Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call number: 1-800-667-5617 and conference call ID number: 7386659. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator may ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number herein.

Individuals who are deaf, deafblind and hard of hearing may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Federal Relay Service operator with the conference call-in numbers: 1-800-667-5617 and conference call ID number: 7386659.

Members of the public are invited to make statements during the Public Comment section of the meeting or to submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be emailed to the Eastern Regional Office, Ivy Davis at ero@usccr.gov.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing, as they become available at www.facadatabase.gov. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's website, www.usccr.gov, or contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above email address.

Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meetings at https://www.facadatabase.gov/FACA/FACAPublicViewCommitteeDetails?id=a10t0000001gzkZAAQ.

Please click on the “Committee Meetings” tab. Records generated from these meetings may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, https://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

On September 28, 2020, Commerce published the Preliminary Results, 1 finding that dumping was likely to continue or recur if the AD Order   2 were revoked, and reported to the International Trade Commission (ITC) rates up to 9.10 percent as the margins of dumping likely to prevail. 3 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On October 28, 2020, we received a case brief from Oman Fasteners LLC (Oman Fasteners). 4 On November 4, 2020, we received a rebuttal brief from Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. (Mid Continent). 5 On November 24, 2020, we held a hearing at Oman Fasteners' request.

The merchandise covered by this order is nails having a nominal shaft length not exceeding 12 inches. 6 Merchandise covered by the order is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7317.00.55.02, 7317.00.55.03, 7317.00.55.05, 7317.00.55.07, 7317.00.55.08, 7317.00.55.11, 7317.00.55.18, 7317.00.55.19, 7317.00.55.20, 7317.00.55.30, 7317.00.55.40, 7317.00.55.50, 7317.00.55.60, 7317.00.55.70, 7317.00.55.80, 7317.00.55.90, 7317.00.65.30, 7317.00.65.60 and 7317.00.75.00. Nails subject to this order also may be classified under HTSUS subheadings 7907.00.60.00, 8206.00.00.00 or other HTSUS subheadings. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. 7

All issues raised for the final results of this sunset review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. A list of topics included in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is provided as an Appendix to this notice.

We determine that revocation of the AD Order on steel nails from Oman would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at weighted average margins up to 9.10 percent.

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing the final results of this full sunset review in accordance with sections 751(c)(5)(A), 752(c), and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(3).

After publication of the notice of initiation of this sunset review of the AD order on certain steel grating from China, 1 pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Metal Grating Coalition (Coalition) consisting of Nucor Grating, IKG USA, LLC, Ohio Gratings, Inc., Interstate Gratings, LLC and Lichtgitter USA Inc. (collectively, the domestic interested parties) filed with Commerce a timely and complete notice of intent to participate in the sunset review, 2 and a timely and adequate substantive response. 3 Commerce did not receive a substantive response from any respondent interested party. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)( 2 ), Commerce conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the Order. 4

The products covered by the order are certain steel grating, consisting of two or more pieces of steel, including load-bearing pieces and cross pieces, joined by any assembly process, regardless of: (1) Size or shape; (2) method of manufacture; (3) metallurgy (carbon, alloy, or stainless); (4) the profile of the bars; and (5) whether or not they are galvanized, painted, coated, clad or plated.

Certain steel grating that is the subject of the order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheading 7308.90.7000. While the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

For a full description of the scope of the order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation of the Order and the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail if the Order were to be revoked, is provided in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 5 A list of the sections in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1), 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the Order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail are weighted-average dumping margins up to 145.18 percent.

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or the conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218 and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).

On October 22, 2020, Commerce published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from the People's Republic of China (China) covering the POR. 1 We received comments from interested parties with respect the Preliminary Results. The deadline for these final results of review is February 19, 2021. We conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The product covered by this antidumping duty order is glycine, which is a free-flowing crystalline material, like salt or sugar. Glycine is produced at varying levels of purity and is used as a sweetener/taste enhancer, a buffering agent, reabsorbable amino acid, chemical intermediate, and a metal complexing agent. This proceeding includes glycine of all purity levels. Glycine is currently classified under subheading 2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 2 Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive.

The sole issue raised with respect to the Preliminary Results by parties to this administrative review is addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 3 The issue raised by parties and the other areas covered in the Issues and Decision Memroandum are identified in the appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

We made no revisions to the Preliminary Results.

We preliminarily determined that Studio Disrupt, Mulji Mehta Enterprises, Kumar Industries, and Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd., did not have shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. 4 After the Preliminary Results, we received no comments or additional information with respect to these four companies. Therefore, for the final results, we continue to find that these four companies did not have shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. We will issue appropriate instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) based on these final results.

In the Preliminary Results, we found that Avid is ineligible for a separate rate and treated it as a part of the China-wide entity. For the final results, Commerce continues to find Avid ineligible for a separate rate and to treat it as a part of the China-wide entity.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. 5 Consistent with its recent notice, 6 Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication). We will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of subject merchandise exported by the China-wide entity at the China-wide rate of 155.89 percent. 7 Consistent with Commerce's assessment practice in non-market economy cases, for the companies which Commerce determined had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries made under those exporters' case numbers ( i.e., at the exporters' rates) will be liquidated at the China-wide rate. 8

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for shipments of subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (2) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for the China-wide entity, i.e., 155.89 percent; and (3) for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese exporter that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

The final results of this administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

On November 12, 2019, Commerce initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Vietnam. 1 The review covers SeAH Steel VINA Corporation (SeAH VINA) and its U.S. affiliate Pusan Pipe America, Inc. (Pusan Pipe) (collectively, SSV). 2 On April 24, 2020, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative reviews by 50 days. 3 On July 21, 2020, Commerce extended the deadline for these preliminary results by 120 days, in accordance with section 751 (a)(3)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). On July 22, 2020, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative reviews by an additional 60 days, thereby extending the deadline for these preliminary results until January 19, 2021. 4

For a full description of events that have occurred since the Initiation Notice, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 5 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as an appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The merchandise covered by the order is certain OCTG. The merchandise subject to the order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.31.10, 7304.29.31.20, 7304.29.31.30, 7304.29.31.40, 7304.29.31.50, 7304.29.31.60, 7304.29.31.80, 7304.29.41.10, 7304.29.41.20, 7304.29.41.30, 7304.29.41.40, 7304.29.41.50, 7304.29.41.60, 7304.29.41.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.61.15, 7304.29.61.30, 7304.29.61.45, 7304.29.61.60, 7304.29.61.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.29.10.30, 7306.29.10.90, 7306.29.20.00, 7306.29.31.00, 7306.29.41.00, 7306.29.60.10, 7306.29.60.50, 7306.29.81.10, and 7306.29.81.50.

The merchandise subject to the order may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.39.00.76, 7304.39.00.80, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, 7304.59.80.25, 7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, 7304.59.80.70, 7304.59.80.80, 7305.31.40.00, 7305.31.60.90, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.90, 7306.50.50.50, and 7306.50.50.70.

While the HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce conducted this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) and 751(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Because Vietnam is a non-market economy (NME) within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, NV has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

In the Initiation Notice, Commerce notified parties of the application process by which exporters may obtain separate rate status in an NME proceeding. 6 It is Commerce's policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise subject to review in NME countries a single rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law ( de jure ) and in fact ( de facto ), with respect to exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, Commerce analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country under the test established in Sparklers, 7 as further developed by Silicon Carbide. 8 However, if Commerce determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned, then an analysis of the de jure and de facto criteria is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government control. 9 For these Preliminary Results, Commerce determines that the evidence placed on the record of this review by SSV demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government control. We have received no other separate rate applications.

Commerce's policy regarding conditional review of the Vietnam-wide entity applies to this administrative review. 10 Under this policy, the Vietnam-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or Commerce self-initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested a review of the Vietnam-wide entity in this review, the entity is not under review and the entity's rate ( i.e., 111.47 percent)  11 is not subject to change.

Background

On July 24, 2020, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of the 2018-2019 antidumping duty administrative review of PET resin from Oman. 1 On August 31, 2020, we received a case brief from DAK Americas, LLC, Indorama Ventures USA, Inc., and Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America (collectively, petitioners). On September 8, 2020, we received a rebuttal brief from OCTAL. 2

On April 24, 2020, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative reviews by 50 days. 3 On July 21, 2020, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative reviews by an additional 60 days. 4 The revised deadline for the final results of this administrative review is now January 19, 2021.

The merchandise covered by this order is PET resin having an intrinsic viscosity of at least 0.70, but not more than 0.88, deciliters per gram. The merchandise subject to this order is properly classified under subheadings 3907.60.00.30, 3907.61.0000, 3907.61.0010, 3907.61.0050, 3907.69.0000, 3907.69.0010, and 3907.69.0050 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 5 Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise covered by this order is dispositive. 6

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed in this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of issues raised is attached as the Appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on-file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on our review of the record and comments received from interested parties, we included in our calculation certain commission expenses which had been omitted from our preliminary dumping margin calculation. Additionally, after reviewing our preliminary dumping margin calculation, we determined that it was appropriate to exclude certain home market sales of samples, and to revise programming language that we added to the preliminary dumping margin calculation to account for certain items reported in multiple currencies. 7 We made no other changes to the Preliminary Results.

We are assigning the following dumping margin to the firm listed below for the period May 1, 2018 through April 30, 2019:

Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for these final results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 8 Commerce calculated importer-specific ad valorem antidumping duty assessment rates by aggregating for each importer identified for the reported sales, the total amount of dumping calculated for sales for which that importer was reported and dividing each of these amounts by the total entered value of those sales. Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review where an importer-specific assessment rate is not zero or de minimis.

For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by OCTAL for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate such unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transactions.

Consistent with its recent notice, 9 Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review in the Federal Register for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the notice, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for OCTAL is the rate listed in the table above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter was not covered in this review, a prior review, or the investigation, but the producer was covered, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 7.62 percent ad valorem, the all-others rate established in the investigation in this proceeding. 10 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant POR entries. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

On June 8, 2020, Commerce published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order drawn stainless steel sinks from the People's Republic of China (China) covering the period April 1, 2019, through March 31, 2020, with respect to 29 companies. 1 In August 2020, following a timely withdrawal request, we rescinded the review with respect to 23 of these companies. 2 Therefore, the results of this review cover the six remaining companies.

The products covered by the order include drawn stainless steel sinks from the People's Republic of China (China). Imports of subject merchandise are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7324.10.0000 and 7324.10.0010. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. 3

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is provided as an appendix to this notice.

In accordance with Commerce's policy, the China-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or Commerce self-initiates, a review of the entity. 4 Because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity in this review, the entity is not under review, and the entity's rate is not subject to change ( i.e., 76.45 percent). 5

Commerce finds that the two mandatory respondents, Jiangmen New Star Hi-Tech Enterprise Ltd. (New Star) and Zhuhai Kohler Kitchen & Bathroom Products Co., Ltd. (Kohler), have not established their eligibility for a separate rate and are considered to be part of the China-wide entity for these preliminary results. Additionally, because the following companies did not submit separate rate applications or certifications, we preliminarily determine they are ineligible for a separate rate and are part of the China-wide entity: Guangdong G-Top Import & Export Co., Ltd. (G-Top); Jiangmen Pioneer Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Pioneer); and Zhongshan Superte Kitchenware Co., Ltd. (Superte).

The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address what rate to apply to respondents who are not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for non-selected respondents that are not examined individually in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act states that the all-others rate should be calculated by averaging the weighted-average dumping margins for individually-examined respondents, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available. Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that where all rates are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available, Commerce may use “any reasonable method” for assigning a rate to non-examined respondents.

However, for these preliminary results, we have not calculated any individual rates or assigned a company-specific rate based on facts available. Therefore, consistent with our recent practice, 6 we preliminary assigned to the non-individually examined company that demonstrated its eligibility for a separate rate the most recently assigned separate rate in this proceeding ( i.e., 1.78 percent). 7

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period April 1, 2019, through March 31, 2020:

Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 8 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than seven days after the time limit for filing case briefs. 9 Parties who submit case brief or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 10 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS. 11

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically via ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 12 Hearing requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held. 13

An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline. Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 14

Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of all issues raised in the case briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless otherwise extended. 15

Upon issuance completion of the administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. 16 For the final results, if we continue to treat the following companies as part of China-wide entity, we will instruct CBP to apply an ad valorem assessment rate of 76.45 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR that were produced and/or exported by those companies: G-Top; Kohler; New Star; Pioneer; and Superte. For the company receiving a separate rate, we intend to assign an assessment rate of 1.78 percent, consistent with the methodology described above.

Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the company listed above that has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then a cash deposit rate of zero will be established for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be equal to the exporter-specific weighted-average dumping margin published of the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for China-wide entity, 76.45 percent; and (4) for all exporters of subject merchandise which are not located in China and which are not eligible for a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to Chinese exporter(s) that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(l) and 777(i)(l) of the Act.

I. Abstract

This request is for a new information collection.

NOAA's Office for Coastal Management (OCM) and its regional, state, federal, and non-profit partners have worked closely with coastal managers across the country to increase the resilience of our coastal communities, economies, and ecosystems. Per the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), OCM provides financial and technical assistance to states and territories, including that which helps its customers (coastal managers) develop hazard mitigation and climate adaptation plans that include strategies for short-term responses to immediate threats ( e.g., flooding, hurricanes) as well as long-term responses to gradual changes ( e.g., sea level rise, drought). Services are provided through outreach, training, funding, resource, and tool development.

Solutions to these resilience challenges are often complex and cross-sectoral. Therefore, coastal decision-makers regularly point to the need for more substantial, coordinated, sustained and creative funding opportunities to support these efforts. The results of an initial review of more than 200 resources that NOAA conducted in support of this effort, and informal conversations with NOAA customers and other stakeholders indicate that there is no comprehensive inventory or guide to understanding and selecting appropriate funding options or financing strategies. These findings have been further confirmed in subsequent informal discussions with coastal resilience and finance practitioners at national venues such as the National Adaptation Forum in April 2019 and Social Coast Forum in February 2020. NOAA's coastal management partners have requested support on this topic.

The financing world is one that is constantly evolving new products and retiring others. The range of funding and financing options, from grants and low-interest loans to more innovative private-public partnerships and emerging bonds, presents an ever-changing and complex array of choices. In initial internal communications and informal discussions conducted between June 2018 and February 2020, NOAA customers indicated that these opportunities and mechanisms are not well understood, and are generally inaccessible to coastal managers, particularly in small to mid-sized communities, rural areas, and tribal communities.

In many coastal communities, investment in mitigation and resilience measures remains either limited or reactive in response to a catastrophic event. While there are no data on the number of adaptations plans that have been implemented, lack of funding is a frequently cited barrier to implementation. At the same time, it has been estimated that investing in mitigation can save communities $6 for every $1 spent through mitigation grants from agencies including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Economic Development Administration (according to the National Institute of Building Sciences' October 2018 report, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: Utilities and Transportation Infrastructure). Understanding the suite of funding and financing options available at the time resilience planning is undertaken, and then incorporating financial strategies into the planning process and recommendations, will help ensure that these plans are implemented. Section 310 of the Coastal Zone Management Act allows for technical assistance and management-oriented research to develop and implement state coastal management program amendments.

NOAA is in the process of developing a needs assessment to define the types of funding, financing mechanisms, and associated resources that its state and local coastal manager customers need for coastal resilience activities and a market analysis of existing funding and financing programs and mechanisms. Simultaneously, NOAA is identifying existing resources and partnership opportunities for state and local coastal managers and NOAA's non-profit, academic, and other customers.

This request is for a set of related interviews to facilitate this research. NOAA will perform interviews with state and local coastal managers, as well as representatives from non-profit organizations, academia, the federal government, and the finance industry. The interviews will collect relevant information from interviewees on their experiences with coastal resilience funding and financing mechanisms, challenges and opportunities related to funding and financing coastal resilience, and technical support needs and opportunities that NOAA can address.

The information provided by interviewees will be synthesized into the needs assessment, which will address needs and information gaps partitioned by region, financial scale, time scale, and scope/sector. The information provided by interviewees will also be used to help inform an inventory of existing entities providing resources for resilience funding, as well as a summary of existing and emerging funding sources and financial tools and mechanisms for coastal resilience. Finally, the interviews will inform recommendations on NOAA's potential niche in addressing the identified needs and gaps.

The resulting research (and any subsequent resources or tools developed by NOAA to address identified gaps) will provide much needed information to NOAA's customers on funding and financing coastal resilience efforts, including available resources and mechanisms, best practices and strategies, real world success stories, and opportunities for technical and financial partnerships with private and public entities.

Information will be collected during structured telephone interviews.

OMB Control Number: 0648-xxxx.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal government; Federal government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 36.

Estimated Time per Response: 1.25 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 45.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA).

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Title: “Copies of Crop and Market Information Reports,” OMB Control No. 3038-0015. This is a request for an extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The information collected pursuant to this rule, 17 CFR 1.40, is in the public interest and is necessary for market surveillance. Manipulation of commodity futures prices is a violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (Act). Section 9(a)(2) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 13(a)(2)) prohibits the dissemination of false or misleading or knowingly inaccurate reports that affect or tend to affect the prices of commodities. In order to facilitate the enforcement of this provision, Commission regulation 1.40 requires that members of an exchange and FCMs provide upon request copies of any report published or given general circulation which concerns crop or market information that affects or tends to affect the price of any commodity.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 2 On November 27, 2020, the Commission published in the Federal Register notice of the proposed extension of this information collection and provided 60 days for public comment on the proposed extension, 76 FR 60810 (“60-Day Notice”). The Commission did not receive any comments on the 60-Day Notice.

Burden Statement: The respondents' burden for this collection is estimated to be as follows:

Estimated Number of Respondents: 10.

Estimated Average Burden Hours per Respondent: 0.17.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1.7 hours. 3

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

Title: Gross Collection of Exchange-Set Margins for Omnibus Accounts (OMB Control No. 3038-0026). This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: Commission Regulation 1.58 requires futures commission merchants to collect exchange-set margin for omnibus accounts on a gross, rather than a net, basis. The regulation provides that the carrying FCM need not collect margin for positions traded by a person through an omnibus account in excess of the amount that would be required if the same person, instead of trading through an omnibus account, maintained its own account with the carrying FCM. To prevent abuse of this exception to the regulation, a carrying FCM must maintain a written representation from the originating FCM or foreign broker that the particular positions held in the omnibus account are part of a hedge or spread transaction. This collection of information is necessary in order to provide documentation that can be inspected with regard to questions of proper compliance with gross margining requirements. This rule is promulgated pursuant to the Commission's rulemaking authority contained in Sections 4c, 4d, 4f, 4g and 8a of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 6c, 6d, 6f, 6g and 12a.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on November 27, 2020 (85 FR 76037) (“60-Day Notice”). The Commission did not receive any relevant comments on the 60-Day Notice.

Burden Statement: The Commission is revising its estimate of the burden due to the reduced number of futures commission merchants in the industry. The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to be as follows:

Respondents/Affected Entities: 53.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 212.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 17 hours.

Frequency of collection: On occasion.

There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

Title: The Whistleblower Provision of Section 23 of the Commodity Exchange Act (OMB Control No. 3038-0082). This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: 17 CFR 165.3(a) requires the submission of information to the Commission on a Form TCR. The Form TCR, “Tip, Complaint, or Referral,” and the instructions thereto, are designed to capture basic identifying information about a complainant and elicit sufficient information to determine whether the conduct alleged suggests a violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. 17 CFR 165.7(b)(1) requires the submission of information to the Commission on a Form WB-APP. The Form WB-APP, “Application for Award for Original Information Provided Pursuant to Section 23 of the Commodity Exchange Act,” and the instructions thereto, are designed to elicit sufficient information to determine whether and to what extent a claimant qualifies for a whistleblower award.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 2 On November 24, 2020, the Commission published in the Federal Register notice of the proposed extension of this information collection and provided 60 days for public comment on the proposed extension, 85 FR 74995 (“60-Day Notice”). The Commission received no relevant comments.

Burden Statement: The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to be as follows:

Estimated Number of Respondents: 900 per year.

Estimated Average Burden Hours per Respondent: 0.5 hour.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 450 hours.

Frequency of Collection: Once.

There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Galveston District published the Final Feasibility Report/Final Environmental Impact Statement for SNWW CIP (USACE, 2011) in March 2011, the Chief of Engineers Report (Chief's Report) was signed in July 2011, and the Record of Decision was signed in February 2012. The Congressional approval of the construction of the SNWW CIP (authorization for construction) was provided in Section 7002(1)1 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014, Public Law 113-121. The SNWW CIP's new start construction was funded in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 by the Army Civil Works Program FY 2019 Work Plan. The SNND and the USACE signed the Project Partnership Agreement for SNWW CIP on or about July 27, 2019. Additional funding for construction of the SNWW CIP was provided in the FY 2020 Work Plan.

Construction of the first usable increment of SNWW CIP, an anchorage basin, has begun. Upon completion of this anchorage basin, SNND intends to begin to levy port or harbor dues pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 2236. 33 U.S.C. 2236(a)(5)(A) requires that SNND, as the non-federal sponsor, transmit to the Secretary of the Army for public notice the proposed ordinance before the initial levy of port or harbor dues. A previous notice was published on June 23, 2020 (85 FR 37634) with a draft user fee ordinance for public comment on which several comments were received. The comments resulted in the SNND modifying the proposed levy of port or harbor dues. The revised proposed levy is stated below for public comment.

Whereas the Sabine Neches Navigation District (“Navigation District”) is the designated non-federal sponsor (“sponsor”) for the Sabine Neches Waterway Channel Improvement Project for the Sabine Neches Waterway authorized in the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (“Project”); and

Whereas the Texas Legislature implemented Senate Bill 1137 authorizing the Navigation District to serve as the sponsor for the Project and perform all necessary duties as the sponsor to satisfy its obligations as the local sponsor; and

Whereas the Project is projected to generate an additional $57 billion in gross product and 465,000 US jobs; and

Whereas the Navigation District will be responsible for funding its required cost share of the total Project as set out in the Project Partnership Agreement between the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Navigation District, including payment of the Navigation District's 40 percent share of the construction cost; and

Whereas 33 U.S.C. 2236 authorizes a non-federal interest to levy port or harbor dues on vessels and the owner of the cargo in the form of tonnage duties or fees in conjunction with a port or harbor navigation project whose usable increment of the project is complete to finance the cost, construction or maintenance of the Project; and

Whereas the first usable increment of the Project, a new anchorage basin, located on the Neches River and referenced in section VI page 16 of the March 11, 2011, Final Feasibility has been completed and benefits all vessels whose design draft exceed 20 feet; and

Whereas the levy of port or harbor dues authorized by 33 U.S.C. 2236 may be applied to all vessels comparable in size to those vessels used to justify the completed construction of a usable increment of the Project; and

Whereas the Board of Commissioners of the Navigation District has considered matters such as elapsed time of passage, safety of passengers and cargo, vessel economy of scale, under keel clearance, vessel draft, vessel squat, speed, sinkage and the cost of construction, operations, the value of the services of the vessel and cargo; and

Whereas all vessels comparable in size to those vessels used to justify the completed construction of the useable increment anchorage basin benefit from the anchorage basin as a usable increment of the Project, a User Fee as set out below reflects the benefits provided by the Project to vessels whose design draft exceeds 20 feet.

The geographical boundaries of the Navigation District include an area that is co-extensive with Jefferson County, Texas, and the Navigation District exercises jurisdiction over the adjacent waterways, the nonpublic terminals and all vessels using the Sabine Neches Waterway Channel (“Waterway”).

The Navigation District has the power and authority to regulate and fix charges for the use of the Waterway. The Navigation District is authorized to make and enforce rules and regulations to facilitate navigation and commerce, to every User. All vessels whose design draft exceeds 20 feet using the Waterway shall conform to this User Fee Ordinance (“Ordinance”), which establishes a user fee for the financing of the improvement Project (“User Fee”). All Users of the Waterway, by their use, consent to be bound by this Ordinance including these rules and regulations as they exist or may be amended from time to time.

