Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Second Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision, 29845-29846 [2019-13479]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2019 / Notices
Any party having a substantial
interest in these proceedings may
request a public hearing on the matter.
A written request for a hearing must be
submitted to the Trade Adjustment
Assistance Division, Room 71030,
Economic Development Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten
(10) calendar days following publication
of this notice. These petitions are
received pursuant to section 251 of the
Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Please follow the requirements set
forth in EDA’s regulations at 13 CFR
315.9 for procedures to request a public
hearing. The Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance official number
and title for the program under which
these petitions are submitted is 11.313,
Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
Irette Patterson,
Program Analyst.
The Form BIS–999 is used to apply for
such assistance.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations.
Frequency: On occasion.
Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.
This information collection request
may be viewed at reginfo.gov https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/. Follow the
instructions to view Department of
Commerce collections currently under
review by OMB.
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this
notice to OIRA_Submission@
omb.eop.gov.
Sheleen Dumas,
Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the
Chief Information Officer, Commerce
Department.
[FR Doc. 2019–13448 Filed 6–24–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–33–P
[FR Doc. 2019–13469 Filed 6–24–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–WH–P
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Bureau of Industry and Security
[A–570–967; C–570–968]
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
Aluminum Extrusions From the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Second Amended Final Scope Ruling
Pursuant to Court Decision
The Department of Commerce will
submit to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for clearance the
following proposal for collection of
information under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35).
Agency: Bureau of Industry and
Security.
Title: Special Priorities Assistance.
OMB Control Number: 0694–0057.
Form Number(s): BIS–999.
Type of Review: Regular Submission.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 600.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
1,200.
Estimated Time per Response: 30
minutes.
Needs and Uses: The information
collected from defense contractors and
suppliers on Form BIS–999, Request for
Special Priorities Assistance, is required
for the enforcement and administration
of special priorities assistance under the
Defense Production Act, the Selective
Service Act and the Defense Priorities
and Allocation System regulation.
Contractors may request Special
Priorities Assistance (SPA) when
placing rated orders with suppliers, to
obtain timely delivery of products,
materials or services from suppliers, or
for any other reason under the DPAS, in
support of approved national programs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:35 Jun 24, 2019
Jkt 247001
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 23, 2018, the Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the
CAFC) reversed and vacated, in part, the
Court of International Trade’s (the CIT)
earlier decisions, vacated Commerce’s
remand determination, and reinstated
Commerce’s original scope ruling, in
part. In Commerce’s original scope
ruling, Commerce found that Whirlpool
Corporation’s (Whirlpool) kitchen
appliance door handles with plastic end
caps were covered by the general scope
language of the antidumping duty (AD)
and countervailing duty (CVD) orders
on aluminum extrusions from the
People’s Republic of China (China). On
May 1, 2019, the CIT granted
Whirlpool’s request to dismiss the
litigation concerning its handles.
Accordingly, Commerce is issuing a
second amended final scope ruling.
DATES: Applicable June 25, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric
Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations, Office
III, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: 202–482–6071.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29845
Background
On August 4, 2014, Commerce found
that kitchen appliance door handles
with plastic end caps imported by
Whirlpool were subject to the Orders.1
Specifically, Commerce found that the
handles did not fall under the finished
merchandise or finished goods kit
exclusions, based on its interpretation of
these exclusions, as adopted in prior
scope rulings.2
Whirlpool filed suit challenging the
Final Scope Ruling. In Whirlpool I, the
CIT held that ‘‘the general scope
language is not reasonably interpreted to
include the kitchen appliance door
handles described in Whirlpool’s first
scope ruling request{,}’’ (i.e., the
kitchen appliance door handles with
plastic end caps).3 The CIT further held
that, even if the general scope language
could be reasonably interpreted to
include the handles, Commerce’s
determination that the handles did not
satisfy the finished merchandise
exclusion based on Commerce’s
interpretation of the exclusion was in
error.4 Therefore, the CIT remanded the
Final Scope Ruling to Commerce for
reconsideration in light of Whirlpool I.5
In its Remand Redetermination, under
protest, Commerce complied with
Whirlpool I and found the handles were
not covered by the general scope
language of the Orders.6 Commerce did
not further address the finished
merchandise exclusion. The CIT
affirmed the Remand Redetermination
in Whirlpool II.7 Pursuant to Whirlpool
II, on September 27, 2016, Commerce
published its First Amended Final
Scope Ruling, finding that the handles
1 See Memorandum, ‘‘Final Scope Ruling on
Kitchen Appliance Door Handles with Plastic End
Caps and Kitchen Appliance Door Handles without
Plastic End Caps,’’ dated August 4, 2014 (Final
Scope Ruling).
