Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Scope Ruling and Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision, 7153-7154 [2018-03375]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2018 / Notices
7305.11.5000, 7305.12.1030, 7305.12.1060,
7305.12.5000, 7305.19.1030, 7305.19.1060,
7305.19.5000, 7305.31.4000, 7305.31.6010,
7305.31.6090, 7305.39.1000 and
7305.39.5000. While the HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
scope of these investigations is dispositive.
Appendix
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Dated: February 9, 2018.
James Maeder,
Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, performing the duties of Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2018–03304 Filed 2–16–18; 8:45 am]
Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise covered by these
investigations is welded carbon and alloy
steel pipe, more than 406.4 mm (16 inches)
in nominal outside diameter (large diameter
welded pipe), regardless of wall thickness,
length, surface finish, grade, end finish, or
stenciling. Large diameter welded pipe may
be used to transport oil, gas, slurry, steam, or
other fluids, liquids, or gases. It may also be
used for structural purposes, including, but
not limited to, piling. Specifically, not
included is large diameter welded pipe
produced only to specifications of the
American Water Works Association (AWWA)
for water and sewage pipe.
Large diameter welded pipe used to
transport oil, gas, or natural gas liquids is
normally produced to the American
Petroleum Institute (API) specification 5L.
Large diameter welded pipe may also be
produced to American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) standards A500, A252,
or A53, or other relevant domestic
specifications, grades and/or standards. Large
diameter welded pipe can be produced to
comparable foreign specifications, grades
and/or standards or to proprietary
specifications, grades and/or standards, or
can be non-graded material. All pipe meeting
the physical description set forth above is
covered by the scope of these investigations,
whether or not produced according to a
particular standard.
Subject merchandise also includes large
diameter welded pipe that has been further
processed in a third country, including but
not limited to coating, painting, notching,
beveling, cutting, punching, welding, or any
other processing that would not otherwise
remove the merchandise from the scope of
the investigations if performed in the country
of manufacture of the in-scope large diameter
welded pipe.
Excluded from the scope are any products
covered by the existing antidumping duty
orders on welded line pipe from the Republic
of Korea, welded line pipe from the Republic
of Turkey, and welded ASTM A–312
stainless steel pipe from Korea, as well as any
products covered by the existing
countervailing duty order on welded line
pipe from Turkey. See Welded Line Pipe from
the Republic of Korea and the Republic of
Turkey: Antidumping Duty Orders, 80 FR
75056 (December 1, 2015); Welded ASTM A–
312 Stainless Steel Pipe from South Korea:
Antidumping Duty Order, 57 FR 62300
(December 30, 1992); and Welded Line Pipe
from the Republic of Turkey: Countervailing
Duty Order, 80 FR 75054 (December 1, 2015).
The large diameter welded pipe that is
subject to these investigations is currently
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under
subheadings 7305.11.1030, 7305.11.1060,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:55 Feb 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–201–805]
Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy
Steel Pipe From Mexico: Notice of
Court Decision Not in Harmony With
Final Scope Ruling and Notice of
Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant
to Court Decision
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Commerce) is notifying the public that
the Court of International Trade’s (CIT
or the Court) final judgment in this case
is not in harmony with Commerce’s
final scope ruling and is, therefore,
finding that certain black, circular
tubing produced to ASTM A–513
specifications by Maquilacero S.A. de
C.V. (Maquilacero) is not within the
scope of the antidumping duty order on
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe
from Mexico.
DATES: Applicable Date: February 19,
2018.
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Flessner, AD/CVD Operations,
Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6312.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 27, 2015, Commerce issued
the Maquilacero Scope Ruling,1 in
which it determined, under 19 CFR
351.225(k)(1), that 46 products
produced by Maquilacero to
specification A–513 did not meet the
exclusion for ‘‘mechanical tubing’’ in
the scope of the Order,2 and were,
1 See Memorandum, ‘‘Final Scope Ruling on
Certain Black, Circular Tubing Produced to ASTM
A–513 Specifications by Maquilacero S.A. de C.V.,’’
dated July 27, 2015 (Maquilacero Scope Ruling).
2 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Brazil,
the Republic of Korea (Korea), Mexico, and
Venezuela and Amendment to Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Welded
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7153
therefore, within the scope of the Order.
In particular, Commerce relied upon a
prior scope ruling pertaining to certain
mechanical tubing products produced
by Productos Laminados de Monterrey,
S.A. de C.V., and Prolamsa, Inc.
(Prolamsa), which was conducted under
19 CFR 351.225(k)(2), and which
defined ‘‘mechanical tubing’’ as tubing
that met a variety of physical, chemical,
and mechanical characteristics, and was
stenciled.3 Commerce found that
Maquilacero’s tubing was not stenciled,
and, thus, was not ‘‘mechanical
tubing.’’ 4 Maquilacero challenged
Commerce’s final scope ruling before
the CIT.
