Sanctioning a Liquified Petroleum Gas Shipping Network to Further Pressure Iran - U.S. Department of State

Today (4/22/25), the United States is sanctioning Iranian national Seyed Asadoollah Emamjomeh and his liquified petroleum gas (LPG) shipping network for exporting hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of Iranian LPG and crude oil to foreign markets.  This revenue funds Iran’s malign behavior, particularly the regime’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs and its support for terrorist proxies.

Iranian companies continually adapt their networks to evade sanctions and sell to foreign customers.  The United States is committed to sanctioning Iranian firms that fund the regime’s destabilizing conduct.

The Trump Administration will vigorously enforce all U.S. sanctions on Iran as part of its maximum pressure campaign.  So long as Iran attempts to generate oil revenues to fund its subversive activities, the United States will hold accountable both Iran and all its partners in sanctions evasion.

Today’s action is being taken pursuant to President Trump’s maximum pressure campaign and E.O. 13902, which targets those operating in certain sectors of the Iranian economy.  On October 11, 2024, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, determined that section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13902 shall apply to the petroleum and petrochemical sectors of the Iranian economy, which allows Treasury to target a broader range of activities relating to Iran’s trade in petroleum and petrochemical products.  For more information, today’s designation can be found on the Treasury’s Press Releases.
 

Federal Register Notices:

• Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, and Rescission in Part; 2022
• Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Polyester Textured Yarn From China and India; Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year Reviews
• Melamine From India
• Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Raw Honey From India: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2021-2023
• Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2023Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2023
• Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Monomers and Oligomers From Taiwan: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation
• Ceramic Tile From India: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, in Part
• Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2022-2023
• Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Reviews, and Intent To Revoke the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, in Part
• Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Intent To Revoke the Antidumping Order, in Part
• Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Determinations, Investigations, etc.: Ceramic Tile From India: Final Negative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances
• Certain Monomers and Oligomers From the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations
• Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Carbon and Alloy Steel Threaded Rod From India and the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited First Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Orders; Correction
• Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Alkyl Phosphate Esters From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination
• Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From Thailand: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances
• Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From Malaysia: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination
• Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, in Part
• Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules From Cambodia: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty DeterminationSales at Less Than Fair Value; Determinations, Investigations, etc.: Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From Malaysia: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
• Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part
• Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From Cambodia: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
• Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From Thailand: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair-Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances
• Certain Alkyl Phosphate Esters From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
   

FMC Adds PRC-Based Chipolbrok to Controlled Carrier List - Federal Maritime Commission

The Federal Maritime Commission has classified the Chinese-Polish Joint Stock Shipping Company (Chipolbrok) as a controlled carrier of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and is adding it to the Commission’s Controlled Carrier List.

The company is jointly owned by the governments of the PRC and the Republic of Poland.  Chipolbrok is headquartered in Shanghai.

A comprehensive review of the company’s ownership structure by the Commission determined that the government of the PRC exerts more control over the corporate structure and commercial activities of Chipolbrok than the Polish partner.  The determining factors leading to today’s decision are summarized in the Notice of Determination the Commission issued in this matter.

Controlled carriers are ocean common carriers operating in the U.S.-foreign trades that are, or whose operating assets are, directly or indirectly owned or controlled by a foreign government. Controlled carriers are subject to enhanced regulatory oversight by the Commission.

The Controlled Carrier List is not a comprehensive list of all foreign-owned, foreign-controlled, or government linked companies and assets. It is a list of companies meeting statutory requirements found at 46 U.S.C. Chapter 407. Commission regulations related to Controlled Carriers are found at 46 C.F.R. 565.  The list only includes government owned or controlled carriers that call at United States ports.  The list does not include government controlled or linked non-vessel-operating common carriers, freight forwarders, or marine terminal operators irrespective of where they do business.
 

USTR Section 301 Action on China’s Targeting of the Maritime, Logistics, and Shipbuilding Sectors for Dominance - U.S. International Trade Representative

WASHINGTON – Today, USTR took targeted action to restore American shipbuilding and address China’s unreasonable acts, policies, and practices to dominate the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors. These responsive actions come after a year-long Section 301 investigation, which included USTR convening a two-day public hearing, receiving nearly 600 public comments, and consulting with government agency experts and USTR cleared advisors.

"Ships and shipping are vital to American economic security and the free flow of commerce," said Ambassador Greer. "The Trump administration’s actions will begin to reverse Chinese dominance, address threats to the U.S. supply chain, and send a demand signal for U.S.-built ships."

These actions balance the need for action and the importance of limiting disruption for U.S. exporters. They will occur in two phases:

For the first 180 days the applicable fees will be set at $0.

(1) In the first phase, after 180 days:

• Fees on vessel owners and operators of China based on net tonnage per U.S. voyage, increasing incrementally over the following years;
• Fees on operators of Chinese-built ships based on net tonnage or containers, increasing incrementally over the following years; and
• To incentivize U.S.-built car carrier vessels, fees on foreign-built car carrier vessels based on their capacity.