The Board of Commissioners of the Sabine Neches Navigation District is authorized by Article 16, Section 59, of the Constitution of the State of Texas, Chapter 60 of the Texas Water Code, and the Acts of the 83rd Legislature Regular Session HB 1137 to act as the local sponsor for the Project.

Refusal or failure to comply with these rules and regulations may result in any action deemed appropriate or advisable by the Navigation District in consultation with the United States Coast Guard Captain of the Port of Port Arthur and other relevant authorities, if any. The Navigation District may employ all legal means within its power to impose penalties and collect fees including the use and recovery of liens as permitted by 33 U.S.C. 2236.

The use of the Sabine Neches Waterway constitutes an acceptance by the User of all charges, rules, and regulations published in this Ordinance. The charges, rules, and regulations published in this Ordinance apply on all cargo moving to and from terminals on the Waterway in vessels with a design draft exceeding 20 feet and shall apply to cargos transferred at all facilities and terminals on the Waterway.

A User Fee will be assessed against vessels whose design draft exceeds 20 feet and owners of all cargos transiting on vessels whose design draft exceeds 20 feet and loading or discharging at terminals or facilities on the Sabine Neches Waterway, beginning on a date 15 calendar days after final approval of this Ordinance by the Board of Commissioners of the Navigation District. The purpose of the User Fee is to finance construction costs associated with the Project. Although the User Fee is assessed against both subject vessels carrying the cargo and the owner of the cargo carried by subject vessels, the User Fee will be collected only once on each cargo loaded or unloaded onto a subject vessel but may be collected from either the subject vessel or the cargo owner. To avoid any confusion, “subject vessel” means a vessel whose design draft exceeds 20 feet.

The User Fee authorized by this resolution does not apply to (i) vessels owned, chartered, or operated by the United States Government, a foreign country, a state, or a political subdivision of a country or State, unless engaged in commercial services; (ii) vessels engaged in towing, dredging or channel maintenance activities, (iii) vessels engaged in intra-port movements; or (iv) vessels with design drafts of 20 feet or less.

For purposes of this Ordinance, “hydrocarbon” means oil, gas, ethanol, methanol, a commodity or thing made or manufactured-in whole or part-from oil or gas, and derivatives or by-products or fractions of oil or gas all regardless of their physical form and including mixtures of any or all of the above.

The User Fee authorized by this ordinance will expire on January 1, 2049, or upon final payment of all construction and construction financing costs associated with the Project, whichever occurs first.

The User Fee is assessed for services including, but not limited to, meeting the financial responsibility of acting as the local sponsor for the Project.

The User Fee will be assessed as a tonnage fee on cargo loaded or discharged through a terminal. The User Fee will be assessed as follows:

The Initial User Fee on hydrocarbon cargo is set forth below and will be identical to the schedule to be filed with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Federal Maritime Commission. The amount of the User Fee will be reviewed by the Navigation District at 12-month intervals and adjusted up, down or remain unchanged as required by the construction cost financing requirements of the Project, provided that the User Fee will not exceed the Maximum User Fee set forth below. If any change is made to the User Fee a new schedule will be filed with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Federal Maritime Commission indicating the new User Fee rate and the effective date of the rate change:

Break-bulk: Initial $0.20 per short ton; Maximum $0.35 per short ton.

Bulk: Initial $0.20 per short ton; Maximum $0.35 per short ton.

Liquid Bulk: Initial $0.20 per short ton; Maximum $0.35 per short ton.

The Initial User Fee on non-hydrocarbon cargo is set forth below and will be identical to the schedule to be filed with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Federal Maritime Commission. The amount of the User Fee will be reviewed by the Navigation District at 12-month intervals and adjusted up, down or remain unchanged as required by the construction cost financing requirements of the Project, provided that the User Fee will not exceed the Maximum User Fee set forth below. If any change is made to the User Fee a new schedule will be filed with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Federal Maritime Commission indicating the new User Fee rate and the effective date of the rate change:

Break-bulk: Initial $0.02 per short ton; Maximum $0.035 per short ton.

Bulk: Initial $0.02 per short ton; Maximum $0.035 per short ton.

Liquid Bulk: Initial $0.02 per short ton; Maximum $0.035 per short ton.

The Navigation District will designate an officer or authorized representative to receive tonnage certificates and cargo manifests from vessels which may be subject to the levy of port or harbor dues, export declarations from terminal operators, and such other documents as the non-Federal interest may by law, regulation, or ordinance require for the imposition, computation, and collection of port or harbor dues. Terminal operators having custody of any cargo to be loaded on board a vessel while the vessel is on the Waterway shall, within forty-eight hours before departure of that vessel, deliver to the appropriate appointed authorized representative an export declaration specifying the cargo to be loaded on board each such vessel. Upon the arrival of a vessel on the Waterway, which the vessel may be subject to the levy of port or harbor dues under this Ordinance, the master of that vessel shall, within forty-eight hours after arrival and before any cargo is unloaded from that vessel, deliver to the appropriate appointed authorized representative a tonnage certificate for the vessel and a manifest of the cargo aboard that vessel or, if the vessel is in ballast, a declaration to that effect. The Navigation District may enter into memoranda of understanding with terminal operators or others individually or collectively to facilitate the efficacious provision of records and to modify these requirements as deemed appropriate by the Navigation District.

The vessel and owner of the cargo are each jointly responsible for payment of the entire User Fee to a representative authorized and designated by the Navigation District. Subject to procedures memorialized in memoranda of understanding, if applicable, invoices for payment of the User Fee will be delivered to vessels and cargo owners from whom User Fees are due or delivered to their respective agents. Those invoices will contain payment instructions. The Navigation District will not make any duplicate collection of the User Fee.

On the 15th of the month following transfer of the cargo either to or from a terminal on the Waterway, the terminal involved will forward to the Navigation District any funds paid to the terminal by the vessel or the owner of the cargo toward the User Fees upon cargo that crossed the terminal's dock for the preceding month, along with a verified statement of the amount owed for the incurred User Fees for the preceding month. Any vessel or cargo owner who fails to pay the full User Fee shall be identified on the monthly verified statement. This verified statement will be submitted to the Navigation District on a form promulgated by the Navigation District and the accuracy of the information provided on the form shall be certified under penalties of perjury.

Terminals shall keep records of the amounts owed and paid for the User Fee for a period of three years and make them available for audit by the Navigation District. The data and fees paid are subject to audit by the Navigation District or other authorities and the terminal will cooperate with the Navigation District's audit.

All users and owners of private facilities and terminals shall be required to permit Navigation District representatives reasonable access to manifests of cargo, receiving reports and all other documents necessary to audit and ascertain the correctness of User Fees remitted or to be collected.

The procedures outlined in the foregoing Provision of Records and Payment Procedure sections of the Ordinance may be modified by the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between an individual terminal operator and the Navigation District. In such case, the terms of the MOU shall control the obligations of the terminal operator under the Provisions of Records and Payment Procedure sections of this Ordinance.

All fees are due and payable upon the 15th of the month following the use of the Waterway. Any User Fee incurred, which is unpaid thirty (30) days from that date, shall be deemed to be delinquent.

Any amount that is unpaid on or after thirty (30) days from the date due will be assessed an interest charge of twelve percent (12%) per annum of the amount of the fee due, and shall be due and owing from the date of delinquency until paid. Such interest charges shall be calculated on a per annum basis of three hundred sixty-five (365) days.

Additionally, should it become necessary for the Navigation District to file suit to collect any delinquent User Fees or to enforce any provision of this Ordinance, the party obligated herein to pay such User Fees under this section or the party against whom enforcement of the User Fee is sought consents to such suit being filed in the appropriate Federal District Court in Jefferson County, Texas. The Navigation District shall be entitled to seek all relief permitted by 33 U.S.C. 2236.

If any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.

Pursuant to § 60.075(c) of the Texas Water Code, a descriptive caption stating the purpose of this Ordinance and penalty for its violation will be published for a ten (10) day period following the passage in every issue of the Beaumont Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation in the Navigation District.

This User Fee Ordinance was passed at a Regular Meeting of the Commissioners of the Sabine Neches Navigation District.

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISI) Program Application.

OMB Control Number: 1840-0798.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 120.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 9,000.

Abstract: This program provides grants and related assistance to Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institutions to enable such institutions to improve and expand their capacity to serve Asian Americans and Native American Pacific Islanders and low-income individuals. The currently approved information collection (1840-0798) includes the application used to apply for grants under Part A. This revision proposes to add a similar application to be used to apply for grants under Part F.

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/commission-actions.

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before March 1, 2021. Write “Flo Health, Inc.; File No. 192 3133” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the https://www.regulations.gov website.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the agency's heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. We strongly encourage you to submit your comments online through the https://www.regulations.gov website.

If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Flo Health, Inc.; File No. 192 3133” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580; or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible website at https://www.regulations.gov, you are solely responsible for making sure your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not include sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure your comment does not include sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided by Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including in particular competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on the https://www.regulations.gov website—as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment from that website, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.

Visit the FTC website at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing the proposed settlement. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding, as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before March 1, 2021. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.

The Federal Trade Commission (the “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Flo Health, Inc. (“Respondent” or “Flo Health”).

The proposed consent order (“Proposed Order”) has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement, along with any comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the Proposed Order.

This matter involves Flo Health, a technology start-up that develops and distributes a mobile application called the Flo Period & Ovulation Tracker (“App”), which collects and stores menstruation and fertility information about millions of users worldwide. Respondent has been a participant in the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (“Privacy Shield”) and the U.S.-Swiss Privacy Shield framework since August 12, 2018.

The Commission's proposed complaint alleges that Flo Health deceived consumers, in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, in seven ways:

• First, the complaint alleges that Flo Health represented that it would not disclose “information regarding . . . marked cycles, pregnancy, symptoms, notes . . .” to any third parties, or disclose “any data related to health” to particular third parties. In fact, Flo Health disclosed custom app events—records of individual users' interactions with various features of the App, which conveyed identifying information about App users' menstrual cycles, fertility, and pregnancies—to various third-party marketing and analytics firms.

• Second, the complaint alleges that Flo Health represented that it would only disclose device identifiers or personal data “like” device identifiers to certain third parties. In fact, in addition to disclosing device and advertising identifiers, Flo Health also disclosed custom app events conveying health information to those parties.

• Third, the complaint alleges that Flo Health represented that third parties would not use Flo App users' personal information “for any purpose except to provide services in connection with the App.” In fact, Flo Health agreed to terms with multiple third parties that permitted these third parties to use Flo App users' personal health information for the third parties' own purposes, including for advertising and product improvement. Indeed, from June 2016 to February 2019, one of the third parties (Facebook, Inc.) used Flo App users' personal health information for its own purposes, including its own research and product development.

• Counts IV through VII allege misrepresentations of compliance with the Privacy Shield Principles of Notice (Count IV), Choice (Count V), Accountability for Onward Transfers (Count VI), and Purpose Limitation (Count VII). Count IV alleges that Flo Health represented compliance with the Privacy Shield frameworks, when in fact it did not give Flo App users notice about to whom their data would be disclosed and for what purposes. Count V alleges that Flo Health disclosed this information without providing Flo App users with choice with respect to these disclosures or the purposes for which the data could be processed ( e.g., Facebook's advertising). Count VI alleges that Flo Health failed to limit by contract the third parties' use of users' health data or require by contract the third parties' compliance with the Privacy Shield principles. And Count VII alleges that Flo Health processed users' health data in a manner incompatible with the purposes for which it had been collected because Flo disclosed the data to third parties under contracts permitting them to use the data for their own purposes.

The Proposed Order contains injunctive provisions addressing the alleged deceptive conduct. Part I prohibits Flo Health from making false or deceptive statements regarding: (1) The purposes for which Flo Health or any entity to whom it discloses Covered Information ( i.e., personal information, including identifiable health information) collects, maintains, uses, or discloses such information; (2) the extent to which consumers may exercise control over Flo Health's access, collection, maintenance, use, disclosure, or deletion of Covered Information; (3) the extent to which Flo Health complies with any privacy, security, or compliance program, including the Privacy Shield; and (4) the extent to which Flo Health collects, maintains, uses, discloses, deletes, or permits or denies access to any Covered Information, or the extent to which Flo Health protects the availability, confidentiality, or integrity of Covered Information.

