International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of the Under-Secretary for Economic Affairs
Patent and Trademark Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
National Park Service
Antitrust Division
Drug Enforcement Administration
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
United States Mint
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Office of Personnel Management.
Final rule.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing final regulations to give agencies, in individual hiring processes, the discretion to select and reinstate certain former Federal employees, to fill vacancies at any grade level or with promotion potential for which the individual is qualified, notwithstanding the grade of the position the individual had previously held on a permanent basis in the competitive service. An agency will be able to effectuate such reinstatements non-competitively, pursuant to a job opportunity announcement open to outside candidates, provided the former employee qualifies for the position as posted. The regulations will help agencies to recruit former Federal employees who have developed more enhanced or higher-level skill-sets than they had when they left government to apply for agency vacancies at grade levels appropriate to their current knowledge, skills, and abilities. Previously, an agency could reinstate an individual, without competition, only to a position at a grade level that was no higher than the grade level of a position the individual had held on a permanent basis in the competitive service. Reinstatement to a higher-graded position, or to a position with greater promotion potential, required competition. The intended effect of this hiring authority is to broaden the choices available to agencies when filling vacant positions and to promote a workforce in which individuals who have developed their competencies through extended service in the Federal Government and individuals who have developed their competencies in the private or non-profit sectors can enhance each other's strengths by sharing knowledge and perspectives.
This rule is effective July 8, 2021.
Michelle T. Glynn, Telephone: 202-606-1571, Fax: 202-606-3340, TDD: 202-418-3134, or email:
On December 26, 2019, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) published proposed regulations in the
Ten individuals, eight Federal agencies, and 2 professional associations expressed their general support for the proposed changes.
Three Federal agencies recommended OPM place a limitation on the number of times an individual can be noncompetitively reinstated under this hiring authority. OPM is not adopting this suggestion because the purpose of this rule is to broaden choices for an agency seeking to fill a vacancy by enabling an agency to choose to reinstate a former employee, non-competitively, when such a former employee applies for the position and establishes qualifications at the appropriate level, and regardless of the grade or promotion potential of that employee's prior Federal position. Limitations on the number of times an individual could apply for a position through this reinstatement authority could act as a disincentive for individuals who have developed their knowledge, skills, and abilities through experiences outside of the Federal Government to attempt to return to Federal service. The Federal government can benefit when an employee leaves Federal service if the employee obtains new experiences in the private sector, the non-profit sector, academia, or state and local government that enrich the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the employee. Facilitating the return to Government of people who have broadened their work experience in this way advances the civil service's goal of an effective and efficient government. Apart from providing the agency with additional choices in making selections for current vacancies, it enables agencies to build a workforce of individuals who bring a variety of knowledge, training, and experiences to their work. Accordingly, OPM seeks to remove barriers to reinstating Federal employees who have already competed for a Federal position once or who otherwise meet the service requirement for career tenure in accordance with 5 CFR 315.201 and reinstatement eligibility under 5 CFR 315.401, performed successfully, and subsequently gained valuable new skills and experiences when they apply to positions commensurate with their current level of qualification.
One commenter asked whether this rule waives the three-year time limit on reinstatement eligibility in 5 CFR 315.401(b) for individuals who did not complete the requirement for career tenure. OPM is not waiving the time limitations in 5 CFR 315.401(b). Former career-conditional employees are eligible for reinstatement for three years. Former career employees have lifetime eligibility for reinstatement.
Another individual commented that an employee who leaves an agency before completing 52 weeks at their current grade level should not be allowed to be reinstated after one year to a position at a higher grade level because the employee did not obtain all of the knowledge, skills, experience, and training at the lower grade to be eligible for work at the higher grade. OPM agrees, in part, with this comment, but it has already addressed through existing regulation. Individuals seeking reinstatement to a higher-graded position under this rule must meet time-in-grade (TIG) restrictions in accordance with 5 CFR part 300 subpart F; reinstatement is not an exclusion from TIG restriction per 5 CFR 315.603(b)(2). OPM disagrees with the commenter's belief that an individual could not meet the qualifications for higher-graded work if the requisite education or experience was obtained outside of Federal employment. OPM has
Three Federal agencies and three individuals suggested OPM limit reinstatement under this provision to one grade level higher than the highest grade level an individual held. OPM is not adopting this suggestion because the intent of this rule is to allow individuals to be reinstated at any grade level for which a position is posted and for which the individual qualifies.
Four individuals, one professional association, one Federal agency, and the Federal Employees' Union stated this proposed rule should also apply to current Federal employees who have completed one year of service after a competitive appointment and were rated at least fully successful on their most recent performance appraisal. OPM cannot adopt this recommendation. Current Federal employees cannot be reinstated; reinstatement is a personnel action that applies to certain former federal employees. The scope of the proposed regulation concerned reinstatement of former Federal employees only.