(2) The second phase actions will not take place for 3 years:

• To incentivize U.S.-built liquified natural gas (LNG) vessels, limited restrictions on transporting LNG via foreign vessels. These restrictions will increase incrementally over 22 years.
• In addition, USTR is seeking public comments on the proposed tariffs on ship-to-shore cranes and other cargo handling equipment, in line with the President’s Maritime Executive Order.

To view the Federal Register Notice, click here.

The deadline to submit a request to appear at the hearing is May 8, 2025.

Comments in response to this notice can be submitted or accessed here.

Background

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (Trade Act), is designed to address unfair foreign practices affecting U.S. commerce. The Section 301 provisions of the Trade Act provide a domestic procedure through which interested persons may petition the U.S. Trade Representative to investigate a foreign government act, policy, or practice and take appropriate action.  Section 301(b) may be used to respond to unreasonable or discriminatory foreign government acts, policies, and practices that burden or restrict U.S. commerce.

On March 12, 2024, five national labor unions filed a petition requesting an investigation into the acts, policies, and practices of China targeting the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors for dominance. The five petitioner unions are:

• the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO CLC (“USW”);
• the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (“IAM”);
• the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO/CLC (“IBB”);
• the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (“IBEW”); and
• the Maritime Trades Department, AFL-CIO (“MTD”).

Pursuant to Section 302(a)(2) of the Trade Act, the U.S. Trade Representative reviewed the allegations in the petition and determined to initiate an investigation regarding the issues raised in the petition. On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Trade Representative requested consultations with the government of China.

In light of the information obtained during the investigation and taking into account public comments, as well as the advice of the interagency Section 301 Committee and advisory committees, the U.S. Trade Representative determined that China’s targeting of the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors for dominance is unreasonable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce and is therefore actionable under Sections 301(b) and 304(a) of the Trade Act.

Specifically, USTR found China’s targeting for dominance unreasonable because it displaces foreign firms, deprives market-oriented businesses and their workers of commercial opportunities, and lessens competition and creates dependencies on China, increasing risk and reducing supply chain resilience. China’s targeting for dominance is also unreasonable because of Beijing’s extraordinary control over its economic actors and these sectors.

USTR found that China’s targeting for dominance burdens or restricts U.S. commerce by undercutting business opportunities for and investments in the U.S. maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors; restricting competition and choice; creating economic security risks from dependence and vulnerabilities in sectors critical to the functioning of the U.S. economy; and undermining supply chain resilience.

On February 21, 2025, USTR issued a Federal Register notice proposing certain responsive action, including service fees and restrictions on certain maritime transport services. By statute, the U.S. Trade Representative must determine what action to take by April 17, 2025.

A copy of the petition and other public documents associated with this investigation are available here. USTR’s public report on the investigation is available here, and the U.S. Trade Representative’s determination is available here.
 

HHS, FDA to Phase Out Petroleum-Based Synthetic Dyes in Nation’s Food Supply - U.S. Food & Drug Administration

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today announced a series of new measures to phase out all petroleum-based synthetic dyes from the nation’s food supply—a significant milestone in the administration’s broader initiative to Make America Healthy Again.

The FDA is taking the following actions:

1. Establishing a national standard and timeline for the food industry to transition from petrochemical-based dyes to natural alternatives.
2. Initiating the process to revoke authorization for two synthetic food colorings—Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B—within the coming months.
3. Working with industry to eliminate six remaining synthetic dyes—FD&C Green No. 3, FD&C Red No. 40, FD&C Yellow No. 5, FD&C Yellow No. 6, FD&C Blue No. 1, and FD&C Blue No. 2—from the food supply by the end of next year.
4. Authorizing four new natural color additives in the coming weeks, while also accelerating the review and approval of others.
5. Partnering with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct comprehensive research on how food additives impact children’s health and development.
6. Requesting food companies to remove FD&C Red No. 3 sooner than the 2027-2028 deadline previously required.

“For too long, some food producers have been feeding Americans petroleum-based chemicals without their knowledge or consent,” said HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. “These poisonous compounds offer no nutritional benefit and pose real, measurable dangers to our children’s health and development. That era is coming to an end. We’re restoring gold-standard science, applying common sense, and beginning to earn back the public’s trust. And we’re doing it by working with industry to get these toxic dyes out of the foods our families eat every day.”

The FDA is fast-tracking the review of calcium phosphate, Galdieria extract blue, gardenia blue, butterfly pea flower extract, and other natural alternatives to synthetic food dyes. The agency is also taking steps to issue guidance and provide regulatory flexibilities to industries.