Part II of the Proposed Order requires Flo Health to ask any “Third Party” ( i.e., any party other than Flo Health, its service providers, or subcontractors) that has received “Health Information” about “Covered App Users” to destroy such information. Part III of the Proposed Order requires that Flo provide notice to users and the public that it shared certain information about users' periods and pregnancies with the data analytics divisions (but not the social media divisions) of a number of third parties, including Facebook, Flurry, Fabric, and Google. Part IV of the Proposed Order requires that, before disclosing any consumer's health information to a third party, Flo Health must provide notice and obtain express affirmative consent, including informing the user of the categories of information to be disclosed, the identities of the third parties, and how the information will be used.

Part V of the Proposed Order requires an outside “Compliance Review,” conducted within 180 days after entry of the Proposed Order, to verify any attestations and assertions Flo Health made pursuant to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield or the U.S.-Swiss Privacy Shield framework. Part VI of the Proposed Order requires Flo Health to cooperate with the Compliance Reviewer and Part VII requires that a senior manager of Flo Health certify Flo Health's compliance with the Proposed Order.

Part VIII of the Proposed Order requires notification of the Commission following any “Covered Incident,” which includes any incident in which Flo Health disclosed individually identifiable Health Information from or about a consumer to a third party without first receiving the consumer's affirmative express consent.

Parts IX through XII of the Proposed Order are reporting and compliance provisions, which include recordkeeping requirements and provisions requiring Flo Health to provide information or documents necessary for the Commission to monitor compliance with the Proposed Order. Part XIII states that the Proposed Order will remain in effect for twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.

The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the Proposed Order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or Proposed Order, or to modify in any way the Proposed Order's terms.

By direction of the Commission, Commissioners Chopra and Slaughter concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Despite representing that it would not share its users' health details with anyone, Flo Health, Inc. (“Flo”) allegedly did so. As charged in the complaint, Flo coded app events, a mechanism by which app developers use third-party analytics to track how users use their apps, with words like “Pregnancy”, and then shared them with analytics divisions of third parties including Facebook and Google. 1 I support this complaint and consent, which sends an important message about the care app developers must take to level with users about how they share user data.

I write to respond to the vision my colleagues articulate about when the Commission should use consumer notice in our data security and privacy enforcement program.

The order we place on the public record for comment requires Flo to seek deletion of data it improperly shared with third parties; obtain users' affirmative express consent before sharing their health information with third parties; report to the Commission future unauthorized disclosures; obtain an outside assessment of its privacy practices; and provide the following notice to consumers:

In championing the consumer notice remedy in their concurring statement, Commissioners Chopra and Slaughter propose that the Commission no longer assess each case on its particular merits when determining when to order consumer notice. 3 Rather, they assert “the Commission should presumptively seek notice provisions in privacy and data security matters, especially in matters that do not include redress for victims.”  4 I disagree with that approach.

The Commission has used notice requirements to prevent ongoing harm to consumers and to enable them to remediate the effects of harm suffered. To that end, the Commission has required consumer notice in cases where:

• Consumers' health or safety is at risk;  5

• consumers are subject to recurring charges that they may be unaware of;  6

• consumers have a financial or legal interest that needs to be protected;  7

• notice is necessary to prevent the ongoing dissemination of deceptive information;  8 or

• consumers on their own would not have been able to discover or determine the illegal behavior and would not know to take remedial action. 9

Using these guidelines, the Commission has found consumer notice appropriate in some privacy and data security cases as well, such as when there was a need to inform consumers about ongoing data collection and sharing  10 or to correct a deceptive data breach notification. 11 On the data security front, where it can be critical that consumers know sensitive information has been breached or exposed, a panoply of state breach notification laws require notice to consumers.

When warranted, notice to consumers can be an important tool. But neither the Commission, nor any of the 50 states with data breach notification laws, have taken the position of requiring consumer notice for the mere sake of the notice itself.

Commissioners Chopra and Slaughter stress that notice is warranted especially where redress is not paid to consumers. How consumer notice substitutes for redress, an equitable mechanism to return to consumers what they have lost, is not clear. Nor is it clear what, if anything, limits this approach to notice to data security and privacy cases. To the extent notice is intended as a penalty, I disagree. My view is that we should target notice as a means to help consumers take action to protect themselves. Contacting consumers when there is no remedial action that they can take runs the risk of undermining consumer trust and needlessly overwhelming consumers. 12

Today, the FTC is ordering Flo Health, Inc. (“Flo”) to notify consumers that it has been charged with sharing consumers' menstruation and fertility information without their consent. This proposed settlement is a change for the FTC, which has never before ordered notice of a privacy action. We commend the agency's staff for securing this relief and for addressing Flo's concerning practices.

While we are pleased to see this change, we are disappointed that the Commission is not using all of its tools to hold accountable those who abuse and misuse personal data. We believe that Flo's conduct violated the Health Breach Notification Rule, yet the Commission's proposed complaint fails to include this allegation. The rule helps ensure that consumers are informed when their data is misused, and firms like Flo should not be ignoring it.

Flo Health is the developer of a popular mobile app that collects menstruation and fertility information from millions of users worldwide. As detailed in the Commission's complaint, Flo promised these users that it would not disclose their sensitive information to third parties, but did so anyway—sharing it with Facebook, Google, and others. 1 This alleged conduct broke user trust, and it broke the law.

In addition to requiring Flo to improve its privacy practices, the FTC's proposed order directs Flo to notify its users of this serious breach. Notice confers a number of benefits in cases like this one. Consumers deserve to know when a company made false privacy promises, so they can modify their usage or switch services. Notice also informs how consumers review a service, and whether they will recommend it to others. Finally, notice accords consumers the dignity of knowing what happened. For all these reasons, the Commission should presumptively seek notice provisions in privacy and data security matters, especially in matters that do not include redress for victims. 2

The Commission must also ensure it is vigorously enforcing the laws on the books. Congress has entrusted the FTC with promulgating and enforcing the Health Breach Notification Rule, one of only a handful of federal privacy laws protecting consumers. The rule requires vendors of unsecured health information, including mobile health apps, to notify users and the FTC if there has been an unauthorized disclosure. Although the FTC has advised mobile health apps to examine their obligations under the rule, 3 including through the use of an interactive tool, 4 the FTC has never brought an action to enforce it. 5

In our view, the FTC should have charged Flo with violating the Health Breach Notification Rule. Under the rule, Flo was obligated to notify its users after it allegedly shared their health information with Facebook, Google, and others without their authorization. 6 Flo did not do so, making the company liable under the rule. 7

The Health Breach Notification Rule was first issued more than a decade ago, but the explosion in connected health apps make its requirements more important than ever. While we would prefer to see substantive limits on firms' ability to collect and monetize our personal information, the rule at least ensures that services like Flo need to come clean when they experience privacy or security breaches. Over time, this may induce firms to take greater care in collecting and monetizing our most sensitive information.

We are pleased to see a notice provision in today's proposed order, but there is much more the FTC can do to protect consumers' data, and hold accountable those who abuse it. Where Congress has given us rulemaking authority, we should use it. 8 And where we have rules already on the books, we should enforce them. Here, the Health Breach Notification Rule will have its intended effect only if the FTC is willing to enforce it.

We believe enforcing the rule was warranted here, and we respectfully dissent from the Commission's failure to do so. Particularly as we seek more authority from Congress in the privacy space, it is critical we demonstrate we are prepared to use the authorities we already have.

This Order prohibits the introduction into the United States of any aircraft passenger departing from any foreign country unless the passenger: (1) Has a negative pre-departure test result for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (Qualifying Test); or (2) written or electronic documentation of recovery from COVID-19 after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in the form of a positive viral test result and a letter from a licensed health care provider or public health official stating that the passenger has been cleared for travel (Documentation of Recovery).

This Order supersedes the previous Order signed by the CDC Director on January 12, 2021. This Order further clarifies the exemption categories for federal law enforcement and U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) personnel observing DOD precautions to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 during travel. This Order also replaces the previous language concerning the ability of airlines and aircraft operators to request specific waivers and replaces it with a limited humanitarian exemption category allowing individuals and organizations to request an exemption. To be eligible for this limited humanitarian exemption, the individual or organization must demonstrate both: (1) Exigent circumstances where emergency travel is required to preserve health and safety ( e.g., emergency medical evacuations); and (2) that predeparture testing cannot be accessed or completed before travel. No changes were made to the Passenger Attestation.

This Order constitutes a controlled free pratique to any airline or other aircraft operator with an aircraft arriving into the United States. Pursuant to this controlled free pratique, the airline or other aircraft operator must comply with the conditions outlined in the Order.

A copy of the Order is provided below. A copy of the signed Order and Passenger Attestation can be found at https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/fr-proof-negative-test.html.

Pursuant to 42 CFR 71.20 and as set forth in greater detail below, this Notice and Order prohibit the introduction into the United States of any aircraft passenger departing from any foreign country unless the passenger: (1) Has a negative pre-departure test result for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (Qualifying Test); or (2) written or electronic documentation of recovery from COVID-19 after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in the form of a positive viral test result and a letter from a licensed health care provider or public health official stating that the passenger has been cleared for travel (Documentation of Recovery).

The negative pre-departure test must be a viral test that was conducted on a specimen collected during the 3 days preceding the flight's departure from a foreign country (Qualifying Test). Alternatively, if the passenger has recovered from COVID-19, the passenger may instead travel with written or electronic documentation of a positive viral test result that confirms previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a letter from a licensed health care provider or public health official stating that the passenger has been cleared for travel (Documentation of Recovery). A passenger must retain written or electronic documentation reflecting the negative Qualifying Test result or Documentation of Recovery presented to the airline or other aircraft operator. A passenger must also produce such Qualifying Test result or Documentation of Recovery upon request to any U.S. government official or a cooperating state or local public health authority.

Pursuant to 42 CFR 71.31(b) and as set forth in greater detail below, this Notice and Order constitute a controlled free pratique to any airline or other aircraft operator with an aircraft arriving into the United States. Pursuant to this controlled free pratique, the airline or other aircraft operator must comply with the following conditions to receive permission for the aircraft to enter and disembark passengers in the United States:

• Airline or other aircraft operator must verify that every passenger—2 years of age or older—onboard the aircraft has attested to receiving a negative Qualifying Test result or to having recovered from COVID-19 after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and being cleared to travel by a licensed health care provider or public health official.

• Airline or other aircraft operator must confirm that every passenger onboard the aircraft has documentation of a negative Qualifying Test result or Documentation of Recovery from COVID-19.

This Order shall be interpreted and implemented to achieve the following paramount objectives:

• Preservation of human life;

• Preventing the further introduction, transmission, and spread of the virus that causes COVID-19 into the United States, including new virus variants;

• Preserving the health and safety of crew members, passengers, airport personnel, and communities; and

• Preserving hospital, healthcare, and emergency response resources within the United States.

Aircraft shall have the same definition as under 42 U.S.C. 40102(a)(6). “Aircraft” includes, but is not limited to, commercial, general aviation, and private aircraft destined for the United States from a foreign country.

Aircraft Operator means an individual or organization causing or authorizing the operation of an aircraft.

Airline shall have the same definition as under 42 CFR71.1(b).

Attest/Attestation means having completed the attestation in Attachment A. Such attestation may be completed in written or electronic form. The attestation is a statement, writing, entry, or other representation under 18 U.S.C. 1001. 2

Confirm that every passenger onboard the aircraft has documentation reflecting a negative Qualifying Test result means confirmation that:

Confirm that a passenger alternatively has written or electronic documentation of recovery from COVID- 19 means confirmation that:

Foreign country means anywhere that is not a state, territory, or possession of the United States.

Negative Pre-departure Test Result for COVID-19 or negative Qualifying Test result means documentation of a negative COVID-19 test taken within the 3 days preceding a flight's departure. Such documentation may be in paper or electronic format as required by this Order. Testing must be performed using a viral test. The documentation must also include sufficient verification information—such as the name and contact information for the laboratory or healthcare personnel who performed the test.