Seven individuals, two Federal agencies, and the Federal Employees' Union commented that this hiring authority will be abused and questioned the fairness of allowing former Federal employees to come back to Federal service at higher grade levels noncompetitively when current Federal employees must compete for higher grade levels. There are many safeguards built into this enhanced flexibility. This flexibility was proposed as a discretionary action under 5 CFR part 335. This means an agency may except reinstatement actions from the competitive procedures of part 335 but is not required to do so. Discretionary actions must be taken in accordance with the hiring agency's merit promotion plans pursuant to 5 CFR 335.103, and any collective bargaining agreements the hiring agency has in place. Before an agency may select a former employee and reinstate him or her to a position at a higher grade level or with higher promotion potential than the position the individual previously held, the agency must provide public notice through a job opportunity announcement, clear its Reemployment Priority List (RPL) as well as its Career Transition Assistance Plans (CTAP), and Interagency Career Transition Assistance Plans (ICTAP); consider applicants under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998, as amended (VEOA), 5 U.S.C. 3304(f) and the Land Management Workforce Flexibilities Act, as applicable; and assess whether the individual meets all qualifications requirements for the position to which the individual is being reinstated. OPM will assess agency use of this flexibility as part of its on-going oversight work or will consider whether to conduct a specific evaluation of this flexibility after it has been in operation for a year, depending on how widely it is used. OPM's purpose in modifying its reinstatement regulation is to expand agency choice by permitting an agency to select and reinstate into Government former successful Federal employees who have obtained new knowledge, skills, and abilities from outside government that qualifies them for the positions posted. An agency may also consider and select from among candidates who qualified through the normal progression through established steps and grades and the agency's merit promotion program. OPM believes that permitting these choices will enhance the quality of hiring, and thus Government, generally, and enable agencies to exploit knowledge, skills, and abilities acquired and developed both within and outside the Federal sector, enhancing diversity of thought and methods and enriching the workforce. In that scenario, the Federal government recoups the value of the training and development invested in the employee when he or she was previously in Federal service and recoups the benefit of the additional training and development the person received while working outside of government. It can be a benefit for Federal workers to gain new perspectives on how to best deliver agency missions from jobs outside of government, and OPM seeks to facilitate agencies' ability to pursue that benefit by permitting them to select former Federal employees non-competitively, when they qualify for posted positions, even if the grade level of or promotion potential for the position exceeds the grade the former employee previously held.
Seven individuals, two Federal agencies and the Federal Employees' Union state the changes will discourage current Federal employees, if someone is hired noncompetitively, because current Federal employees do not have the same opportunity to compete for a higher graded position; they believe this hiring will be abused. It is more accurate to view the two methods of qualifying for selection as counterparts for two different groups of people with prior experience in Government. Both former successful Federal employees and current successful employees will have the ability to qualify and be selected through methods that recognize the knowledge, skills, and abilities they have acquired, though through different paths. We also note that an agency that ultimately reinstates an individual to a higher grade level or with greater promotion potential, using this authority, must first have complied with public notice requirements, met CTAP/ICTAP procedures, considered other candidates from outside their agency pursuant to the VEOA and Land Management requirements; assessed that the individual met all qualifications requirements; and concluded that the former employee was the candidate with the highest relative level of knowledge, skills, and experience, in accordance with the Merit Systems Principles. As previously noted, OPM believes these safeguards are adequate to protect this discretionary flexibility from abuse. OPM will assess agency use of this flexibility as part of its on-going oversight work or consider whether to conduct a specific evaluation of this flexibility after it has been in operation for a year, depending on how widely it is used. This proposal also does not eliminate an agency's discretion to limit the area of consideration to agency employees when filling positions. We are simply providing a new option for agencies that expands choices and
Two individuals and 3 Federal agencies questioned OPM's assertion that former employees actually acquire skills or experience in private industry that would qualify them for non-competitive appointment to higher graded positions under this rule. In addition, these commenters stated OPM's argument is not substantive and lacks merit and logic. OPM is not asserting that all former employees will have acquired the sorts of skills or experience in the private sector that would qualify them for appointment to higher-graded positions than the positions in the Government they previously held, or that they will necessarily be among the best candidates for the position. OPM simply recognizes that some individuals may, in fact, acquire such skills and or experience. If they, do, the proposed rule provides agencies the flexibility to select and reinstate such individuals in hiring processes for particular positions, at the grade level for which those individuals qualify, just as agencies may appoint other individuals from outside of the agency's workforce at a grade level appropriate to their knowledge, skills, and abilities. OPM believes its rationale for this rule is sound: That permitting individual agencies to appoint a former successful Federal employee at a grade level for which the employee qualifies, benefits Government, by attracting former employees who have obtained important new knowledge, skills, and abilities from outside of government and thus enhancing the choices available to the agency under the Merit System Principles. For example, the an agency could secure a huge benefit if an individual was first hired into an entry-level position through a normal competitive process, spent several years with the agency learning about a program and obtaining valuable training and development, then went to private industry to experience the impact of the program first hand, then went to a state government to become a program manager of a similar state program, and now wants to return to her original agency as a program manager for the Federal program. There is value in facilitating an agency's ability to select such an individual, in a particular hiring action, through a non-competitive process. The presence of restrictions on the grade level to which an individual may be reinstated currently serves as a disincentive for individuals to consider rejoining the Federal workforce.
One individual commented that the proposed rule is not in the best interest of the American people. OPM disagrees. First, we note that the proposed rule is a discretionary action but used requires: The applicant to be reinstatement eligible, meet time-in-grade requirements, and meet all qualifications requirements needed for the position the individual is seeking. It also requires the agency to adhere to the Merit System Principles when using this authority. Because of these safeguards, OPM believes the proposed language is in the public interest; it provides wider choice to agencies by encouraging qualified former employees to apply, thereby enhancing merit.
One Federal agency commented that the language at the new proposed paragraph 335.103(c)(3)(viii) does not clearly emphasize that these enhanced skills/experiences were obtained in the private sector. The comment is ambiguous; OPM interprets it to mean, “Proposed paragraph 335.103(c)(3)(viii) does not clearly emphasize that these enhanced skills/experience, putatively gained in the private sector, were
One Federal agency suggested OPM provide an exception to ICTAP under this hiring authority. OPM is not adopting this suggestion. The purpose of ICTAP is to restore employees who were involuntarily separated to comparable positions for which they are deemed to be well-qualified. In other words, ICTAP is a means to `make an employee whole' whose career was disrupted through no fault (or action) of that employee. An exception to ICTAP would vacate the selection priority that ICTAP eligible individuals would otherwise have when applying for positions.
