORATED (Marshall Islands) THEMIS LIMITED (Marshall Islands) BETENSH GLOBAL INVESTMENT LIMITED AND DONG DONG SHIPPING LIMITED (British Virgin Islands) Under Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886, the following companies are blocked for helping AL-QATIRJI COMPANY, which is linked to supporting terrorism: DIMA SHIPPING AND TRADING COMPANY (Turkey, Liberia) GRAT SHIPPING CO LTD (Seychelles) WHITE SANDS SHIPMANAGEMENT CORP. (Seychelles) Blocked Person One individual has also been blocked under Executive Order 13902 for operating in the petroleum sector of Iran: Salim Ahmed Said, who is also known as Omeed Salam, Mohammed Saeed, Salem Omed, `Umed Salim, or `Umeed Salim. He lives in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and holds a UK passport. Vessels Identified as Blocked Property OFAC identified several ships as property connected to the blocked companies: FOTIS (LPG Tanker, Comoros flag), linked to FOTIS LINES INCORPORATED THEMIS (Crude Oil Tanker, Panama flag), linked to THEMIS LIMITED VIZURI (Crude Oil Tanker, Cameroon flag), linked to EGIR SHIPPING LTD BIANCA JOYSEL (Crude Oil Tanker, Panama flag), linked to BETENSH GLOBAL INVESTMENT LIMITED AND DONG DONG SHIPPING LIMITED DIJILAH (Crude Oil Tanker, Marshall Islands flag), linked to VS TANKERS FREE ZONE ENTITY–F.Z.E DMCC BRANCH Other vessels identified with a secondary sanctions risk under Executive Order 13224 are: ATILA (Crude Oil Tanker, Cameroon flag), linked to GRAT SHIPPING CO LTD ELIZABET (Crude Oil Tanker, Cameroon flag), linked to WHITE SANDS SHIPMANAGEMENT CORP. GAS MARYAM (LPG Tanker, Palau flag), linked to DIMA SHIPPING AND TRADING COMPANY Sanctions Implications All property and interests in property of these entities and individuals within U.S. jurisdiction are now blocked. U.S. persons are generally not allowed to conduct transactions with them. Further information and the full SDN List are available at https://ofac.treasury.gov. Contacts for More Information For questions, contact the Office of Foreign Assets Control at: Global Targeting: 202-622-2420 Licensing: 202-622-2480 Sanctions Compliance: 202-622-2490 This notice was signed by Lisa M. Palluconi, Acting Director of OFAC. 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 OFAC Sanctions Action
U.S. Treasury Announces New OFAC Sanctions Action Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has updated its Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List). This update was made on July 3, 2025. The decision was published in the Federal Register, Volume 90, Number 129, dated Wednesday, July 9, 2025. The update includes the names of new persons and one or more entities. OFAC has determined that these persons meet the legal criteria needed to be added to the SDN List. When someone is added to the SDN List, all property and interests in property that are under U.S. jurisdiction are blocked. U.S. persons are not allowed to do business or have financial transactions with these people or entities. The names of the newly listed persons and entities are now published by OFAC. The SDN List is a tool that helps stop illegal financial activities. More information and the complete SDN List are available on OFAC’s website at https://ofac.treasury.gov. The Acting Director of OFAC, Lisa M. Palluconi, signed this notice. The notice was officially filed on July 8, 2025. For questions about OFAC actions, contact the Associate Director for Global Targeting at 202-622-2420, the Assistant Director for Licensing at 202-622-2480, or the Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance at 202-622-2490. Contact can also be made online at https://ofac.treasury.gov/contact-ofac. The new sanctions have immediate effect. U.S. persons, companies, and financial institutions should review the list and ensure full 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.