2 Id. at 16–21, citing, e.g., Memorandum to
Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations,
‘‘Final Scope Ruling on Meridian Kitchen
Appliance Door Handles,’’ dated June 21, 2013,
(Kitchen Appliance Door Handles I Scope Ruling)
and Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, ‘‘Final Scope
Ruling on J.A. Hancock, Inc.’s Geodesic Structures,’’
(July 17, 2012) (Geodesic Domes Scope Ruling).
3 See Whirlpool Corporation v. United States, 144
F. Supp. 3d 1296, 1303 (CIT 2016) (Whirlpool I).
The Court affirmed Commerce’s determination that
the kitchen appliance door handles without end
caps are within the scope of the Orders. Id. at 1306.
4 Id. at 1304.
5 Id. at 1305–07.
6 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, Whirlpool Corp. v. United States,
Court No. 14–00199, Slip Op. 16–08 (CIT February
1, 2016), dated April 15, 2016 (Remand
Redetermination).
7 See Whirlpool Corporation v. United States, 182
F. Supp. 3d 1307 (CIT 2016) (Whirlpool II).
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
29846
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2019 / Notices
were not covered by the scope of the
Orders.8
The Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade
Committee (AEFTC), the petitioner in
the underlying investigations, appealed.
In Whirlpool III, the CAFC held that:
{T}he CIT erred when it stated that
assembly processes were absent from the
specified post-extrusion processes. The
general scope language unambiguously
includes aluminum extrusions that are part
of an assembly. The Orders explicitly include
aluminum extrusions ‘‘that are assembled
after importation’’ in addition to ‘‘aluminum
extrusion components that are attached (e.g.,
by welding or fasteners) to form
subassemblies.’’ 9
Thus, the CAFC held that Commerce’s
determination in the Final Scope Ruling
‘‘that the general scope language
includes Whirlpool’s assembled handles
was supported by substantial
evidence.’’ 10 The CAFC further held
that Commerce’s determination that the
handles did not satisfy the finished
merchandise exclusion was based on an
incorrect interpretation of the
exclusion.11 Therefore, the CAFC
reversed Whirlpool II, which affirmed
the Remand Redetermination, and
instructed the CIT to vacate the Remand
Redetermination and reinstate the Final
Scope Ruling, in part, with respect to
Commerce’s determination that the
general scope language included the
handles.12 The CAFC further vacated
those portions of Whirlpool I that held
that the general scope language did not
cover the handles.13 In addition, the
CAFC affirmed, in part, those portions
of Whirlpool I which rejected
Commerce’s interpretation of the
finished merchandise exclusion and
instructed the CIT to vacate the
remainder of the Final Scope Ruling.14
Finally, the CAFC remanded to the CIT
for Commerce to reconsider its
interpretation of the finished
merchandise exclusion as it pertains to
Whirlpool’s handles.15
On January 14, 2019, in Whirlpool IV,
in accordance with Whirlpool III, the
CIT vacated the Remand
Redetermination, reinstated those
portions of the Final Scope Ruling
concluding that Whirlpool’s handles are
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
8 See
Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in
Harmony with Final Scope Ruling and Notice of
Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court
Decision, 81 FR 66259 (September 27, 2016) (First
Amended Final Scope Ruling).