On August 30, 2017, the Court
remanded the Maquilacero Scope
Ruling to Commerce.5 Specifically, the
Court held that Commerce did not
‘‘properly consider how the mention of
stenciling came to be found in the ruling
excluding Prolamsa’s pipe from the
Order,’’ particularly given that
stenciling ‘‘does not change the inherent
quality or the intended use of the
product.’’ 6 As such, the Court
concluded that ‘‘the imposition of a
requirement {(i.e., stenciling)} having
nothing to do with the physical
characteristics of mechanical tubing and
that appeared in the Prolamsa Final
Scope Ruling by chance { } was
unreasonable.’’ 7 Thus, the Court found
‘‘that Commerce’s ruling unlawfully
expanded the scope of the Order to
include {Maquilacero}’s
merchandise,’’ 8 and remanded the Final
Scope Ruling to Commerce to ‘‘(1) not
impose a stenciling requirement, and (2)
find that Maquilacero’s tubing is
excluded from the Order based on its
analysis found on pages 6–9 of the Final
Scope Ruling.’’ 9 In particular, the Court
instructed Commerce to ‘‘find plaintiff’s
products are excluded from the Order
using the same analysis in the Final
Scope Ruling and that is found in this
opinion.’’ 10
Pursuant to the Court’s instructions,
Commerce issued the Final Remand
Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea, 57 FR 49453
(November 2, 1992) (the Order).
3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Final Scope Ruling on
Certain Black, Circular Tubing Produced to ASTM
A–513 Specifications by Productos Laminados de
Monterrey, S.A. de C.V., and Prolamsa, Inc.,’’ dated
January 12, 2015 (Prolamsa Final Scope Ruling).
4 See Maquilacero Scope Ruling.
5 See Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. v. United States,
Slip Op. 17–117, Court No. 15–00287 (CIT 2017).
6 See Maquilacero, Slip Op. 17–117, at 29.
7 See Maquilacero, Slip Op. 17–117, at 32.
8 Id., at 26.
9 See Maquilacero, Slip Op. 17–117, at 32–33.
10 Id., at 33.
E:\FR\FM\20FEN1.SGM
20FEN1
7154
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2018 / Notices
Results.11 Consistent with the Court’s
instructions, Commerce found that the
46 products included in Maquilacero’s
scope ruling request are excluded from
the Order, because those products meet
all physical, chemical, and mechanical
properties of mechanical tubing,
notwithstanding that the products are
not stenciled. On February 9, 2018, the
Court sustained Commerce’s Final
Remand Results in their entirety.12
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,13 as
clarified by Diamond Sawblades,14 the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (CAFC) held that,
pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of
the Act, Commerce must publish a
notice of a court decision that is not ‘‘in
harmony’’ with a Department
determination and must suspend
liquidation of entries pending a
‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s
February 9, 2018, judgment in
Maquilacero, sustaining Commerce’s
decision in the Final Remand Results
that the 46 products included in
Maquilacero’s scope ruling request are
excluded from the Order constitutes a
final decision of the court that is not in
harmony with the Maquilacero Scope
Ruling. This notice is published in
fulfillment of the publication
requirements of Timken. Accordingly,
Commerce will continue the suspension
of liquidation of the 46 products at issue
pending expiration of the period to
appeal or, if appealed, pending a final
and conclusive court decision.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Amended Final Scope Ruling
Because there is now a final court
decision with respect to the
Maquilacero Scope Ruling, Commerce is
amending its final scope ruling.
Commerce finds that the scope of the
Order does not cover the products
addressed in the Maquilacero Scope
Ruling. Commerce will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
that the cash deposit rate will be zero
percent for the 46 products subject to
Maquilacero’s scope ruling request. In
the event that the CIT’s ruling is not
appealed, or if appealed, upheld by the
CAFC, Commerce will instruct CBP to
liquidate entries of the 46 products at
issue without regard to antidumping
11 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Remand in Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. v. United
States, Ct. No. 15–00287, November 27, 2017 (Final
Remand Results).
12 See Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. v. United States,
Slip Op. 18–8, Court No. 15–00287 (CIT 2018).
13 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), at 341.