John Hanley, P.A.; Decision and Order
DEA Revokes John Hanley, P.A.’s Registration in New Mexico Estimated reading time: 1–7 minutes The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has revoked the Certificate of Registration No. MH4317702 held by John Hanley, P.A. of Santa Fe, New Mexico. The order was published in the Federal Register on July 9, 2025. Reason for Revocation According to the DEA, John Hanley is not allowed to prescribe, dispense, or handle controlled substances in New Mexico. His registration was revoked because he does not have the required state license. The New Mexico Medical Board had revoked Hanley’s physician assistant license on or about February 27, 2024. Service of Notice The DEA attempted to contact Hanley at his last known home address. When they could not deliver the notice in person, the DEA emailed a copy of the Order to Show Cause to Hanley’s registered email address. The email was confirmed as delivered. Lack of Response and Default Hanley did not reply to the DEA’s Order to Show Cause. He did not request a hearing. Under DEA rules, if a registrant does not respond, it is considered a default. The person loses the right to a hearing. The allegations are then taken as true. Findings The DEA confirmed that Hanley is not licensed to practice as a physician assistant in New Mexico. This is based on the state’s online records. Legal Basis The Controlled Substances Act requires that anyone registered to handle controlled substances must be licensed in the state where they practice. If a state license is lost or revoked, the DEA must also revoke its registration. In New Mexico, a physician assistant must be licensed by the New Mexico Medical Board to prescribe or handle controlled substances. Without that state license, Hanley cannot legally work as a physician assistant or dispense controlled substances in New Mexico. Order Details The DEA has revoked John Hanley’s registration. The agency has also denied any ongoing or future applications to renew or modify his registration in New Mexico. This order becomes effective on August 8, 2025. Signing Authority The order was signed on July 2, 2025, by Acting Administrator Robert J. Murphy. Heather Achbach, Federal Register Liaison Officer, confirmed the document for 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.
Andrew Jones, M.D.; Decision and Order
DEA Revokes Texas Doctor Andrew Jones, M.D.’s Controlled Substance Registrations Estimated reading time: 5–8 minutes On December 9, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) sent an Order to Show Cause to Andrew Jones, M.D. of Houston, Texas. The DEA threatened to revoke his DEA Certificate of Registration numbers FJ3614826 and FJ9984154. The reason was that Dr. Jones no longer had the authority to prescribe, give out, or handle controlled substances in the state of Texas, where he was registered. Dr. Jones asked for a hearing and gave a Supplemental Answer. Later, the Government filed a Motion for Summary Disposition. Dr. Jones responded and supplied evidence. On February 11, 2025, Administrative Law Judge Teresa A. Wallbaum granted the Government’s Motion. She said Dr. Jones did not have Texas state authority to handle controlled substances. The judge said there was “no genuine issue of material fact in this case.” Dr. Jones did not file any exceptions to the judge’s recommended decision. The DEA reviewed the record and agreed with the judge’s findings. The DEA said it would take official notice that, on or about April 4, 2024, the Texas Medical Board temporarily restricted Dr. Jones’s medical license. Dr. Jones is not allowed to possess, give out, or prescribe controlled substances in Texas. State online records confirm that Dr. Jones’s license is active but remains restricted. The DEA explained that, by law, a practitioner must have state authority to handle controlled substances. If a doctor loses this authority, they cannot have a DEA registration. This rule is based on the Controlled Substances Act. The law says a practitioner must be licensed, registered, or allowed by the state to handle controlled substances. Without this, a doctor cannot prescribe or give out such drugs. According to the Texas law, “dispense” means delivering or prescribing a controlled substance as part of professional practice. Only practitioners licensed or otherwise allowed in Texas can do this. Since Dr. Jones lost his authority, he does not qualify for a DEA registration in Texas. As a result, the DEA has revoked Dr. Jones’s DEA Certificate of Registration numbers FJ3614826 and FJ9984154. The DEA also denied any pending applications from Dr. Jones to renew or change these registrations. Any other requests for registration by Dr. Jones in Texas are also denied. The order will be effective August 8, 2025. This order was signed by Acting Administrator Robert J. Murphy of the DEA on July 1, 2025. The document was submitted for publication 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.