9 See Whirlpool Corporation v. United States, 890
F.3d 1302, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Whirlpool III).
10 Id.
11 Id. at 1309–11.
12 Id. at 1311.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 1311–12.
15 Id. at 1312.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:35 Jun 24, 2019
Jkt 247001
within the general scope language of the
Orders, vacated the remaining portions
of the Final Scope Ruling, and
remanded for Commerce to reconsider
whether Whirlpool’s handles satisfied
the finished merchandise exclusion.16
The CIT further ordered that ‘‘{s}hould
Commerce determine that the assembled
handles are within the scope of the
Orders despite the finished merchandise
exclusion, it must explain its reasoning
and also must clarify whether it is
concluding that the handles in their
entirety, or only the extruded aluminum
components therein, are within the
scope of the Orders.’’ 17
On April 1, 2019, Commerce issued
the Draft Second Remand Determination
in which it found the extruded
aluminum components of Whirlpool’s
handles to be within the scope of the
Orders and the non-extruded aluminum
components to be outside the scope of
the Orders.18 Before Commerce issued
the final remand redetermination and
filed it with the CIT, Whirlpool
requested that the CIT voluntarily
dismiss the action.19 On May 1, 2019,
the CIT granted Whirlpool’s request to
voluntarily dismiss the case.20
Second Amended Final Scope Ruling
As noted above, there is now a final
and conclusive court decision which
reinstates those portions of the Final
Scope Ruling in which Commerce
determined that Whirlpool’s handles are
within the general scope language of the
Orders. As a result of the dismissal of
Whirlpool’s action, no further action is
required. Therefore, we are issuing a
second amended final scope ruling and
find that Whirlpool’s handles are within
the scope of the Orders.
Accordingly, Commerce will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection to
continue to suspend liquidation of
Whirlpool’s handles until appropriate
liquidation instructions are sent. As of
the date of publication of this notice in
the Federal Register, the cash deposit
rate for entries of Whirlpool’s handles
will be the applicable cash deposit rate
of the exporters of the merchandise from
China to the United States.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with section 516A(c)(1) and
16 See Whirlpool Corporation v. United States,
357 F. Supp. 3d 1328, 1363–64 (CIT 2019)
(Whirlpool IV).
17 Id. at 1363.
18 See Draft Results of Second Redetermination
Pursuant to Court Remand, Whirlpool Corp. v.
United States, Ct. No. 14–00199, Slip Op. 19–6,
dated April 1, 2019 (Draft Second Remand
Determination).
19 See Ct. No. 14–199, ECF Docket No. 75.
20 See Ct. No. 14–199, ECF Docket No. 76.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended.
Dated: June 18, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019–13479 Filed 6–24–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–523–812]
Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel
Pipe From Oman: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 2016–2017
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Commerce) determines that Al Jazeera
Steel Products Co. SAOG (Al Jazeera)
made sales of certain welded carbon
quality steel pipe from Oman at less
than normal value (NV) during the
period of review (POR) June 8, 2016
through November 30, 2017.
DATES: Applicable June 26, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dennis McClure or Robert Palmer, AD/
CVD Operations, Office VIII,
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5973 or
(202) 482–9068, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
Commerce published the Preliminary
Results on December 11, 2018.1 For
events subsequent to the Preliminary
Results, see Commerce’s Issues and
Decision Memorandum.2 Commerce
exercised its discretion to toll all
deadlines affected by the partial federal
government closure from December 22,
2018, through the resumption of
operations on January 29, 2019.3
1 See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe
from the Sultanate of Oman: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016–
2017, 83 FR 63621 (December 11, 2018)
(Preliminary Results) and accompanying
Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
2 See Memorandum, ‘‘Circular Welded CarbonQuality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman:
Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final
Results; 2016–2017,’’ dated concurrently with, and
hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision
Memorandum).