14 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 20 10)
(Diamond Sawblades).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:55 Feb 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
and/or countervailing duties, and to lift
suspension of liquidation of such
entries.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 516A(e)(1),
751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 13, 2018.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance, performing the nonexclusive functions and duties of the
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018–03375 Filed 2–16–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
accompanied by countervailing duty
(CVD) Petitions concerning imports of
welded pipe from China, India, Korea,
and Turkey. The petitioners are
domestic producers of welded pipe.2
Commerce exercised its discretion to
toll all deadlines affected by the closure
of the Federal Government from January
20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline
falls on a non-business day, in
accordance with Commerce’s practice,
the deadline will become the next
business day. The revised deadline for
the initiation of these investigations is
now February 9, 2018.3
On January 23, 24, 29, 30, and
February 6, 2018, Commerce requested
supplemental information pertaining to
certain areas of the Petitions.4 The
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–122–863, A–484–803, A–533–881, A–570–
077, A–580–897, A–489–833]
Large Diameter Welded Pipe From
Canada, Greece, India, the People’s
Republic of China, the Republic of
Korea, and the Republic of Turkey:
Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value
Investigations
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Applicable February 9, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Pulongbarit at (202) 482–4031
(Canada); Brittany Bauer at (202) 482–
3860 (Greece); Jaron Moore at (202) 482–
3640 (India); Kabir Archuletta at (202)
482–8024 (the People’s Republic of
China (China)); Jesus Saenz at (202)
482–8184 (the Republic of Korea
(Korea)); and Rebecca Janz at (202) 482–
2972 (the Republic of Turkey (Turkey));
AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
The Petitions
On January 17, 2018, the U.S.
Department of Commerce (Commerce)
received antidumping duty (AD)
Petitions concerning imports of large
diameter welded pipe (welded pipe)
from Canada, China, Greece, India,
Korea, and Turkey, filed in proper form
on behalf of American Cast Iron Pipe
Company, Berg Steel Pipe Corp., DuraBond Industries, Skyline Steel, and
Stupp Corporation (collectively, the
petitioners).1 The AD Petitions were
1 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Large Diameter Welded
Pipe from Canada, Greece, India, the People’s
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and the
Republic of Turkey: Petitions for the Imposition of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties,’’ dated
January 17, 2018 (the Petitions).
2 See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2.
3 See Memorandum for The Record from
Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance, performing the nonexclusive functions and duties of the Assistant
Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance,
‘‘Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the
Federal Government’’ (Tolling Memorandum),
dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this
segment of the proceeding have been extended by
3 days.
4 See Commerce’s Letters, ‘‘Petitions for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of
Large Diameter Welded Pipe from Canada, Greece,
India, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic
of Korea, and the Republic of Turkey and
Countervailing Duties on Imports from India, the
Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and the
Republic of Turkey: Supplemental Questions,’’
(General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire);
‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties
on Imports of Large Diameter Welded Pipe from
{Canada}{sic}: Supplemental Questions;’’ ‘‘Petition
for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on
Imports of Large Diameter Welded Pipe from the
People’s Republic of China: Supplemental
Questions;’’ ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Large Diameter
Welded Pipe from Greece: Supplemental
Questions;’’ and ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Large Diameter
Welded Pipe from Turkey: Supplemental
Questions.’’ All of these documents are dated
January 23, 2018. See also Commerce’s Letters,
‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties
on Imports of Large Diameter Welded Pipe from
India: Supplemental Questions;’’ and ‘‘Petition for
the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports
of Large Diameter Welded Pipe from the Republic
of Korea: Supplemental Questions,’’ both dated
January 24, 2018. See also Commerce’s Letter,
‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties
on Imports of Large Diameter Welded Pipe from the
People’s Republic of China: Supplemental
Questions,’’ dated January 29, 2018. See also
‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties
on Imports of Large Diameter Welded Pipe from
Greece: Additional Questions;’’ ‘‘Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of
Large Diameter Welded Pipe from India: Additional
Questions;’’ ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Large Diameter
Welded Pipe from Korea: Additional Questions;’’
and ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping
Duties on Imports of Large Diameter Welded Pipe
from Turkey: Additional Questions.’’ These
E:\FR\FM\20FEN1.SGM
20FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7153-7154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03375]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-805]
Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico: Notice
of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Scope Ruling and Notice of
Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is notifying the public
that the Court of International Trade's (CIT or the Court) final
judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce's final scope
ruling and is, therefore, finding that certain black, circular tubing
produced to ASTM A-513 specifications by Maquilacero S.A. de C.V.
(Maquilacero) is not within the scope of the antidumping duty order on
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico.