“Today, the FDA is asking food companies to substitute petrochemical dyes with natural ingredients for American children as they already do in Europe and Canada,” said FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, MD, MPH. “We have a new epidemic of childhood diabetes, obesity, depression, and ADHD. Given the growing concerns of doctors and parents about the potential role of petroleum-based food dyes, we should not be taking risks and do everything possible to safeguard the health of our children.”

In partnership with the NIH Nutrition Regulatory Science and Research Program, the FDA will enhance nutrition and food-related research to better inform regulatory decisions. This collaboration will strengthen the FDA’s ability to develop evidence-based food policies, support a healthier America, and advance the priorities of the Make America Healthy Again Commission.
 

CBP Uncovers Over 260 Pounds of Port within Vehicle at the Juarez-Lincoln Bridge; Agriculture Specialists Issues $1,000 Civil Penalty - U.S. Customs & Border Protection

LAREDO, Texas – U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers recently discovered over 260 pounds of prohibited pork products in a single enforcement action at the Juarez-Lincoln Bridge.

“Our frontline CBP officers maintained strict vigilance amid the onslaught of heavy Holy Week traffic and uncovered a commercial quantity of pork hidden within a passenger vehicle,” said Port Director Albert Flores, Laredo Port of Entry. “Seizures like these reinforce CBP’s dedication to protecting American agriculture and the American public from prohibited agricultural items that could harbor plant pests and animal diseases.”

The seizure occurred on the evening of April 17 when CBP officers assigned to the Juarez-Lincoln Bridge referred a Dodge Caliber to secondary inspection. Upon inspection of the vehicle, officers encountered a black bag with prohibited pork items under the passenger seat. Further examination of the vehicle revealed multiple bags of pork product in the rear hatch area of the vehicle. CBP agriculture specialists seized a total of 112.86 kgs of chorizo, 3.81 kgs of pork sausage, 1.40 kgs of blood sausage.   

CBP agriculture specialists issued a $1,000 civil penalty for the undeclared commercial quantity of prohibited pork products, and CBP officers seized the vehicle.

CBP agriculture specialists enforce United States Department of Agriculture quarantines to prevent the entry of pests and plant & animal diseases that could damage the agriculture industry in the U.S. Attempting to bring in prohibited agricultural items could lead to traveler delays and may result in a fine ranging from $300 to $1,000.

CBP agriculture specialists and CBP officers work diligently to fulfill CBP’s agriculture mission by excluding harmful pests and diseases from becoming established in the U.S. Read more about CBP’s agriculture mission.
 

FTC Takes Action Against Uber for Deceptive Billing and Cancellation Practices - Federal Trade Commission

The Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit today against Uber, alleging the rideshare and delivery company charged consumers for its Uber One subscription service without their consent, failed to deliver promised savings, and made it difficult for users to cancel the service despite its “cancel anytime” promises.

“Americans are tired of getting signed up for unwanted subscriptions that seem impossible to cancel,” said FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson. “The Trump-Vance FTC is fighting back on behalf of the American people. Today, we’re alleging that Uber not only deceived consumers about their subscriptions, but also made it unreasonably difficult for customers to cancel.”

In its complaint, the FTC alleges that Uber used deceptive billing and cancellation practices. For example, the complaint alleges:

• When signing up for Uber One, customers are wrongly promised savings of $25 a month. Even if that were true, Uber does not account for the cost of the subscription (up to $9.99/month) when calculating those savings. The company also obscures material information about the subscription (for example, by using small, greyed out text which consumers can easily miss). Many consumers say they were enrolled without consent; the complaint quotes one consumer saying they were charged despite not even having an Uber account.
   
• After sign-up, Uber charges consumers before their billing date. For example, some consumers who signed up for a free trial say they were automatically charged for the service before the free trial ended even though Uber promises customers the ability to cancel at no charge during the trial period.
   
• When customers try to cancel, Uber makes it extremely difficult. Users can be forced to navigate as many as 23 screens and take as many as 32 actions to cancel. If a customer tries to proceed with cancellation, Uber can require them to say why they want to cancel, urge them to pause their membership or, if that failed, present them with offers to stay. Some users are told they have to contact customer support to cancel but are given no way to contact them; others claim that Uber charged them for another billing cycle after they requested cancellation and were waiting to hear back from customer support.
   
• The FTC alleges that the company’s deceptive billing and cancellation practices violate the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), which requires online retailers to clearly disclose the terms of the service they are selling, obtain consumers’ consent before charging them for a service, and provide a simple way to cancel a recurring subscription.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 2-0-1 with Commissioner Mark R. Meador recused. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the named defendants are violating or are about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The case will be decided by the court.

The lead attorneys on this matter are Stephanie Liebner, James Doty, and Paul Mezan in the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition and protect and educate consumers. The FTC will never demand money, make threats, tell you to transfer money, or promise you a prize. Learn more about consumer topics at consumer.ftc.gov, or report fraud, scams, and bad business practices at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. Follow the FTC on social media, read consumer alerts and the business blog, and sign up to get the latest FTC news and alerts.