3 See Memorandum to the Record from Gary
Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations,
E:\FR\FM\25JNN1.SGM
25JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 25, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29845-29846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13479]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-967; C-570-968]
Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Notice
of Second Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 23, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(the CAFC) reversed and vacated, in part, the Court of International
Trade's (the CIT) earlier decisions, vacated Commerce's remand
determination, and reinstated Commerce's original scope ruling, in
part. In Commerce's original scope ruling, Commerce found that
Whirlpool Corporation's (Whirlpool) kitchen appliance door handles with
plastic end caps were covered by the general scope language of the
antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on aluminum
extrusions from the People's Republic of China (China). On May 1, 2019,
the CIT granted Whirlpool's request to dismiss the litigation
concerning its handles. Accordingly, Commerce is issuing a second
amended final scope ruling.
DATES: Applicable June 25, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations,
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce,
1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-
6071.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 4, 2014, Commerce found that kitchen appliance door
handles with plastic end caps imported by Whirlpool were subject to the
Orders.\1\ Specifically, Commerce found that the handles did not fall
under the finished merchandise or finished goods kit exclusions, based
on its interpretation of these exclusions, as adopted in prior scope
rulings.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Memorandum, ``Final Scope Ruling on Kitchen Appliance
Door Handles with Plastic End Caps and Kitchen Appliance Door
Handles without Plastic End Caps,'' dated August 4, 2014 (Final
Scope Ruling).
\2\ Id. at 16-21, citing, e.g., Memorandum to Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, ``Final Scope Ruling on Meridian Kitchen Appliance Door
Handles,'' dated June 21, 2013, (Kitchen Appliance Door Handles I
Scope Ruling) and Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations,
``Final Scope Ruling on J.A. Hancock, Inc.'s Geodesic Structures,''
(July 17, 2012) (Geodesic Domes Scope Ruling).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool filed suit challenging the Final Scope Ruling. In
Whirlpool I, the CIT held that ``the general scope language is not
reasonably interpreted to include the kitchen appliance door handles
described in Whirlpool's first scope ruling request{,{time} '' (i.e.,
the kitchen appliance door handles with plastic end caps).\3\ The CIT
further held that, even if the general scope language could be
reasonably interpreted to include the handles, Commerce's determination
that the handles did not satisfy the finished merchandise exclusion
based on Commerce's interpretation of the exclusion was in error.\4\
Therefore, the CIT remanded the Final Scope Ruling to Commerce for
reconsideration in light of Whirlpool I.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Whirlpool Corporation v. United States, 144 F. Supp. 3d
1296, 1303 (CIT 2016) (Whirlpool I). The Court affirmed Commerce's
determination that the kitchen appliance door handles without end
caps are within the scope of the Orders. Id. at 1306.
\4\ Id. at 1304.
\5\ Id. at 1305-07.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Remand Redetermination, under protest, Commerce complied
with Whirlpool I and found the handles were not covered by the general
scope language of the Orders.\6\ Commerce did not further address the
finished merchandise exclusion. The CIT affirmed the Remand
Redetermination in Whirlpool II.\7\ Pursuant to Whirlpool II, on
September 27, 2016, Commerce published its First Amended Final Scope
Ruling, finding that the handles
[[Page 29846]]
were not covered by the scope of the Orders.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Whirlpool Corp. v. United States, Court No. 14-00199, Slip
Op. 16-08 (CIT February 1, 2016), dated April 15, 2016 (Remand
Redetermination).
\7\ See Whirlpool Corporation v. United States, 182 F. Supp. 3d
1307 (CIT 2016) (Whirlpool II).
\8\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China:
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Scope Ruling and
Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision, 81
FR 66259 (September 27, 2016) (First Amended Final Scope Ruling).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC), the petitioner
in the underlying investigations, appealed. In Whirlpool III, the CAFC
held that:
{T{time} he CIT erred when it stated that assembly processes
were absent from the specified post-extrusion processes. The general
scope language unambiguously includes aluminum extrusions that are
part of an assembly. The Orders explicitly include aluminum
extrusions ``that are assembled after importation'' in addition to
``aluminum extrusion components that are attached (e.g., by welding
or fasteners) to form subassemblies.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Whirlpool Corporation v. United States, 890 F.3d 1302,
1309 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Whirlpool III).