One Federal agency suggested OPM include a statement that former employees who received a Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (VSIP) must repay the VSIP if rehired under this rule. OPM is not adopting this recommendation because VSIP repayment provisions already exist at 5 CFR part 576 subpart B. Agencies must ensure that any hiring action is made in accordance with 5 CFR 576 subpart B regardless of the authority under which the individual is being appointed.
An individual asked what research OPM conducted to support the claim that the proposed rule would “benefit” both agencies as well as individuals seeking reemployment with the government. OPM believes the benefits to agencies to be self-evident: The regulation will provide greater choice to agencies, and provide an ability to recruit back to Government former Federal employees who have developed enhanced or higher-level skillsets than they had when they left government.
This proposed regulation is part of OPM's on-going efforts to provide tools to help agencies attract and retain the talent they need to carry out their mission requirements.
One individual and three Federal agencies asked OPM to clarify the phrase “most recent” in the context of using the performance rating from an individual's last Federal appointment. These commenters also asked that OPM explain the value of relying on the most recent performance rating if the former employee has been out of Federal service for many years. The term “most recent” means the last Federal rating of record under 5 CFR part 430 an individual received from his or her last career or career-conditional position. The value of using a former employee's most recent (
Two Federal agencies suggested OPM eliminate the proposed requirement that an individual must have received a rating of record of Fully Successful to be eligible under these rules. These agencies suggested that OPM replace this requirement with consideration of an individual's entire Federal employment record. OPM is not adopting this suggestion. The requirement that an individual must have a rating of record under 5 CFR part 430 aligns with 5 CFR 335.104, thus providing consistency and fairness with respect to Federal employees vying for the same position through career ladder promotions. An individual whose last rating was not fully successful or its equivalent may still compete for Federal positions under normal competitive processes.
Four Federal agencies stated there are inconsistencies by using the word “if” at 335.103(c)(1)(vi) and the word “provided” at 335.103(c)(3)(viii) and recommends changing and use the same word in both places for consistency. OPM disagrees. Section 335.103(c)(1)(vi) originally said that an agency must apply competitive procedures to reinstatement at a higher grade level or with more promotion potential. This rule added the phrase “if” the individual did not wait at least a year to reapply or did not have a most recent rating of record of Fully Successful or above. 335.103(c)(3)(viii) is a new section that provides that an agency may except from competitive procedures reinstatement of an employee at a higher grade level or with more promotion potential, “provided” that the employee has waited at least a year and has a most recent rating of record of Fully Successful or above. Thus, the two provisions are not parallel. “If” connotes “on the condition that” and “provided” connotes “as long as”. As a result, OPM is not adopting this suggestion.
Three Federal agencies recommend OPM also allow individuals separated “involuntarily” due to reduction in force (RIF), or recovered after disability retirement or medical inability to be eligible under these rules. OPM agrees these provisions should apply to individuals who are separated involuntarily as a result of a RIF. We have modified proposed § 335.103(c)(3)(viii) by removing the word “voluntary” in this section. This change extends eligibility to any individual who is separated for at least 1 year before being reinstated and has a rating of record for his or her most recent career or career-conditional position of at least Fully Successful (or equivalent). Individuals returning to work after disability retirement must be qualified for higher-graded work the same as anyone else and may be subject to any requirements pertaining to reemployed annuitants and/or provisions affecting their retirement payments in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 8837(d) and 5 U.S.C. 8455(a), and the corresponding implementing provisions at 5 CFR parts 831 and 843. OPM is not adopting the suggestion to include individuals who recovered after medical inability because regulations at 5 CFR part 353 subpart C address restoring an individual to duty after compensable injury or illness.
Seven individuals, four Federal agencies, one professional organization and the Federal Employees' Union believe this proposal is contrary to Merit System Principles and deprives certain bargaining unit employees of their collectively bargained right to first consideration. OPM disagrees these rules are contrary to Merit System Principles. These rules allow an agency (at its own discretion) to consider an individual who has previously succeeded as a Federal employee and achieved career status at the grade level for which the individual currently qualifies through a non-competitive process. The rules do not require an agency to use this authority or to hire any particular individual. Agencies must still adhere to their merit promotion plans and Merit Systems Principles in making hiring decisions under this authority. An agency could require competition under 5 CFR 335, Promotion and Internal Placement, if the agency chose to do so. OPM also disagrees that this proposal will deprive employees of any rights those employees may have pursuant to their agency's collective bargaining agreement (CBA). As to any right of first consideration, making selections for a position from any appropriate source is a management right. 5 U.S.C. 7106(a)(2)(C)(ii). It would abrogate that management right to require an agency to limit a selection to bargaining unit employees. However, whether a currently applicable collective-bargaining provision relating to “first consideration” of bargaining-unit employees is negotiable and therefore enforceable is a case-by-case determination to be adjudicated by the FLRA and the courts. OPM expresses no views concerning any particular proposal or provision. In addition, the final rule merely allows agencies additional flexibility to rehire former federal employees but does not require them to do so. Thus, we do not agree that the final rule will inevitably deprive bargaining unit employees of first consideration in accordance with law. We note that any hiring mechanism or authority that permits or requires agencies to consider candidates from outside the agency's existing workforce can impact the ability for a current employee to advance to a higher graded position, but, in this case, the changes will benefit the effectiveness and efficiency of Government and further Merit System Principles, by enhancing choices.