Viral test means a viral detection test for current infection ( i.e., a nucleic acid amplification test or a viral antigen test) approved or authorized by the relevant national authority for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

United States has the same meaning as “State” and “U.S. Territory” in 42 CFR 71.1(b).

The following categories of individuals and organizations are exempt from the requirements of this Order:

• Crew members of airlines or other aircraft operators provided that they follow industry standard protocols for the prevention of COVID-19 as set forth in relevant Safety Alerts for Operators (SAFOs) issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 5

• Airlines or other aircraft operators transporting passengers with COVID-19 pursuant to CDC authorization and in accordance with CDC guidance. 6

• Federal law enforcement personnel on official orders who are traveling for the purpose of carrying out a law enforcement function, provided they are covered under an occupational health and safety program in accordance with CDC guidance. Those traveling for training or other business purposes remain subject to the requirements of this Order.

• U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) personnel, including military personnel and civilian employees, dependents, contractors (including whole aircraft charter operators), and other U.S. government employees when traveling on DOD assets, provided that such individuals are under competent military or U.S. government travel orders and observing DOD precautions to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 as set forth in Force Protection Guidance Supplement 14—Department of Defense Guidance for Personnel Traveling During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic (December 29, 2020) including its testing guidance.

• Individuals and organizations for which the issuance of a humanitarian exemption is necessary based on both (1) exigent circumstances where emergency travel is required to preserve health and safety ( e.g., emergency medical evacuations) and (2) where pre-departure testing cannot be accessed or completed before travel. Additional conditions may be placed on those granted such exemptions, including but not limited to, observing precautions during travel, providing consent to post-arrival testing, and/or self-quarantine after arrival in the United States, as may be directed by federal, state, territorial, tribal or local public health authorities to reduce the risk of transmission or spread.

The COVID-19 pandemic has spread throughout the world. Individuals who travel may be at risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 before, during, and after travel. This could result in U.S.-bound travelers further spreading the virus to others during travel, upon arrival in the United States, and at their destinations.

Over the last few weeks, the United Kingdom (UK) has faced a rapid increase in COVID-19 cases in South East England, leading to enhanced epidemiological and virological investigations. On December 14, 2020, Public Health England announced that a new variant of SARS-CoV-2 had been identified across the southeast of England. 7 Preliminary analysis in the UK suggests that this SARS-CoV-2 variant may be more transmissible than previously circulating variants, with an estimated potential to increase the reproductive number (R 0 ) by 0.4-0.7 or greater with an estimated increased transmissibility of up to 70 percent. 8

On December 19, 2020, in response to the emergence of the UK variant, the countries comprising the UK announced stricter measures to be applied from December 20 and over the coming weeks, with affected areas entering a `Tier 4' level with movement restrictions within and between more and less heavily affected areas. These measures have included recommendations for residents of the most affected areas to restrict movements and travel, including international travel, outside of these areas. The government of Scotland announced a travel ban between Scotland and the rest of the UK. In addition, the Netherlands issued a travel ban from the UK effective through January 1, 2021, and Belgium temporarily halted flight and train travel from the UK. Other countries took similar measures to restrict travel from the UK.

A second new variant of SARS-CoV-2 was reported in the Republic of South Africa (RSA) on December 18, 2020, that also appears to spread more rapidly than earlier variants of the virus. The RSA variant is distinct from the UK variant but shares a mutation in the spike protein that appears to increase transmissibility. Since being identified, the new variant has spread inland from coastal regions of RSA and has become the predominant variant in some areas of the country.

During December 21-26, 2020, several countries implemented restrictions on travel from South Africa, including China, El Salvador, Germany, Guatemala, Israel, Panama, Sudan, Switzerland, Turkey, and the UK. The Netherlands imposed a ban on travel from RSA on December 21 but lifted the ban for both the UK and RSA on December 23, stating that travelers will instead need to present a negative COVID-19 test result obtained within 72 hours of their scheduled arrival in the Netherlands, followed by 10 days of self-quarantine. On December 28, Japan imposed a ban on entry of all foreign nationals through the end of January 2021. On December 28, the Government of South Africa announced new restrictions on businesses and public movement. As of January 7, 2021, Canada requires air passengers 5 years of age or older to test negative for COVID-19 before arrival. On January 8, the United Kingdom announced a pre-departure testing requirement for all inbound international travelers with limited exceptions; a 10-day post-arrival quarantine will still be required.

On December 25, 2020, CDC issued an Order requiring proof of a negative Qualifying Test result for all airline passengers arriving from the UK to the United States. Since then, cases of the UK and RSA variants have been discovered in four Canadian provinces, including in individuals with no travel history indicating spread in Canada. The UK variant has also been found in at least 50 countries and the RSA variant has also been detected in at least 15 countries. The first case of the UK variant in the United States was found in Colorado on December 29, in an individual with no known travel history. On December 30, a second case was reported in California. Since then, the UK variant strain has accounted for 144 cases in 20 U.S. states. Another new variant strain of concern initially detected in South America in March 2020 has been detected in at least 19 countries on 5 continents through late December and has mutations in the spike protein that raise concerns of increased infectivity.

While it is known and expected that viruses constantly change through mutation leading to the emergence of new variants, these new variants have emerged at a time when numbers of new cases in the United States have continued to increase at alarming rates. Additional new virus variants are also likely to emerge as the virus continues to evolve and mutate. Accordingly, further action is needed to help mitigate the spread of these and other new virus variants into the United States.

Based on increased transmissibility and spread of these new variants of SARS-CoV-2, and to reduce introduction and spread of these and future SARS-CoV-2 variants into the United States, expanding current UK pre-departure testing requirements to all foreign countries and U.S.-bound passengers is warranted. This approach to testing-based risk assessment has been addressed in CDC guidance and the Runway to Recovery guidance jointly issued by the Departments of Transportation, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services. 9 Testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection is a proactive approach and not dependent on the infecting strain. Approximately 120 countries now use testing in some form to monitor risk and control introduction and spread. With case counts and deaths due to COVID-19 continuing to increase around the globe and the high proportion of infected people with asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic infections, the United States must take a dual approach to combatting the virus. This means concurrently mitigating and slowing the introduction and spread of SARS-CoV-2 and controlling transmission within U.S. communities that are currently being overwhelmed by a surge in infections, hospitalizations, and deaths.

Pre-departure testing may detect travelers infected with SARS-CoV-2 before they initiate their travel. CDC recommends viral testing and receipt of results 1-3 days  10 before departure for international travelers, particularly those traveling long distances or passing through transportation hubs such as airports where social distancing may be challenging. CDC modeling indicates that pre-departure testing is most effective when combined with self-monitoring. 11 Testing before departure results in the greatest reduction of transmission risk during travel when the specimen is collected close to the time of departure. Earlier testing ( i.e., more than 3 days before travel) provides little benefit beyond what self-monitoring alone can provide.

For persons previously diagnosed with COVID-19 who remain asymptomatic after recovery, CDC does not recommended retesting within 3 months after the date of symptom onset (or the date of first positive viral diagnostic test if their infection was asymptomatic) for the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. 12 Persons who develop any symptoms of COVID-19 during this time period should not travel and seek care for testing and evaluation. This guidance may be updated as additional information about people who have recovered from COVID-19 becomes available.

Pre-departure testing does not eliminate all risk. However, when pre-departure testing is combined with other measures such as self-monitoring for symptoms of COVID-19, wearing masks, social distancing, and hand hygiene, it can make travel safer by reducing spread on conveyances, in transportation hubs, and at destinations. For international air travelers and others with higher risk of exposure, CDC additionally recommends a post-arrival test 3-5 days after arrival at destination, combined with self-monitoring and a 7-day period of staying home (or in a comparable location such as a hotel room) to further reduce the risk of translocating the virus into destination communities. 13

As cases of COVID-19 continue to rise across the globe and travel volume increases, routine pre-departure testing of all U.S.-bound aircraft passengers is needed not only to reduce introduction of the two known SARS-CoV-2 variants from UK and RSA, but also future variants that might be more transmissible and cause more severe illness.

For these reasons, I hereby determine that passengers covered by this Order are at risk of transmitting the new SARS-CoV-2 virus variants or other potential variants and that requiring such passengers to demonstrate either negative COVID-19 test results or recovery from COVID-19 after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection is needed as a public health measure to protect the health of fellow travelers and U.S. communities.

Any airline or other aircraft operator with passengers arriving into the United States from a foreign country, for each passenger onboard the aircraft arriving into the United States, shall—

a. Verify that each passenger has attested to having received either a negative Qualifying Test result or to recovery from COVID-19 after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and clearance to travel. Airlines or other aircraft operators must retain a copy of each passenger attestation for 2 years. The attestation is attached to this order as Attachment A.

b. Confirm that each passenger aged 2 years or older has documentation of a negative Qualifying Test result or Documentation of Recovery from COVID-19.

c. Not board any passenger without verifying the attestation and confirming the documentation as set forth in 1.a-b.

Any airline or other aircraft operator that fails to comply with section 1, “Requirement for Airlines & Other Aircraft Operators,” may be subject to criminal penalties under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. 271 and 42 CFR 71.2, in conjunction with 18 U.S.C. 3559 and 3571.

Any aircraft passenger departing from any foreign country with a destination in the United States shall—

(a) Provide an attestation to the CDC, through the airline or other aircraft operator, of having received a negative Qualifying Test result or of recovery from COVID-19 after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and clearance to travel. The attestation is attached to this order as Attachment A. Unless otherwise permitted by law, a parent or other authorized individual should attest on behalf of a passenger aged 2 to 17 years. An authorized individual may attest on behalf to any passenger who is unable to attest on his or her own behalf ( e.g., by reason of physical or mental impairment).

(b) Retain a copy of the negative Qualifying Test result or Documentation of Recovery from COVID-19 in his/her possession and present it for inspection to the airline and upon request by an agent of the U.S. government or a cooperating state or local public health authority.

Any passenger who fails to comply with the requirements of section 2, “Requirements for Aircraft Passengers,” may be subject to criminal penalties under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. 271 and 42 CFR71.2, in conjunction with 18 U.S.C. 3559 and 3571. Willfully giving false or misleading information to the government may result in criminal penalties under, inter alia, 18 U.S.C. 1001.

CDC may modify this Order by an updated publication in the Federal Register or by posting an advisory to follow at www.cdc.gov.

This Order shall be enforceable through the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3559, 3571; 42 U.S.C. 243, 268, 271; and 42 CFR71.2.

This Order shall enter into effect on January 26, 2021 and shall remain in effect until the earliest of (1) the expiration of the Secretary of Health and Human Services' declaration that COVID-19 constitutes a public health emergency; (2) the CDC Director rescinds or modifies the order based on specific public health or other considerations; or (3) December 31, 2021.

The authority for these orders is Sections 361 and 365 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264) and 42 CFR 71.20 & 71.31(b).

Matters to be Considered: The agenda will include discussions on the following dose reconstruction program quality management and assurance activities: Dose reconstruction cases under review from Set 28, possibly including cases involving, Rocky Flats Plant (RFP), Hanford, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Mound, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Savannah River Site (SRS), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (X-10), and Y-12 Plant. Dose reconstruction cases under review from Sets 14 through 21, possibly including cases involving, Uranium Mill in Monticello, GE Vallecitos, and Texas City Chemicals; and Tracking of decision points requiring professional judgement (time permitting). Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to the OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

5. Assess information collection costs.

National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) (OMB Control No. 0920-0234, Exp. 05/31/2022)—Revision—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) was conducted intermittently from 1973 through 1985, and annually since 1989. The survey is conducted under authority of Section 306 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 242k).

NAMCS is part of the ambulatory care component of the National Health Care Surveys (NHCS), a family of provider-based surveys that capture health care utilization from a variety of settings, including hospital in-patient and long-term care facilities. NCHS surveys of health care providers include NAMCS, the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) (OMB Control No. 0920-0278, Exp. 09/30/2023), the National Hospital Care Survey (OMB Control No. 0920-0212, Exp. 03/31/2022), and National Post-acute and Long-term Care Study (OMB Control No. 0920-0943, Exp. 09/30/2023).

