Review, see AR1 Final Determination, 79 Fed.Reg. at 26,714). AR2 Prelim. Determination, 80 Fed.Reg. at 1389. Senmao’s rate became the separate rate (as the only individually investigated non-de min-imis, non-AFA rate). Id. Changzhou Hawd, as a separate rate respondent in the Second Administrative Review, is subject to this sepa-rale rate. Id. The final determination will be issued no later than July 8, 2015. Fourth Redetermination, ECF No. 130, at 5. 26 . See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2006) (explaining that the substantial evidence standard asks whether, given the record as a whole, the agency’s determination was reasonable). 27 . See Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168, 83 S.Ct. 239, 9 L.Ed.2d 207 (1962) (<HOLDING>). 28 . Nonetheless, Plaintiff again argues that
holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury holding that the failure to articulate the basis for declining jurisdiction may be clear error holding the connection is an element holding that the agency must articulate rational connection between the facts found and the choice made holding that there must be a causal connection between the advertising activity and the injury alleged in the underlying complaint