One Federal agency requested that OPM clarify whether applicants eligible under these rules could be eligible for the superior qualifications pay-setting authority, and, if so, how an individual would meet these requirements. Agencies may use superior qualifications pay-setting authority (which is not a hiring authority) to set the rate of basic pay upon the first appointment as a civilian employee of the Federal government or for reappointment to a GS position after a break in service of 90-days or more, as stated at 5 CFR 531. The mechanics of how to apply this pay flexibility are beyond the scope of the proposed rule. Agencies interested in using the superior qualifications pay authority should refer to 5 CFR 531.212 as well as OPM's Pay Administration guidance at
One individual asked OPM to clarify how positions filled using this flexibility will be advertised or otherwise made available to job-seekers. Reinstatement actions made under these rules are subject to public notice requirements in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 3327 and 3330 as well as the provisions for selection priority for displaced Federal employees. This means agencies are required to post any vacant positions they may fill through reinstatement on the USAJOBS website (
One agency recommended OPM address the parameters for using this reinstatement hiring flexibility to ensure compliance with merit system principles and address how OPM oversight will be conducted. Use of this hiring authority is discretionary on the part of agencies. When using this
A professional executive association suggested OPM develop a legislative proposal to further cement the goals of this regulation. Further legislation is not necessary; 5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302 provides the President the statutory authority to craft rules governing competitive status, career tenure, and discretion in hiring. The President delegated much of his authority to OPM through presidential Civil Service Rules, see, especially, 5 CFR 2.2, and provided in Rule VII, 5 CFR 7.1, that agencies have discretion to fill positions in the competitive service by competitive appointment or by noncompetitive selection of a present or former Federal employee.
Two of the comments we received were beyond the scope of the proposed changes. One individual could not locate a copy of the proposed regulation on the
OPM is making two clarifying changes to the final rule which commenters did not address. We have added references to Civil Service Rules II and VII in the “authority” listing which are OPM's authority, pursuant to the President's delegation of his own authority under 5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302, to establish and administer a system that provides for career appointments for former employees eligible for career appointment upon reinstatement, and agencies' authority to select for positions in the competitive service by competitive appointment or by noncompetitive selection of a present or former Federal employee.
OPM has modified the wording in 5 CFR 335.103(c)(3)(viii) by inserting the words, “before applying for reinstatement,” to parallel the language used in 5 CFR 335.103(c)(1)(vi).
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it applies only to Federal agencies and employees.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule is not a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866 and was not reviewed by OMB.
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
This regulation meets the applicable standard set forth in section 3(a) and (b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This action pertains to agency management, personnel and organization and does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties and, accordingly, is not a “rule” as that term is used by the Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.
This rule does not impose any new reporting or record-keeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Government employees.
Office of Personnel Management
Accordingly, OPM is amending 5 CFR part 335 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 2301, 2302, 3301, 3302, 3330; E.O. 10577, E.O. 11478, 3 CFR 1966-1970, Comp., page 803, unless otherwise noted, E.O. 13087; and E.O. 13152, 3 CFR 19554-58 Comp., p.218; 5 U.S.C. 3304(f), and Pub. L. 106-117, and 5 CFR 2.2 and 7.1.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) Reinstatement to a permanent or temporary position at a higher grade or with more promotion potential than a position previously held on a permanent basis in the competitive service if the individual did not wait 1 year or more after separating from Federal employment before applying for reinstatement, or did not receive a rating of record for his or her most recent career or career-conditional position of at least Fully Successful (or equivalent).
(3) * * *
(viii) Reinstatement in accordance with 5 CFR part 315 to any position in the competitive service for which the individual is qualified at a higher grade level or with more promotion potential than a career or career-conditional position previously held by the individual; provided: The individual has been separated for at least one year before applying for reinstatement, and the individual must have received a rating of record for his or her most recent career or career-conditional position of at least Fully Successful (or equivalent).
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain International Aero Engines AG (IAE) V2500 model turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by an analysis performed by the manufacturer after an event involving an uncontained failure of a high-pressure turbine (HPT) 1st-stage disk that resulted in high-energy debris penetrating the engine cowling. This AD requires the performance of an ultrasonic inspection (USI) of the HPT 1st-stage disk and HPT 2nd-stage disk and, depending on the results of the inspections, replacement of the HPT 1st-stage disk or HPT 2nd-stage disk. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective July 13, 2021.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 13, 2021.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact International Aero Engines AG, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: (800) 565-0140; email:
You may examine the AD docket at
Nicholas Paine, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7742; fax: (781) 238-7199; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain IAE V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2525-D5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2528-D5, V2530-A5, V2531-E5, and V2533-A5 model turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the
The FAA received comments from three commenters. The commenters were Cathay Pacific Airways (Cathay), IAE, and an individual commenter. One commenter requested clarification on the compliance time for inspection. Another commenter requested clarification regarding additional inspections that are needed when parts are removed for piece part inspections. One commenter requested clarification regarding the definition of a part eligible for installation as well as the installation prohibition. An individual commenter supported the proposal without change. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Cathay asked for clarification of the interval for performing the USI for any HPT 1st-stage disk or HPT 2nd-stage disk that has operated in different thrust ratings, such as from 27K to 33K, or 33K to 27K. Cathay reasoned that during the IAE V2500 Customer Council Call in December 2020, IAE used thrust ratings to indicate when to perform the inspections of the HPT 1st-stage disk or HPT 2nd-stage disk.
The FAA reviewed IAE Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) No. V2500-ENG-72-0713, Revision 1, dated January 26, 2021 (IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0713, Revision 1). This revised NMSB was published after the IAE V2500 Customer Council Call in December 2020. The revised NMSB removed references to thrust ratings in the Compliance section. Therefore, this AD does not distinguish inspection intervals based on thrust ratings.