An overarching purpose of NAMCS is to meet the needs and demands for statistical information about the provision of ambulatory medical care services in the United States; this fulfills one of NCHS missions, to monitor the nation's health. In addition, NAMCS provides ambulatory medical care data to study: (1) The performance of the U.S. health care system, (2) care for the rapidly aging population, (3) changes in services such as health insurance coverage change, (4) the introduction of new medical technologies, and (5) the use of electronic health records (EHRs). Ongoing societal changes have led to considerable diversification in the organization, financing, and technological delivery of ambulatory medical care. This diversification is evidenced by the proliferation of insurance and benefit alternatives for individuals, the development of new forms of physician group practices and practice arrangements (such as office-based practices owned by hospitals), and growth in the number of alternative sites of care.

Ambulatory services are rendered in a wide variety of settings, including physician offices and hospital outpatient and emergency departments. Since more than 65% of ambulatory medical care visits occur in physician offices, NAMCS provides data on the majority of ambulatory medical care services.

In addition to health care provided in physician offices and outpatient and emergency departments, community health centers (CHCs) play an important role in the health care community by providing care to people who might not be able to afford it, otherwise. CHCs are local, non-profit, community-owned health care settings, which serve approximately 28 million individuals throughout the United States.

This revision seeks approval to adjust the CHC sample size. In 2021, the sample size will be reduced to 50 CHCs, and in 2022 allocated funds will cover a sample size of 110 CHCs. In 2023 the sample size will increase to 115 CHCs. There will be no modification to the office-based physician sample. In the 2021 survey year we will include the supplemental sample of physicians from which visit data are collected through submission of EHRs with the approved 2019 sample size, and for subsequent survey years when deemed necessary. The annualized 2021-2023 NAMCS sample size is projected to be 6,000 office-based physicians and 92 CHCs. Questions on the traditional office-base physician survey will be modified for clarification and to keep current with medical practice and terminology. In 2020 we are also seeking to include the potential for experiments involving physician incentives for some office-based physicians. In 2021, data collection for CHCs will transition from manual abstraction to be sent through EHRs. A set-up fee will be allotted to sampled CHCs to offset the cost of this new data collection method. With this transition, a new CHC facility interview will be implemented and personally identifiable information (PII) will be collected from both the CHCs, and physicians who submit EHR data. For both the traditional office-based physicians and CHCs, we will continue COVID-19 questions in 2021 and for subsequent data years where information is pertinent. We will also begin to conduct methodological work to improve upon the survey. Estimated annualized burden is 9,272 hours.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Disclosure Requirement for the In-Office Ancillary Services Exception; Use: Section 6003 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) established a new disclosure requirement that a physician must perform for certain imaging services to meet the in-office ancillary services exception to the prohibition of the physician self-referral law. This section of the ACA amended section 1877(b)(2) of the Act by adding a requirement that the referring physician informs the patient, at the time of the referral and in writing, that the patient may receive the imaging service from another supplier.

Physicians who provide certain imaging services (MRI, CT, and PET) under the in-office ancillary services exception to the physician self-referral prohibition are required to provide the disclosure notice as well as the list of other imaging suppliers to the patient. The patient will then be able to use the disclosure notice and list of suppliers in making an informed decision about his or her course of care for the imaging service.

CMS would use the collected information for enforcement purposes. Specifically, if we were investigating the referrals of a physician providing advanced imaging services under the in- office ancillary services exception, we would review the written disclosure in order to determine if it satisfied the requirement. Form Number: CMS-10332 (OMB control number: 0938-1133); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Private Sector, Business or other for-profits, Not-for-profits institutions; Number of Respondents: 2,239; Total Annual Responses: 989,971; Total Annual Hours: 18,694. (For questions regarding this collection contact Laura Dash at 410-786-8623.)

The ACCV provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of HHS on policy, program development, and other issues related to implementation of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) and concerning other matters as described under section 2119 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-19).

Since priorities dictate meeting times, be advised that times and agenda items are subject to change. Refer to the ACCV website listed above for any meeting updates that may occur. For CY 2021 meetings, agenda items may include, but are not limited to updates from the Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Department of Justice, Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy (HHS), Immunization Safety Office (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (National Institutes of Health) and Center for Biologics, Evaluation and Research (Food and Drug Administration). Refer to the ACCV website listed above for all current and updated information concerning the CY 2021 ACCV meetings, including draft agendas and meeting materials that will be posted 5 calendar days before the meeting(s).

Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments. Public participants may submit written statements in advance of the scheduled meeting(s). Oral comments will be honored in the order they are requested and may be limited as time allows. Requests to submit a written statement or make oral comments to ACCV should be sent to Annie Herzog using the contact information above at least 5 business days before the meeting date(s).

Individuals who need special assistance or another reasonable accommodation should notify Annie Herzog using the contact information listed above at least 10 business days before the meeting(s) they wish to attend.

If an in-person meeting is held, it will occur in a federal government building and all attendees must go through a security check to enter. Non-U.S. Citizen attendees must notify HRSA of their planned attendance to an in-person meeting at least 20 business days prior to the meeting in order to facilitate their entry into the building. All attendees are required to present government-issued identification prior to entry.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Geneva Historical Society, Geneva, NY, that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects and objects of cultural patrimony under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

In the mid-1800s, 104 cultural items were removed from White Springs Farm, Ontario County, NY. According to printed accounts, two burial mounds near the farm's manor house were disturbed around 1840, when the land was graded for a lawn and roadway. The artifacts stayed with the farm and were transferred to subsequent owners until Mrs. Katherine Lewis purchased the property in 1898. Lewis kept the artifacts in her family. In 1962, her daughter, Mrs. Henry Wheat, loaned them to the Geneva Historical Society, and in 1978, the Wheats converted the loan to a gift. The one unassociated funerary object is a wooden hair comb. The 103 objects of cultural patrimony are 90 assorted beads of bloodstone, glass, shell, bone, and clay; one rifle trigger; two metal trade arrowheads; two metal fragments; three metal buttons; four 17th-century religious trade medals; and one clay pipe.

There is archeological evidence to show that from around 1688 to 1715, the Seneca town of Ganechstage was located in proximity to White Springs Farm. During consultation, the Seneca Nation of Indians identified the hair comb as a funerary object. Given the location and time period, the other items are consistent with Seneca production and European trade goods.

Officials of the Geneva Historical Society have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the one cultural item described above is reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(D), the 103 cultural items described above have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property owned by an individual.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary object, and objects of cultural patrimony and the Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as Seneca Nation of New York).

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Kerry Lippincott, Geneva Historical Society, 543 South Main Street, Geneva, NY 14456, telephone (315) 789-5151, email director@genevahistoricalsociety.com, by March 1, 2021. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary object and objects of cultural patrimony to the Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as Seneca Nation of New York) may proceed.

The Geneva Historical Society is responsible for notifying the Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as Seneca Nation of New York) that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Museum of Ojibwa Culture and Marquette Mission Park—City of St. Ignace, St. Ignace, MI. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Marquette Mission Site (20MK82 and 20MK82-99), Mackinac County, MI.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Museum of Ojibwa Culture and Marquette Mission Park—City of St. Ignace professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas); Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Shawnee Tribe; and the Wyandotte Nation (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes”).

An invitation to consult was extended to the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana); Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and two non-federally recognized Indian groups, the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, and the Grand River Band of Ottawa Indians (hereafter referred to as “The Invited Tribes and Groups”).

In 1987-1988, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual (excavator's catalog number 3.2) were removed from the Marquette Mission Site (20MK82-99) in St. Ignace, Mackinac County, MI. The human remains were discovered during the installation of a wastewater treatment system beneath the roadway. Onsite cultural resource monitoring of subsurface construction activities was provided. During the excavation, the partial human remains of a single individual representing an adult female were found in a round-bottomed pit feature identified as Area 3. According to the project report, the partial skeletal remains reflected by the collection of materials from Area 3 strongly suggests that the remainder of the burial was intact in the Area 3 zone. No known individual was identified. The 14 associated funerary objects are the faunal remains of one Acipense Fulvescenes (lake sturgeon), two Alces alces (moose), three Canis species (large dog/wolf), one Canis cf. familiaris (domestic dog), four Castor canadensis (American beaver), two unidentified mammals, and one Osteichthyes species (bony fish).

On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Marquette Mission Site (20MK82) in St. Ignace, Mackinac County, MI. The human remains (2019.01.079a; 2019.01.099a; 2019.01.100a) were found during documentation of the Museum of Ojibwa Culture collection. On August 13, 2020, the human remains were identified as belonging to a child of less than 14 years of age and of an indeterminate sex. No known individual was identified. The 33 associated funerary objects are two ceramic vessel fragments (2019.01.079g), two clay pipe stem fragments (2019.01.079b), one medicine bottle (2019.01.079d), three glass fragments (2019.01.079c), one lot of marbles (2019.01.079f), one lot of metal fragments (2019.01.079e), one nail (2019.01.099b), one fragment of an unknown material stamped “ED FRUIT JA” (2019.01.079i), and 21 porcelain fragments (2019.01.079h; 2019.01.099c; 2019.01.100b).

The Marquette Mission Site (20MK82) and (20MK82-99) is located within Marquette Mission Park. The Museum of Ojibwa Culture manages the Park, and both the Park and the Museum are under the auspices of the City of St. Ignace. Based on the archeological context, the human remains from 20MK82 date to the 17th or 18th century, when Native Americans representing many different cultures, including, but not limited to, the Anishinaabek [Ojibwa/Ojibwe (Chippewa) and Odawa (Ottawa)] and Wendat (Huron) lived in proximity to or visited the Marquette Mission Site. Based on the archeological context, the human remains from 20MK82-99 may pre-date contact with European material culture, at a time when many different cultures inhabited and visited the area.

Officials of the Museum of Ojibwa Culture and Marquette Mission Park—City of St. Ignace have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on archeological context.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 47 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribe.

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana); Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota.

• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana); Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas); Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Shawnee Tribe; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the Wyandotte Nation.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana); Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas); Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Shawnee Tribe; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the Wyandotte Nation (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Shirley Sorrels, Director, Museum of Ojibwa Culture and Marquette Mission Park, c/o Bernstein & Associates, 1041 N Lafayette Street, Denver, CO 80218, telephone (303) 894-0648, email jan@nagpra.info, by March 1, 2021. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to The Tribes may proceed. If joined to a request from one or more of The Tribes, the non-federally recognized Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, may also receive transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects.

The Museum of Ojibwa Culture and Marquette Mission Park—City of St. Ignace is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes, The Invited Tribes and Groups, and The Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region, Anchorage, AK. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Chernabura Island, Aleutians East Borough, AK.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Vassar College, Department of Anthropology staff and the Alaska Region USFWS professional staff in consultation with the Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove; Native Village of Belkofski; Native Village of Unga; Pauloff Harbor Village; Pribilof Islands Aleut Communities of St. Paul & St. George Islands; Qagan Tayagungin Tribe of Sand Point (previously listed as Qagan Tayagungin Tribe of Sand Point Village) Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska; and the Aleut Corporation, a non-federally acknowledged Indian group (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Entities”).

Between 1986 and 1994, human remains representing, at minimum, 11 individuals were removed from site XSI-007 (as recorded in the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey database) on Chernabura Island, Aleutians East Borough, AK, by Dr. Lucy Johnson, a faculty member in the Department of Anthropology at Vassar College. Dr. Johnson was investigating an archeological site she named “Periwinkle Mound,” located on Chernabura Island. As the land in question is part of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, this investigation was conducted under several Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) permits issued by the US Fish & Wildlife Service. Dr. Johnson observed numerous human remains eroding from the site and collected the remains from the surface. During her investigations, Dr. Johnson collected more than 200 human bones and teeth. Dr. Johnson recovered most of the human remains in 1986 and 1988, near the shore. They have been in the physical custody of Vassar College since Dr. Johnson completed her fieldwork at the site in 1994.