Hayriye Gok, M.D.; Decision and Order
DEA Revokes Dr. Hayriye Gok’s Registration to Handle Controlled Substances in Pennsylvania Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On July 9, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced it has revoked the Certificate of Registration for Hayriye Gok, M.D., of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This certificate allowed Dr. Gok to handle controlled substances in the state. The action came after the DEA issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) against Dr. Gok on February 20, 2025. The DEA stated that Dr. Gok could not legally handle controlled substances in Pennsylvania because her state license to practice medicine had been suspended. Dr. Gok was notified about the OSC and was informed she had the right to ask for a hearing. She did not request a hearing. According to the DEA, when a person does not ask for a hearing, they are considered to have admitted the facts listed in the OSC. The DEA tried to reach Dr. Gok at her business address and by phone, but was not successful. The DEA then served the OSC to Dr. Gok by email. Dr. Gok replied and confirmed she received the notice, but she still did not ask for a hearing. The DEA checked Pennsylvania’s official online license records. As of the date of the order, Dr. Gok’s medical license showed a “Suspension” status. The Pennsylvania State Board of Medicine had temporarily suspended her license on November 21, 2024. The DEA orders are based on federal law. This law says that a physician must have a valid state license to get and keep a DEA registration to dispense controlled substances. Without a license, a doctor is not allowed to prescribe, administer, or handle these drugs. In Pennsylvania, a practitioner must be licensed or otherwise allowed to give out or prescribe a controlled substance. With Dr. Gok’s license suspended, she is not allowed to practice medicine or handle controlled substances in Pennsylvania. The DEA’s order also says that any pending applications by Dr. Gok to renew or change her registration, or to get a new registration in Pennsylvania, are denied. The DEA’s action is final and goes into effect on August 8, 2025. The order was signed by Acting Administrator Robert J. Murphy on July 1, 2025, and published in the Federal Register. Heather Achbach, the DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer, completed the filing for official 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.
Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act
Department of Justice Announces Proposed Consent Decree With Trialco Aluminum, LLC Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On July 2, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case is called United States v. Trialco Aluminum, LLC, Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-07461. This Consent Decree tries to resolve claims against Trialco Aluminum, LLC. The claims are about the company’s emissions of hazardous air pollutants at its aluminum production facility. This facility is located in Chicago Heights, Illinois. The complaint in this case asks for both injunctive relief and civil penalties. It is brought under Section 113(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), which is 42 U.S.C. 7413(b). It claims that Trialco violated two sets of rules: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants (NESHAP) for secondary aluminum production facilities, found in 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR. The facility’s Federally Enforceable State Operating Permit (FESOP) for its Chicago Heights location. According to the proposed Consent Decree, Trialco Aluminum, LLC will do several things: Pay a civil penalty of $1 million. Do an updated assessment of its capture and collection system for emissions. Adopt and use a new Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring (OM&M) plan. Apply for a new FESOP, which must include revised operating limits. The DOJ has opened a public comment period for this Consent Decree. Comments should be sent to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division. All comments must refer to United States v. Trialco Aluminum, LLC, D.J. Ref. No. 90-5-2-1-12888. The deadline to submit comments is 30 days after this notice was published. Comments can be sent by email or mail: By email: [email protected] By mail: Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ–ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. Any comment sent in writing, or at a public meeting, may be filed in the public court docket without giving notice to the commenter. During the public comment period, the full Consent Decree can be read and downloaded from the DOJ’s website at http://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. If help is needed to access the Consent Decree, assistance can be requested using the same email or mail address as for comments. This notice was signed by Laura Thoms, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. For further details, see Federal Register Volume 90, Number 129, published on July 9, 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.