IAE requested clarification on whether an HPT 1st-stage disk and HPT 2nd-stage disk with fewer than 100 flight cycles (FCs) since the last piece-part fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI) need to undergo another FPI if the same parts were removed for the piece-part opportunity USI in accordance with IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0713, Revision 1. IAE reasoned that the V2500 Maintenance Scheduling section of the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) requires an FPI at each piece-part opportunity.
The FAA clarifies that when an HPT 1st-stage disk or an HPT 2nd-stage disk is removed for piece-part inspection, the ALS of the manufacturer's Instructions for Continued Airworthiness may require additional inspections not required by this AD. The FAA refers the commenter to the ALS, which indicates that additional inspections are not required unless the part has more than
Cathay requested that the FAA define “part eligible for installation” in this AD.
The FAA agrees and added a definition of a “part eligible for installation” in this AD.
Cathay asked if there is a prohibition on the installation of parts in this AD.
The FAA notes that if a HPT 1st-stage disk or HPT 2nd-stage disk does not pass the inspection required by paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) of this AD, the HPT 1st-stage disk or 2nd-stage disk, as applicable, must be removed from service. Any HPT 1st-stage disk or 2nd-stage disk that passes the inspection is eligible for installation. As noted in an earlier comment response, the FAA added the definition of a “part eligible for installation” in this AD, which includes this clarification.
An individual commenter expressed support for the AD as written.
The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
The FAA reviewed IAE NMSB No. V2500-ENG-72-0713, Revision 1, dated January 26, 2021. The NMSB identifies the affected HPT 1st-stage disks and HPT 2nd-stage disks on IAE V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2525-D5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2528-D5, V2530-A5, and V2533-A5 model turbofan engines and specifies procedures for a USI of the HPT 1st-stage disk and HPT 2nd-stage disk.
The FAA also reviewed IAE NMSB No. V2500-E5-72-0015, dated December 15, 2020. The NMSB identifies the affected HPT 1st-stage disks and HPT 2nd-stage disks on IAE V2531-E5 model turbofan engines and specifies procedures for a USI of the HPT 1st-stage disk and HPT 2nd-stage disk.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,100 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacement that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective July 13, 2021.
None.
This AD applies to International Aero Engines AG (IAE) V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2525-D5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2528-D5, V2530-A5, V2531-E5, and V2533-A5 model turbofan engines with an installed:
(1) High-pressure turbine (HPT) 1st-stage disk, part number (P/N) 2A5001, with a serial number (S/N) listed in Appendix A, Table 1, of IAE Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) No. V2500-ENG-72-0713, Revision 1, dated January 26, 2021 (IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0713, Revision 1) or IAE NMSB No. V2500-E5-72-0015, dated December 15, 2020 (IAE NMSB V2500-E5-72-0015); and/or
(2) HPT 2nd-stage disk, P/N 2A4802, with an S/N listed in Appendix A, Table 2, of IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0713, Revision 1, or IAE NMSB V2500-E5-72-0015.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine Section.
This AD was prompted by an analysis performed by the manufacturer after an event involving an uncontained failure of a HPT 1st-stage disk that resulted in high-energy debris penetrating the engine cowling. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPT 1st-stage disk and HPT 2nd-stage disk. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in uncontained HPT disk failure, damage to the engine, damage to the airplane, and loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For IAE V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2528-D5, V2530-A5, and V2533-A5 model turbofan engines with an HPT 1st-stage disk, P/N 2A5001, with an S/N listed in Appendix A, Table 1, of IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0713, Revision 1, at the next engine shop visit after the effective date of this AD or before the HPT 1st-stage disk has accumulated 3,200 flight cycles (FCs) since the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, perform an ultrasonic inspection (USI) of the HPT 1st-stage disk using the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 6, of IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0713, Revision 1.
The USI required by paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) of this AD requires the HPT 1st-stage disk and HPT 2nd-stage disks to be removed from the engine allowing piece-part opportunity inspections. Per the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the manufacturer's Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICAs), the additional inspections are not required unless the part has more than 100 FCs since the last piece-part opportunity inspection, is damaged, or is the cause for the removal of the engine. Engine removal for the purposes of complying with this AD is not “cause” for removal as stated in the ALS.
(2) For IAE V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2528-D5, V2530-A5, and V2533-A5 model turbofan engines with an HPT 2nd-stage disk, P/N 2A4802, with an S/N listed in Appendix A, Table 2, of IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0713, Revision 1, at the next engine shop visit after the effective date of this AD or before the HPT 2nd-stage disk has accumulated 3,200 FCs since the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, perform a USI of the HPT 2nd-stage disk using the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 7, of IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0713, Revision 1.
(3) For IAE V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2525-D5, and V2527-A5 model turbofan engines with an HPT 1st-stage disk, P/N 2A5001, with an S/N listed in Appendix A, Table 1, of IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0713, Revision 1, at the next HPT rotor and stator assembly (HPT module) removal or before the HPT 1st-stage disk has accumulated 6,700 FCs since the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, perform a USI of the HPT 1st-stage disk using the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 6, of IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0713, Revision 1.
(4) For IAE V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2525-D5, and V2527-A5 model turbofan engines with an HPT 2nd-stage disk, P/N 2A4802, with an S/N listed in Appendix A, Table 2, of IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0713, Revision 1, at the next HPT module removal or before the HPT 2nd-stage disk has accumulated 6,700 FCs since the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, perform a USI of the HPT 2nd-stage disk using the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 7, of IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0713, Revision 1.