Thus, the CAFC held that Commerce's determination in the Final
Scope Ruling ``that the general scope language includes Whirlpool's
assembled handles was supported by substantial evidence.'' \10\ The
CAFC further held that Commerce's determination that the handles did
not satisfy the finished merchandise exclusion was based on an
incorrect interpretation of the exclusion.\11\ Therefore, the CAFC
reversed Whirlpool II, which affirmed the Remand Redetermination, and
instructed the CIT to vacate the Remand Redetermination and reinstate
the Final Scope Ruling, in part, with respect to Commerce's
determination that the general scope language included the handles.\12\
The CAFC further vacated those portions of Whirlpool I that held that
the general scope language did not cover the handles.\13\ In addition,
the CAFC affirmed, in part, those portions of Whirlpool I which
rejected Commerce's interpretation of the finished merchandise
exclusion and instructed the CIT to vacate the remainder of the Final
Scope Ruling.\14\ Finally, the CAFC remanded to the CIT for Commerce to
reconsider its interpretation of the finished merchandise exclusion as
it pertains to Whirlpool's handles.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id.
\11\ Id. at 1309-11.
\12\ Id. at 1311.
\13\ Id.
\14\ Id. at 1311-12.
\15\ Id. at 1312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 14, 2019, in Whirlpool IV, in accordance with Whirlpool
III, the CIT vacated the Remand Redetermination, reinstated those
portions of the Final Scope Ruling concluding that Whirlpool's handles
are within the general scope language of the Orders, vacated the
remaining portions of the Final Scope Ruling, and remanded for Commerce
to reconsider whether Whirlpool's handles satisfied the finished
merchandise exclusion.\16\ The CIT further ordered that
``{s{time} hould Commerce determine that the assembled handles are
within the scope of the Orders despite the finished merchandise
exclusion, it must explain its reasoning and also must clarify whether
it is concluding that the handles in their entirety, or only the
extruded aluminum components therein, are within the scope of the
Orders.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Whirlpool Corporation v. United States, 357 F. Supp. 3d
1328, 1363-64 (CIT 2019) (Whirlpool IV).
\17\ Id. at 1363.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 1, 2019, Commerce issued the Draft Second Remand
Determination in which it found the extruded aluminum components of
Whirlpool's handles to be within the scope of the Orders and the non-
extruded aluminum components to be outside the scope of the Orders.\18\
Before Commerce issued the final remand redetermination and filed it
with the CIT, Whirlpool requested that the CIT voluntarily dismiss the
action.\19\ On May 1, 2019, the CIT granted Whirlpool's request to
voluntarily dismiss the case.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Draft Results of Second Redetermination Pursuant to
Court Remand, Whirlpool Corp. v. United States, Ct. No. 14-00199,
Slip Op. 19-6, dated April 1, 2019 (Draft Second Remand
Determination).
\19\ See Ct. No. 14-199, ECF Docket No. 75.
\20\ See Ct. No. 14-199, ECF Docket No. 76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second Amended Final Scope Ruling
As noted above, there is now a final and conclusive court decision
which reinstates those portions of the Final Scope Ruling in which
Commerce determined that Whirlpool's handles are within the general
scope language of the Orders. As a result of the dismissal of
Whirlpool's action, no further action is required. Therefore, we are
issuing a second amended final scope ruling and find that Whirlpool's
handles are within the scope of the Orders.
Accordingly, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to continue to suspend liquidation of Whirlpool's handles
until appropriate liquidation instructions are sent. As of the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register, the cash deposit
rate for entries of Whirlpool's handles will be the applicable cash
deposit rate of the exporters of the merchandise from China to the
United States.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section
516A(c)(1) and (e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
Dated: June 18, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-13479 Filed 6-24-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