A preliminary inventory was completed by Dr. Johnson in 2013. Bioarcheologist Dr. Jess Beck conducted a detailed analysis of the human remains for Vassar College in 2020 and identified the minimum number of individuals. The individuals include eight adults and three subadults of unknown sex. No individuals have been identified. Although Unangan Aleut burials are often associated with a small number of utilitarian objects such as wedges and knives, as the human remains came from eroded contexts, no associated funerary objects have been identified.

Radiocarbon dates from charcoal samples found at XSI-007 indicate that the site was occupied shortly before 2000 years ago. The Chernabura Island human remains are more likely than not Native American, and they are most closely affiliated with the modern Aleut people.

Officials of the U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 11 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove; Native Village of Belkofski; Native Village of Unga; Pauloff Harbor Village; and the Qagan Tayagungin Tribe of Sand Point (previously listed as Qagan Tayagungin Tribe of Sand Point Village) Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska (hereafter referred to as “The Indian Tribes”).

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Jeremy M. Karchut, Regional Historic Preservation Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region, 1011 East Tudor Road, MS-235, Anchorage, AK 99503, telephone (907) 786-3399, email Jeremy_Karchut@fws.gov, by March 1, 2021. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to The Indian Tribes may proceed.

The U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region is responsible for notifying The Consulted Entities and The Indian Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Geneva Historical Society, Geneva, NY. The human remains were removed from the Reed Farm, Ontario County, NY.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Geneva Historical Society professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as Seneca Nation of New York).

In the spring of 1969, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Reed Farm in Ontario County, NY. Two boys, James and Thomas Reed, discovered the human remains in a sand mound eight miles south of Geneva, NY, along Seneca Lake. They found the remains of one individual, possibly female, buried in a seated position with crossed arms and crossed legs, and facing east. In May 1969, the Reed family placed the human remains on loan with the Geneva Historical Society, and since 1995, the human remains have been under the Society's control. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present.

A written description of the burial at the time of discovery stated that no artifacts were discovered with the human remains. In 1995, Peter Jemison, NAGPRA coordinator for the Seneca Nation of Indians, opined that the human remains were of pre-historic date, as a Haudenosaunee burial would have included a beaded necklace. Along the eastern shore of Seneca Lake seasonal settlements established for fishing marked the periphery of Seneca Nation territory. A few miles to the west of these settlements, archeological evidence exists for the associated Seneca towns. Based on the totality of the information, the Geneva Historical Society has determined that the human remains listed in this notice are ancestral to the Seneca people.

Officials of the Geneva Historical Society have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as Seneca Nation of New York).

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Kerry Lippincott, Geneva Historical Society, 543 South Main Street, Geneva, NY 14456, telephone (315) 789-5151, email director@genevahistoricalsociety.com, by March 1, 2021. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as Seneca Nation of New York) may proceed.

The Geneva Historical Society is responsible for notifying the Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as Seneca Nation of New York) that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN, that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the unassociated funerary objects was made by TVA professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Shawnee Tribe; The Chickasaw Nation; and The Muscogee (Creek) Nation (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes”).

On June 25, 1937, 47 cultural items were removed from burial 15 at 1MS32, the McKee Island site, in Marshall County, AL. The McKee Island site was excavated as part of TVA's Guntersville Reservoir project by the Alabama Museum of Natural History (AMNH) at the University of Alabama, using labor and funds provided by the Works Progress Administration (WPA). Details regarding these excavations may be found in “ An Archaeological Survey of Guntersville Basin on the Tennessee River in Northern Alabama, ” by William S. Webb and Charles G. Wilder. TVA acquired the site on November 12, 1936. The 47 unassociated funerary objects are sherds of a Mississippi Plain vessel.

Site 1MS32 was a midden-rich village that extended 800 feet along a ridge of the now-inundated McKee Island. Although there are no radiocarbon dates from this site, ceramics recovered from 1MS32 indicate occupations during the Colbert (300 B.C.-A.D. 100), Flint River (A.D. 500-1000), and Crow Creek (A.D. 1500-1650) phases. Burial 15 is from the Mississippian Crow Creek phase. Chronicles from Spanish explorers of the 16th century and French explorers of the 17th and 18th century indicate the presence of chiefdom-level tribal entities in the southeastern United States that resemble the historic Native American chiefdoms. Linguistic analysis of place names noted by multiple Spanish explorers indicates that Koasati-speaking Muskogean groups inhabited northeastern Alabama. Early maps and research into the historic Native American occupation of northeastern Alabama indicate that the Koasati (as called by the English) or the Kaskinampo (as called by the French) were found at multiple sites in Jackson and Marshall Counties in the 17th and 18th centuries. Oral history, traditions, and expert opinions of Koasati/Kaskinampo and Muscogee (Creek) descendants indicate that this portion of the Tennessee River valley was their tribal homeland. Oral tradition also indicates that by the middle 1700s, the Koasati/Kaskinampo were leaving the Tennessee River valley and moving south.

Based on the totality of the evidence, TVA has determined that the items from the Mississippian burials at 1MS32 are culturally affiliated with descendants of the Koasati/Kaskinampo. These descendants include the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; and The Muscogee (Creek) Nation.

Officials of the Tennessee Valley Authority have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 47 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), these items are culturally affiliated with the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama- Quassarte Tribal Town; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; and The Muscogee (Creek) Nation (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3005(a)(2), repatriation of these cultural items may be to The Tribes.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Dr. Thomas O. Maher, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11C, Knoxville, TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, email tomaher@tva.gov, by March 1, 2021. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary objects to The Tribes may proceed.

The Tennessee Valley Authority is responsible for notifying The Tribes and The Consulted Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the correction of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from North Dakota.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

This notice corrects the minimum number of individuals and number of associated funerary objects published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal Register (81 FR 87064-87065, December 2, 2016). The correction is being made due to a reassessment of the human remains and the discovery of additional human remains and funerary objects. Transfer of control of the items in this correction notice has not occurred.

In the Federal Register (81 FR 87064, December, 2, 2016), column 2, paragraph 4, sentence 2 is corrected by substituting the following sentence:

Human remains, representing a minimum of 69 individuals, were recovered from this site.

In the Federal Register (81 FR 87064, December 2, 2016), column 2, paragraph 5, sentence 4 is corrected by substituting the following sentence:

Human remains, representing a minimum of 35 individuals, were recovered.

In the Federal Register (81 FR 87064, December 2, 2016}), column 2, paragraph 5, sentence 6 is corrected by substituting the following sentence:

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Jayne-Leigh Thomas, NAGPRA Director, Indiana University, NAGPRA Office, Student Building 318, 701 E Kirkwood Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405, telephone (812) 856-5315, email thomajay@indiana.edu, by March 1, 2021. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota may proceed.

Indiana University is responsible for notifying the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN, that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the unassociated funerary objects was made by TVA professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Shawnee Tribe; The Chickasaw Nation; and The Muscogee (Creek) Nation (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes”).

From May 21 to July 28, 1937, 1,644 cultural items were removed from historic Native American burials at site 1MS32, on McKee Island, in Marshall County, AL. The McKee Island site was excavated as part of TVA's Guntersville Reservoir project by the Alabama Museum of Natural History (AMNH) at the University of Alabama, using labor and funds provided by the Works Progress Administration (WPA). Details regarding these excavations may be found in “An Archaeological Survey of Guntersville Basin on the Tennessee River in Northern Alabama,” by William S. Webb and Charles G. Wilder. TVA acquired the site on November 12, 1936. The 1,644 unassociated funerary objects are two black glass beads and 1,642 blue glass beads.

Site 1MS32 was a midden-rich village that extended 800 feet along a ridge of the now-inundated McKee Island. Although there are no radiocarbon dates from this site, Jon Marcoux's study of glass beads from 1MS32 indicates a historic occupation in the range of A.D. 1650-1750. Analysis of the brass bells recovered from this site suggests an occupation range from the late 1600s through the 1700s. During this period multiple tribes were using the Guntersville Reservoir area. Chronicles from Spanish explorers of the 16th century and French explorers of the 17th and 18th century indicate the presence of chiefdom-level tribal entities in the southeastern United States that resemble the historic Native American chiefdoms. Linguistic analysis of place names noted by multiple Spanish explorers indicates that Koasati-speaking Muskogean groups inhabited northeastern Alabama. Early maps and research into the historic Native American occupation of northeastern Alabama indicate that the Koasati (as called by the English) or the Kaskinampo (as called by the French) were found at multiple sites in Jackson and Marshall Counties in the 17th and 18th centuries. Oral history, traditions, and expert opinions of Koasati/Kaskinampo and Muscogee (Creek) descendants indicate that this portion of the Tennessee River valley was their tribal homeland. Oral tradition also indicates that by the middle 1700s, the Koasati/Kaskinampo were leaving the Tennessee River valley and moving south.

Both British and American historians indicate that in the 1700s, some Cherokee were leaving their traditional tribal lands in the Appalachian Mountains and the Little Tennessee River watershed. In the 1770s, a group of Cherokee, often designated as the Chickamauga in historical documents, had relocated to areas northeast of the current city of Chattanooga, Tennessee. Reprisals by American militia for Cherokee support of the British during the American Revolution forced these Cherokee farther down the Tennessee River. By 1785-1790 there were named Cherokee villages in the Guntersville Reservoir area. The Koasati, Muscogee (Creek), and Cherokee all hunted in the Tennessee Valley. Based on the totality of the evidence, TVA has determined that the cultural items from historic burials at 1MS32 are culturally affiliated with Native American descendants of the Koasati/Kaskinampo or the Cherokee. These descendants include the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.

Officials of the Tennessee Valley Authority have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 1,644 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from specific burial sites of Native American individuals.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), these items are culturally affiliated with the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3005(a)(2), repatriation of these cultural items may be to The Tribes.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Dr. Thomas O. Maher, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11C, Knoxville, TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, email tomaher@tva.gov, by March 1, 2021. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary objects to The Tribes may proceed.

The Tennessee Valley Authority is responsible for notifying The Tribes and The Consulted Tribes that this notice has been published.

Background. —On November 6, 2020, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (85 FR 46715, August 3, 2020) of the subject five-year review was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review. 1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)).

For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings at this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS, https://edis.usitc.gov ). No in-person paper-based filings or paper copies of any electronic filings will be accepted until further notice.

Staff report. —A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the review will be placed in the nonpublic record on January 22, 2021, and made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for this review. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission's rules.

Written submissions. —As provided in section 207.62(d) of the Commission's rules, interested parties that are parties to the review and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution, 2 and any party other than an interested party to the review may file written comments with the Secretary on what determination the Commission should reach in the review. Comments are due on or before January 29, 2021 and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year review nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the review by January 29, 2021. However, should the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its review, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce's final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce's results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Handbook on Filing Procedures, available on the Commission's website at https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf, elaborates upon the Commission's procedures with respect to filings.

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

Determination. —The Commission has determined this review is extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B).

Effective October 30, 2020, the Commission published its schedule for the final phase of these investigations (85 FR 84367, December 28, 2020). The Commission is revising its schedule.

The Commission's revised dates in the schedule are as follows: The prehearing staff report will be placed in the nonpublic record on February 25, 2021. The deadline for filing prehearing briefs is March 4, 2021. Requests to appear at the hearing must be filed with the Secretary to the Commission not later than March 5, 2021. If deemed necessary, the prehearing conference will be held on March 9, 2021. The hearing will be held on March 11, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is March 18, 2021.

For further information concerning this proceeding, see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).

Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2020).

Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on January 25, 2021, ordered that —

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claim 6 of the '638 patent; claims 9-11 and 17 of the '478 patent; claims 3 and 7 of the '796 patent; claims 6, 8, and 9 of the '797 patent; claims 9, 13, 14, 16, and 18 of the '660 patent; claims 9, 13, and 18 of the '906 patent; and claim 1 of the '120 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “Video Doorbells and IP Cameras including components and internal software that comprise a camera and motion sensor and interface with a software application used on smartphones and/or remote devices”;

(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

(a) The complainants are:

(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:

The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of The NOCO Company on January 19, 2021. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain portable battery jump starters and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents: Advance Auto Parts, Inc. of Raleigh, NC; Anker Innovations Ltd. of Hong Kong; Anker Technology Co., Ltd. of Hong Kong; Anker Technology (UK) Ltd. of the United Kingdom; Antigravity Batteries LLC of Gardena, CA; Arteck Electronic Co., Ltd. of China; ATD Tools, Inc. of Wentzville, MO; Autogen Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Aukey Technology Co., Ltd. of China; AutoZone, Inc. of Memphis, TN; Baccus Global LLC of Boca Raton, FL; Best Buy Co, Inc. of South Richfield, MN; Best Parts, Inc. of Memphis, TN; CarAIDE USA of Bala Cynwyd, PA; Chao Fung Trading Co. Ltd. of China (Taiwan); Circus Link, Inc. of Ontario, CA; Clore Automotive, LLC, Lenexa, KS; Deltona U.S.A. of DeLand, FL; Deltran USA, LLC of DeLand, FL; Dongguan Hangchebao Energy Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Dongguan Zhongkang Technology Electronics Co., Ltd. of China; Ecoliving Pty. Ltd. of Australia; Energen, Inc. of City of Industry, CA; FlyLink Tech Co., Ltd. of China; Gooloo Technologies LLC d/b/a Shenzhen Gooloo E-Commerce Co., Ltd. of China; Great Neck Global, Inc. (Taiwan) of Taiwan; Great Neck Saw Manufacturers, Inc. of Mineola, NY; Guangdong Boltpower Energy Co., Ltd. of China; Dongguan Boltpower Co. Ltd. of China; Hunan Boltpower New Energy Co., Ltd. of China; Guangdong Marshell Electric Vehicle Co., Ltd. of China; Guangzhou Autolion Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Guangzhou Unique Electronics Co., Ltd. of China; Hairishen Electric (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. of China; Halo2Cloud, LLC of Hartford, CT; Horizon Tool, Inc. of Greensboro, NC; Huizhou Grepo E-Commerce of China; Huizhou Roypow Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Integrated Supply Network, LLC of Lakeland, FL; Just Quality Battery Industries Co. of Hong Kong; Just Quality Battery Industrial Co., Ltd. of China; K-Tool International of Plymouth, MI; Le Long Vietnam Co., Ltd. of Vietnam; Lowe's Companies, Inc. of Mooresville, NC; Matco Tools Corporation of Stow, OH; Medcursor, Inc. of Las Vegas, NV; Mizco International, Inc. of Avenel, NJ; MonoPrice, Inc. Brea, CA; National Automotive Parts Association, LLC (d/b/a NAPA) of Atlanta, GA; Genuine Parts Company of Atlanta, GA; National Resources USA, Inc. of Wilmington, New Castle, DE; Nekteck, Inc. of Anaheim, CA; Nex Digitronix LLP of India, Nice Team Enterprise Limited of Hong Kong; Nice Well Enterprise Limited of Hong Kong; Ningo Geostar Electronics Co., Ltd. of China; Ningbo Zenon Electrical Co., Ltd. of China; O'Reilly Automotive, Inc. of Springfield, MO; Paris Corporation of Wesampton, NJ; Pep Boys of Philadelphia, PA; PowerMax Battery (U.S.A.), Inc. of Ontario, CA; Prime Global Products, Inc. of Ball Ground, GA; QVC, Inc. of West Chester, PA; Schumacher Power Technology Ltd. of China; Schumacher Electric Corp of Mount Prospect, IL; Shenzhen Aojie Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Shenzhen BenRong Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., Ltd. of China; MigOwatt Group LLC (Russia Agent) of Russia; Shenzhen Chic Electrics., Ltd. of China; Shenzhen Dingjiang Technology Co. Ltd. LLC of China; Shenzhen Geilimei Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Shenzhen Gulin Power Technology Co. of China; Shenzhen Jiahongjing Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Shenzhen Jieqi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Shenzhen Jieruijia Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Shenzhen Lianfatong Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Shenzhen Lianke Electron Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Shenzhen Li Feng Maoyiyouxiangongsi of China; Shenzhen Mediatek Tong Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Shenzhen Moock Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Shenzhen Muke Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Shenzhen Pengfenghe Trading Co., Ltd. of China; Shenzhen PuChengWeiLai Technology of China; Shenzhen Shi Shenai Dianzishangwu Youxian Gongsi of China; Shenzhen Take Tools Co., Ltd. of China; Shenzhen Topdon Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Shenzhen Valuelink E-Commerce Co., Ltd. of China; Shenzhen Vigor PowerBatter Co., Ltd. of China; Shenzhen Winplus Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Shenzhen Xinzexing E-Commerce of China; Shenzhen Yike Electronics Co., Ltd. of China; Sictec Instruments Co., Ltd. of Hong Kong; Smartech Products, Inc. of Savage, MD; Smart Well International Development Limited of Hong Kong; Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. of New Britain, CT; Stanley Black & Decker Precision Manufacturing (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. of China; Substanbo Innovations Technology, Ltd. of Hong Kong; Sunluxe Mfg. Co., Ltd. (Vietnam) of Vietnam; Sun Tech Ltd. of Hong Kong; ThiEYE Technologies Co., Ltd. of China; Tii Trading Inc. of Baldwin Park, CA; Walmart Inc. of Bentonville, AR; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. of Bentonville, AR; Sam's West, Inc. (d/b/a Sam's Club) of Little Rock, AR; Sam's East, Inc. (d/b/a Sam's Club) of Little Rock, AR; Wilmar Corporation of Tukwila, WA; Winplus North America, Inc. of Costa Mesa, CA; Yuyao Keen New Power Co., Ltd. LLC of China; Zagg Co. Rrd Gst of Plainfield, IN; Zhejiang Quingyou Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. of China; and 70mai Co., Ltd. of China. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).

Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;

(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;

(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.

Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation. Any written submissions on other issues must also be filed by no later than the close of business, eight calendar days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Complainant may file replies to any written submissions no later than three calendar days after the date on which any initial submissions were due. Any submissions and replies filed in response to this Notice are limited to five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3526”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. ( See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures  1 ). Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS, https://edis.usitc.gov. ) No in-person paper-based filings or paper copies of any electronic filings will be accepted until further notice. Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary at EDIS3Help@usitc.gov.

Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel, 2 solely for cybersecurity purposes. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS. 3

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).

The Commission instituted this investigation on May 26, 2016, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Razor USA LLC of Cerritos, California; and Inventist, Inc. and Shane Chen, both of Camas, Washington (collectively, “Razor”). 81 FR 33548-49. The complaint alleged, inter alia, violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,738,278 (“the '278 patent”). The Commission's notice of investigation named twenty-eight respondents. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) also participated in the investigation. Id. Nine respondents (“the remaining respondents”) remained active in the investigation after every other respondent had been terminated from the investigation based on a consent order, good cause, or else had been found in default. These remaining respondents included Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Co., Ltd. (“Chic”) of Hangzhou, China; Swagway, LLC (“Swagway”) of South Bend, Indiana; Modell's Sporting Goods, Inc. (“Modell's”) of New York City, New York; Powerboard a.k.a. Optimum Trading Co. (“Powerboard”) of Hebron, Kentucky; United Integral, Inc. dba Skque Products of Irwindale, California; Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. of Causeway Bay, Hong Kong and Alibaba.com Ltd. of Hangzhou, China (collectively, “Alibaba”); Jetson Electric Bikes LLC (“Jetson”) of New York City, New York; and Newegg, Inc. (“Newegg”) of City of Industry, California. On the same day that the Commission instituted this investigation, Razor sought reissue of the asserted '278 patent.

On May 26, 2017, the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued a final ID finding no violation of section 337. The ID found that none of the remaining respondents' accused products infringes the asserted '278 patent claims, but that all of the defaulting respondents' accused products infringe the asserted claims based on allegations in the complaint. The ID also found that the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement was not satisfied.

On July 28, 2017, the Commission determined to review (1) the ID's finding that the Commission has no jurisdiction over Alibaba, and (2) the ID's analysis of infringement by the defaulting respondents. See Comm'n Notice of Review (July 28, 2017). On review, the Commission determined to (1) take no position on the ID's finding that it has no jurisdiction over Alibaba; and (2) vacate the ID's infringement finding as to the defaulting respondents as moot in view, inter alia, of the domestic industry determination. Id. at 3-4. The Commission determined not to review the remainder of the ID and therefore issued its final determination of no Section 337 violation and terminated the investigation. Id.

Razor timely appealed the Commission's final determination to the Federal Circuit. During the appeal, the reissue application was allowed with amended claims that the Commission and Intervenor/respondent Chic argued, via a motion to dismiss, were not “substantially identical” to the original claims on appeal, and therefore the appeal should be dismissed as moot under 35 U.S.C. 252.

On October 16, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued an order and mandate that remanded the investigation to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with its ruling. See Razor USA LLC v. ITC, Case No. 2017-2591, Remand Order at 4 (Oct. 16, 2018). Specifically, the Court deemed it appropriate for the Commission to have the first opportunity to determine whether the post-investigation events have rendered the case moot or whether the case may continue either on the original patent claims or reissued claims and to conduct any additional proceedings as necessary. Id.

On November 13, 2018, the Commission issued an Order requesting the parties to provide comments concerning what further proceedings are appropriate consistent with the Court's judgment, including whether the matter should be referred to the ALJ. On November 27, 2018, Razor submitted comments, six respondents (Chic, Swagway, Modell's, Jetson, Powerboard, and New Egg) filed a joint submission, and Alibaba filed a separate submission. On December 4, 2018, OUII submitted comments. On December 10, 2018, these parties submitted response comments.

On September 19, 2019, the Commission issued an Order requesting the parties to provide written responses regarding specific questions concerning the effect of the patent reissue. Razor, Jetson, four respondents (Chic, Swagway, Modell's, and Newegg), and OUII each filed a submission. Each of these parties, except Jetson, filed a reply. On November 18, 2019, Jetson filed a reply to Razor's reply, but which also addressed Razor's initial submission. The Commission has determined to accept that submission, but only as to the portion that responds to Razor's initial submission.

Having examined the record of this investigation, including the Federal Circuit's Remand Order and the parties' subsequent briefing, the Commission terminates this investigation as moot pursuant to the Remand Order. The Commission has issued an opinion explaining the basis for the Commission's determination.

The Commission vote for this determination took place on January 22, 2021.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210.

In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on October 15, 2020, Indigenous Peyote Conservation Initiative, 826 North FM 649, Hebbronville, Texas 78361, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):

The company plans to import Peyote plants for research, analytical purposes, and improving conservation of South Texas Cacti in situ. This Peyote is listed under drug code 7415. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.

Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

1. Type of Information Collection: Extension of a previously approved collection.

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Crime Data Explorer Feedback Survey.

3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: There is no form number for this collection. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Criminal Justice Information Services Division, in the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Law enforcement, academia, and the general public. Abstract: This survey is needed to collect feedback on the functionality of the Crime Data Explorer in order to make improvements to the application.

5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program's Crime Data Explorer Burden Estimation: It is estimated the Crime Data Explorer will generate 200 feedback responses per year with an estimated response time of two minutes per response.

6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are approximately seven hours, annual burden, associated with this information collection.

If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

1. Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Hate Crime Incident Report.

3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: The form number is 1-700. The applicable component within the DOJ is the CJIS Division of the FBI.

4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

Primary: Federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies (LEAs).

Abstract: Under Title 28, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section (§ ) 534; the Hate Crime Statistics Act, 34 U.S.C., § 41305, modified by the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act (2009), Public Law, § 4708; and the Uniform Federal Crime Reporting Act of 1988, 34 U.S.C., § 41303, this information collection requests hate crime data from LEAs in order for the FBI UCR Program to serve as the national clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of hate crime data and to publish these statistics annually in Hate Crime Statistics and the National Incident-Based Reporting System. The hate crime data provide information about the bias motivation, offenses, victims, offenders, and locations of hate crime incidents.

5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated number of LEAs submitting monthly data to the FBI UCR Program is 15,588. Annually, those LEAs submit a total of 187,056 responses (15,588 LEAs × 12 months = 187,056 annual responses). The estimated time it takes for an average respondent to respond is seven minutes. Therefore, the estimated annual public burden associated with the Hate Crime Data Collection is 21,823 hours [(187,056 annual responses × 7 minutes per response)/60 minutes per hour = 21,823.2 total annual hours]. If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.