(5) For IAE V2531-E5 model turbofan engines with an HPT 1st-stage disk, P/N 2A5001, with an S/N listed in Appendix A, Table 1, of IAE NMSB V2500-E5-72-0015, at the next engine shop visit or before the HPT 1st-stage disk has accumulated 3,200 FCs since the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, perform a USI of the HPT 1st-stage disk using the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 6, of IAE NMSB V2500-E5-72-0015.
(6) For IAE V2531-E5 model turbofan engines with an HPT 2nd-stage disk, P/N 2A4802, with an S/N listed in Appendix A, Table 2, of IAE NMSB V2500-E5-72-0015, at the next engine shop visit or before the HPT 2nd-stage disk has accumulated 3,200 FCs since the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, perform a USI of the HPT 2nd-stage disk using the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 7, of IAE NMSB V2500-E5-72-0015.
(7) If, during the USI required by paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) of this AD, a HPT 1st-stage disk or HPT 2nd-stage disk does not pass the inspection as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 8., of IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0713, Revision 1, or IAE NMSB V2500-E5-72-0015, as applicable, before further flight, remove the HPT 1st-stage disk or 2nd-stage disk, as applicable, from service and replace with a part eligible for installation.
(1) For the purpose of this AD, an “engine shop visit” is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges, H-P, except for the following situations, which do not constitute an engine shop visit.
(i) Separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of transportation without subsequent engine maintenance.
(ii) Engine removal for the purpose of performing field maintenance activities at a maintenance facility in lieu of performing them on-wing.
(2) For the purpose for this AD, a “part eligible for installation” is:
(i) An HPT 1st-stage disk or HPT 2nd-stage disk listed in Appendix A, Tables 1 and 2, of IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0713, Revision 1, or Appendix A, Tables 1 and 2, of IAE NMSB V2500-E5-72-0015, that passed the USI required by paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) of this AD; or
(ii) An HPT 1st-stage disk or HPT 2nd-stage disk that is not listed in Appendix A, Tables 1 and 2, of IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0713, Revision 1, or Appendix A, Tables 1 and 2, of IAE NMSB V2500-E5-72-0015.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Nicholas Paine, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7742; fax: (781) 238-7199; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) International Aero Engines (IAE) Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) No. V2500-ENG-72-0713, Revision 1, dated January 26, 2021.
(ii) IAE NMSB No. V2500-E5-72-0015, dated December 15, 2020.
(3) For IAE service information identified in this AD, contact International Aero Engines AG, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: (800) 565-0140; email:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (781) 238-7759.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2019-22-07, which applied to all MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. AD 2019-22-07 required revising the existing airplane flight manual (AFM) to include a limitation and an abnormal operating procedure for the Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS). This AD requires revising the existing AFM and adding airplanes to the applicability. This AD was prompted by a finding that the limitation and abnormal operating procedure did not include reference to a certain mode. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective July 13, 2021.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 13, 2021.
For Bombardier service information identified in this final rule, contact MHI RJ Aviation ULC, 12655 Henri-Fabre Blvd., Mirabel, Québec J7N 1E1 Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone +1-844-272-2720 or direct-dial telephone +1-514-855-8500; fax +1-514-855-8501; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Steven Dzierzynski, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Electrical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7367; email
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2018-32R1, dated August 21, 2020 (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440), CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2019-22-07, Amendment 39-19786 (85 FR 439, January 6, 2020) (AD 2019-22-07). AD 2019-22-07 applied to all MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000)
The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA has considered the comment received. The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) stated that it supports the NPRM.
The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Bombardier has issued the following service information, which describes procedures for revising the existing AFM by including a limitation that specifies a warning for the AFCS and an abnormal operating procedure if an engine failure occurs during or before a climb while in ALTS CAP mode, (V) ALTS CAP mode, or (V) ALTV CAP mode, as applicable. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
• Section 02-08, “System Limitations,” of Chapter 2, “LIMITATIONS”; and Section 05-02, “In-Flight Engine Failures,” of Chapter 5, “ABNORMAL PROCEDURES”; of the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-2B19 AFM, CSP A-012, Volume 1, Revision 73, dated January 3, 2020.
• Section 02-08, “System Limitations,” of Chapter 2, “LIMITATIONS”; and Section 05-02, “In-Flight Engine Failures,” of Chapter 5, “ABNORMAL PROCEDURES”; of the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-2C10 (Series 700, 701, 702) and CL-600-2C11 (Series 550) AFM, CSP B-012, Revision 31, dated May 8, 2020.
• Section 02-08, “System Limitations,” of Chapter 2, “LIMITATIONS”; and Section 05-02, “In-Flight Engine Failures,” of Chapter 5, “ABNORMAL PROCEDURES”; of the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-2D24 (Series 900) and CL-600-2D15 (Series 705) AFM, CSP C-012, Volume 1, Revision 24, dated March 27, 2020.
• Section 02-08, “System Limitations,” of Chapter 2, “LIMITATIONS”; and Section 05-02, “In-Flight Engine Failures,” of Chapter 5, “ABNORMAL PROCEDURES”; of the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-2E25 (Series 1000) AFM, CSP D-012, Revision 23, dated February 14, 2020.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 992 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective July 13, 2021.
This AD replaces AD 2019-22-07, Amendment 39-19786 (85 FR 439, January 6, 2020) (AD 2019-22-07).
This AD applies to the MHI RJ Aviation ULC airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes.
(2) Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702) airplanes.
(3) Model CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550) airplanes.
(4) Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes.
(5) Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes.
(6) Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 22, Auto Flight.