Hardwood and Decorative Plywood From China, Indonesia, and Vietnam
United States Opens Trade Investigations on Hardwood and Decorative Plywood Imports Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) announced new decisions about hardwood and decorative plywood from China, Indonesia, and Vietnam. The Commission says there is a reasonable indication that United States industries have been harmed by these imports. The investigation is about certain types of plywood that enter through many different product numbers, called subheadings, in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. These subheadings include 4412.10.05, 4412.31.06, 4412.31.26, 4412.31.42, 4412.31.45, 4412.31.48, 4412.31.52, 4412.31.61, 4412.31.92, 4412.33.06, 4412.33.26, 4412.33.32, 4412.33.57, 4412.34.26, 4412.34.32, 4412.34.57, 4412.39.40, 4412.39.50, 4412.41.00, 4412.42.00, 4412.51.10, 4412.51.31, 4412.51.41, 4412.51.50, 4412.52.10, 4412.52.31, 4412.52.41, 4412.91.06, 4412.91.10, 4412.91.31, 4412.91.41, 4412.92.07, 4412.92.11, 4412.92.31, and 4412.92.42. The USITC is looking into whether these products have been sold in the United States for less than fair value. This is known as “less than fair value” sales, or “LTFV.” The investigation also looks at whether the governments of China, Indonesia, and Vietnam have given unfair help to companies in their countries. This help is called a subsidy. The petitions to start the investigation were filed on May 22, 2025. They were submitted by the Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood. This coalition has several members. These are Columbia Forest Products of Greensboro, North Carolina; Commonwealth Plywood Co., Ltd., Whitehall, New York; Manthei Wood Products, Petoskey, Michigan; States Industries LLC, Eugene, Oregon; and Timber Products Company, Springfield, Oregon. After the Coalition filed its petitions, the USITC started its investigation the same day. Official numbers for the cases are 701-TA-764-766 for subsidies and 731-TA-1747-1749 for less than fair value sales. A notice about the investigation and a public conference was posted on May 29, 2025. The public conference took place on June 12, 2025. Everyone who asked to take part in the conference was allowed to join. The USITC completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on July 7, 2025. The Commission’s views can be found in USITC Publication 5648, dated July 2025. Now, the USITC will begin the final phase of the investigations. The Commission will publish a notice when ready. More information and questionnaires for the next phase will be made available on the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System at https://edis.usitc.gov. Parties who were involved in the preliminary phase do not need to reapply to take part in the final phase. Other interested parties or consumer groups may apply to join after the notice is published. The notice was issued by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on July 7, 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.
Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China
U.S. Keeps Duties on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China Estimated reading time: 1–7 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (ITC) has made a decision about refined brown aluminum oxide from China. This material is important for some industries in the United States. The ITC finished a five-year review. The review was called Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Fourth Review). The Commission looked at whether to keep or remove the antidumping duty order on this product. The decision was based on information in the official record. The Commission worked under the rules of the Tariff Act of 1930. The ITC chose to keep the antidumping duty order. It found that ending the order would be likely to cause “continuation or recurrence of material injury” to U.S. industry in the near future. The review started on February 3, 2025. This was published in the Federal Register, volume 90, page 8812. On May 9, 2025, the ITC said it would do an expedited review. This was published on May 23, 2025, in the Federal Register, volume 90, page 22113. The Commission made its final decision and completed its determination on July 3, 2025. The details are in USITC Publication 5645, dated July 2025. The order was officially posted by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on July 3, 2025. The Federal Register notice is number 2025-12665, and it appeared in volume 90, number 128, on July 8, 2025, on page 30096. The ITC stated that revoking the antidumping order on refined brown aluminum oxide from China would hurt U.S. industry. So, the duties will stay in place. 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.
Loretta Clement, M.D.; Decision and Order
DEA Revokes Ohio Doctor Loretta Clement’s Registration to Handle Controlled Substances Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has revoked the Certificate of Registration No. FC2337500 for Loretta Clement, M.D., of Cincinnati, Ohio. Dr. Clement is now barred from prescribing, administering, dispensing, or otherwise handling controlled substances in Ohio. The DEA issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Dr. Clement on February 18, 2025. The order said her registration should be revoked because she does not have the legal authority to prescribe controlled substances in Ohio. She did not request a hearing about this order. The DEA confirmed the OSC was sent to Dr. Clement by email after attempts to serve her at her home and offices failed. The DEA Diversion Investigator spoke with Dr. Clement by phone and explained the process. The State Medical Board of Ohio suspended Dr. Clement’s license on or about August 14, 2024. The agency checked the official Ohio state records and confirmed that Dr. Clement’s medical license is inactive. Dr. Clement may dispute this fact by filing a motion within fifteen days of the order. DEA rules say that a doctor must have state authority to prescribe controlled substances in order to have a DEA registration. When a doctor loses that authority, the DEA is allowed to revoke the registration. Under Ohio law, only doctors with a valid license may prescribe or handle these medicines. Because Dr. Clement’s medical license is not active, she is not allowed to prescribe or handle controlled substances in Ohio. The DEA therefore ordered her registration revoked. The decision was signed on July 1, 2025, by Acting Administrator Robert J. Murphy. The order takes effect August 6, 2025. Any new or pending applications by Dr. Clement to renew, modify, or add DEA registration in Ohio are denied. This notice was published in the Federal Register, Volume 90, Number 127, pages 29885-29886, on July 7, 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.