DATES: Applicable Date: February 19, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner, AD/CVD Operations,
Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6312.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 27, 2015, Commerce issued the Maquilacero Scope Ruling,\1\
in which it determined, under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1), that 46 products
produced by Maquilacero to specification A-513 did not meet the
exclusion for ``mechanical tubing'' in the scope of the Order,\2\ and
were, therefore, within the scope of the Order. In particular, Commerce
relied upon a prior scope ruling pertaining to certain mechanical
tubing products produced by Productos Laminados de Monterrey, S.A. de
C.V., and Prolamsa, Inc. (Prolamsa), which was conducted under 19 CFR
351.225(k)(2), and which defined ``mechanical tubing'' as tubing that
met a variety of physical, chemical, and mechanical characteristics,
and was stenciled.\3\ Commerce found that Maquilacero's tubing was not
stenciled, and, thus, was not ``mechanical tubing.'' \4\ Maquilacero
challenged Commerce's final scope ruling before the CIT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Memorandum, ``Final Scope Ruling on Certain Black,
Circular Tubing Produced to ASTM A-513 Specifications by Maquilacero
S.A. de C.V.,'' dated July 27, 2015 (Maquilacero Scope Ruling).
\2\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Circular
Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Brazil, the Republic of Korea
(Korea), Mexico, and Venezuela and Amendment to Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Welded Non-Alloy Steel
Pipe from Korea, 57 FR 49453 (November 2, 1992) (the Order).
\3\ See Memorandum, ``Final Scope Ruling on Certain Black,
Circular Tubing Produced to ASTM A-513 Specifications by Productos
Laminados de Monterrey, S.A. de C.V., and Prolamsa, Inc.,'' dated
January 12, 2015 (Prolamsa Final Scope Ruling).
\4\ See Maquilacero Scope Ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 30, 2017, the Court remanded the Maquilacero Scope Ruling
to Commerce.\5\ Specifically, the Court held that Commerce did not
``properly consider how the mention of stenciling came to be found in
the ruling excluding Prolamsa's pipe from the Order,'' particularly
given that stenciling ``does not change the inherent quality or the
intended use of the product.'' \6\ As such, the Court concluded that
``the imposition of a requirement {(i.e., stenciling){time} having
nothing to do with the physical characteristics of mechanical tubing
and that appeared in the Prolamsa Final Scope Ruling by chance {
{time} was unreasonable.'' \7\ Thus, the Court found ``that Commerce's
ruling unlawfully expanded the scope of the Order to include
{Maquilacero{time} 's merchandise,'' \8\ and remanded the Final Scope
Ruling to Commerce to ``(1) not impose a stenciling requirement, and
(2) find that Maquilacero's tubing is excluded from the Order based on
its analysis found on pages 6-9 of the Final Scope Ruling.'' \9\ In
particular, the Court instructed Commerce to ``find plaintiff's
products are excluded from the Order using the same analysis in the
Final Scope Ruling and that is found in this opinion.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. v. United States, Slip Op. 17-
117, Court No. 15-00287 (CIT 2017).
\6\ See Maquilacero, Slip Op. 17-117, at 29.
\7\ See Maquilacero, Slip Op. 17-117, at 32.
\8\ Id., at 26.
\9\ See Maquilacero, Slip Op. 17-117, at 32-33.
\10\ Id., at 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the Court's instructions, Commerce issued the Final
Remand
[[Page 7154]]
Results.\11\ Consistent with the Court's instructions, Commerce found
that the 46 products included in Maquilacero's scope ruling request are
excluded from the Order, because those products meet all physical,
chemical, and mechanical properties of mechanical tubing,
notwithstanding that the products are not stenciled. On February 9,
2018, the Court sustained Commerce's Final Remand Results in their
entirety.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand in
Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. v. United States, Ct. No. 15-00287,
November 27, 2017 (Final Remand Results).
\12\ See Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. v. United States, Slip Op. 18-
8, Court No. 15-00287 (CIT 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\13\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\14\ the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit (CAFC) held that, pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of the
Act, Commerce must publish a notice of a court decision that is not
``in harmony'' with a Department determination and must suspend
liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The
CIT's February 9, 2018, judgment in Maquilacero, sustaining Commerce's
decision in the Final Remand Results that the 46 products included in
Maquilacero's scope ruling request are excluded from the Order
constitutes a final decision of the court that is not in harmony with
the Maquilacero Scope Ruling. This notice is published in fulfillment
of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, Commerce will
continue the suspension of liquidation of the 46 products at issue
pending expiration of the period to appeal or, if appealed, pending a
final and conclusive court decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken), at 341.
\14\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 20 10) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended Final Scope Ruling
Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the
Maquilacero Scope Ruling, Commerce is amending its final scope ruling.
Commerce finds that the scope of the Order does not cover the products
addressed in the Maquilacero Scope Ruling. Commerce will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that the cash deposit rate will be
zero percent for the 46 products subject to Maquilacero's scope ruling
request. In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or if
appealed, upheld by the CAFC, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate
entries of the 46 products at issue without regard to antidumping and/
or countervailing duties, and to lift suspension of liquidation of such
entries.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 13, 2018.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, performing
the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018-03375 Filed 2-16-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