This AD was prompted by a report that during the Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS) ALTS CAP, (V) ALTS CAP, or (V) ALTV CAP mode, the flight guidance/autopilot does not account for engine failure while capturing an altitude. The FAA is issuing this AD to address an engine failure, if it occurs during or before a climb while in ALTS CAP, (V) ALTS CAP, or (V) ALTV CAP mode, which may cause the airspeed to drop significantly below the safe operating speed, possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the existing AFM to include the information in Subject 2, “AUTOMATIC FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM (AFCS),” of Section 02-08, “System Limitations,” of Chapter 2, “LIMITATIONS”; and Subject 1.C, “Engine Failure in Climb During ALTS CAP,” or Subject 1.D, “Engine Failure in Climb During (V) ALTS CAP or (V) ALTV CAP,” of Section 05-02, “In-flight Engine Failures,” of Chapter 5, “ABNORMAL PROCEDURES”; as applicable; of the applicable AFM identified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD, using the applicable AFM specified in figure 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD.
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) TCCA AD CF-2018-32R1, dated August 21, 2020, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Steven Dzierzynski, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Electrical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7367; email
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (k)(3) and (4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Section 02-08, “System Limitations,” of Chapter 2, “LIMITATIONS,” of Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-2B19 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), CSP A-012, Volume 1, Revision 73, dated January 3, 2020.
(ii) Section 05-02, “In-flight Engine Failures,” of Chapter 5, “ABNORMAL PROCEDURES,” of Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-2B19 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), CSP A-012, Volume 1, Revision 73, dated January 3, 2020.
(iii) Section 02-08, “System Limitations,” of Chapter 2, “LIMITATIONS,” of Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-2C10 (Series 700, 701, 702) and CL-600-2C11 (Series 550) AFM, CSP B-012, Revision 31, dated May 8, 2020.
(iv) Section 05-02, “In-flight Engine Failures,” of Chapter 5, “ABNORMAL PROCEDURES,” of Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-2C10 (Series 700, 701, 702) and CL-600-2C11 (Series 550) AFM, CSP B-012, Revision 31, dated May 8, 2020.
(v) Section 02-08, “System Limitations,” of Chapter 2, “LIMITATIONS,” of Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-2D24 (Series 900) and Model CL-600-2D15 (Series 705) AFM, CSP C-012, Volume 1, Revision 24, dated March 27, 2020.
(vi) Section 05-02, “In-flight Engine Failures,” of Chapter 5, “ABNORMAL PROCEDURES,” of Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-2D24 (Series 900) and Model CL-600-2D15 (Series 705) AFM, CSP C-012, Volume 1, Revision 24, dated March 27, 2020.
(vii) Section 02-08, “System Limitations,” of Chapter 2, “LIMITATIONS,” of Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model
(viii) Section 05-02, “In-flight Engine Failures,” of Chapter 5, “ABNORMAL PROCEDURES,” of Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-2E25 (Series 1000) AFM, CSP D-012, Revision 23, dated February 14, 2020.
(3) For Bombardier service information identified in this AD, contact MHI RJ Aviation ULC, 12655 Henri-Fabre Blvd., Mirabel, Québec J7N 1E1 Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone +1-844-272-2720 or direct-dial telephone +1-514-855-8500; fax +1-514-855-8501; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing approval on a revision to the North Dakota State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of North Dakota on November 11, 2016 and supplemented on March 15, 2021, that addresses amendments to the regional haze provisions of the North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC). These revisions were submitted to remove certain regional haze requirements related to Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) in the first planning period. EPA is also finalizing approval on a revision to the North Dakota SIP submitted on August 3, 2020, that addresses additional amendments to the regional haze provisions of the NDAC. The 2020 SIP revision was submitted to update the incorporation by reference date for regional haze definitions, add emission reduction requirements to make reasonable progress during the second and subsequent regional haze planning periods, and revise the regional haze monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to be applicable under the second and subsequent planning period. EPA is taking this action pursuant to section 110 and Part C of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This rule is effective on July 8, 2021.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2021-0002. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6252,
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.
The background for this action is discussed in detail in our April 1, 2021 proposal (86 FR 17101). In that document we proposed to approve North Dakota's regional haze SIP revision submitted by the State of North Dakota on November 11, 2016 and supplemented on March 15, 2021. Specifically, we proposed to approve North Dakota's removal of NDAC section 33-15-25-02.1 (requirement pertaining to the submittal of a regional haze BART analysis) and section 33-15-25-03 (requirement that references the federal guidelines for BART determinations under the regional haze rule) from the regional haze provisions provided in NDAC section 33-15-25.
We also proposed to approve a portion of North Dakota's August 3, 2020, SIP revision that addresses NDAC section 33.1-15-25 of the Air Pollution Control Rules for regional haze.
We did not receive any comments on the proposed rule.
In this action, EPA is finalizing approval on SIP amendments to North Dakota Air Pollution Control Rules, shown in Table 1, submitted by the State of North Dakota on November 11, 2016, and supplemented March 15, 2021, and August 3, 2020.
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 9, 2021. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
Final action; requirement and procedure.
In this document, the Office of Economics and Analytics and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau adopt a certification that will be required of each applicant to participate in the upcoming auction of flexible-use licenses in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band (Auction 110).
The Commission will publish a document in the
This is a summary of the
1. By the
2. In the
3. The Commission proposed to establish this requirement to help ensure that each applicant has reviewed the procedures to become a qualified bidder and participate in the auction process and that it has investigated and assessed technical and business factors that may be relevant to its use of the licenses being offered. The Commission reasoned that this requirement would promote an applicant's successful participation and would minimize its risk of auction defaults.
4. This certification is designed to bolster applicants' efforts to educate themselves to the greatest extent possible about procedures for auction participation and to ensure that, prior to submitting their short-form applications, applicants understand their obligation to stay abreast of relevant, forthcoming information. By ensuring familiarity with the Commission's rules and procedures governing Auction 110, OEA and WTB are also taking steps to help bidders avoid the consequences to them associated with defaults, as well as the consequences for other applicants, the public, and the Commission associated therewith. This certification, along with the other certifications required pursuant to § 1.2105(a) of the Commission's rules, helps ensure that auction applicants are sincere about their interest in the auction, and it may discourage the filing of frivolous applications that waste Commission resources.
5. For these reasons, OEA and WTB will require each Auction 110 applicant to certify as follows in its short-form application:
6. This action is taken by the Office of Economics and Analytics, jointly with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, pursuant to §§ 0.21(m) and 0.131(c) of the Commission's rules. This requirement is an information collection that is subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Accordingly, this requirement will apply to applicants for Auction 110 only if it has been approved by OMB and notice of such approval has been published in the
7. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), a Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental IRFA) was incorporated in the
8.
9. To promote the efficient and fair administration of the competitive bidding process for all Auction 110 participants, OEA and WTB adopt a procedure requiring each Auction 110 applicant to certify that it has read the public notice adopting procedures for the auction and that it has familiarized itself both with the auction procedures and with the requirements for obtaining a license and operating facilities in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band, consistent with the proposal made in the
10. This requirement is an element of the more specific implementation of the competitive bidding rules contemplated by parts 1 and 27 of the Commission's rules and the underlying rulemaking decisions regarding the 3.45-3.55 GHz band, including the
11.
12.
13.
14. As noted above, Regulatory Flexibility Analyses were incorporated into the
15.
16. Typically, the auction procedures informs prospective applicants that they are expected to familiarize themselves with the Commission's general competitive bidding rules, Commission decisions regarding competitive bidding procedures, application requirements, obligations of Commission licensees, and the Commission's service rules for the frequency band available in the auction, and that they must be thoroughly familiar with the procedures, terms, and conditions contained in the public notice adopting procedures for the auction. OEA and WTB therefore do not expect that the certification requirement adopted in the
17. RWA does not provide evidence that outside consultants are needed to enable an entity to certify truthfully that it has read the public notice adopting the procedures for the auction and that it has familiarized itself both with the auction procedures and with the requirements for obtaining a license and operating facilities in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band. Instead, RWA claims that small entity bidders cannot make complex decisions on the future impacts of auction bidding, participation, and winning bidder compliance requirements without outside counsel. In doing so, RWA appears to conflate compliance with auction procedures (in this case, certifying that they have read the public notice adopting procedures for Auction 110 and familiarized themselves with those procedures and the service rules for the 3.45-3.55 GHz band) with the development of bidding strategies and compliance with the relevant service rules. The Commission does not believe that outside consultants of this sort are necessary for an applicant to comply with this certification requirement.
18.
19. The Commission has taken steps to minimize any economic impact of its auction procedures on small entities through, among other things, the many free resources the Commission provides to potential auction participants. Consistent with the past practices in prior auctions, small entities that are potential participants will have access to the public notice adopting the procedures for Auction 110 prior to the opening of the application window, and already have access to the
20. Small entities and other auction participants may seek clarification of, or guidance regarding, the Auction 110 procedures and the service rules for the 3.45-3.55 GHz band rules prior to the Auction 110 application window. Additionally, an FCC Auctions Hotline will provide small entities one-on-one access to Commission staff for information about the auction process and procedures. The FCC Auctions Technical Support Hotline is another resource that provides technical assistance to applicants, including small entities, on issues such as access to or navigation within the electronic FCC Form 175 and use of the bidding system.
21. The Commission also makes various databases and other sources of information, including the auctions program web pages and copies of Commission decisions, available to the public without charge, providing a low-cost mechanism for small entities to conduct research prior to and throughout the auction.
22. These procedures for the conduct of Auction 110 constitute the more specific implementation of the competitive bidding rules contemplated by parts 1 and 27 of the Commission's rules and the underlying rulemaking decisions regarding the 3.45-3.55 GHz band, including the
23.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, an information collection associated with the rules for the Connect America Fund contained in the Commission's
The amendments to § 54.313(e) introductory text, (e)(2) introductory text and paragraphs (n) and (o) published at 84 FR 59937, November 7, 2019 are effective June 8, 2021.
Suzanne Yelen, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991 or via email:
The Commission submitted revised information collection requirements for review and approval by OMB, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, on March 8, 2021, which were approved by OMB on May 10, 2021. The information collection requirements are contained in the Commission's
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the Commission is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on May 10, 2021, for the information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 54.313(e) introductory text, (e)(2) introductory text and paragraphs (n) and (o) published at 84 FR 59937, November 7, 2019. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0986.
The foregoing notification is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
More recently, the Commission adopted the
In the
Lastly, in the
The Commission therefore revises this information collection, as well as Form 481 and its accompanying instructions, to reflect these new and revised requirements. We also eliminated one requirement that is associated with obligations no longer in effect for certain carriers. Any increased burdens for reporting requirements account for the additional carriers that will be subject to those requirements as a condition for receiving high-cost support.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; 2021 fishing seasons notice.
NMFS announces the limited opening of commercial and recreational red snapper in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic for the 2021 fishing year. This notice announces the 2021 red snapper commercial season opening date and the opening and closing dates for the red snapper recreational season, according to the accountability measures (AMs). This season announcement for South Atlantic red snapper allows fishers to maximize their opportunity to harvest the commercial and recreational annual catch limits (ACLs) while also managing harvest to protect the red snapper resource.
The 2021 commercial red snapper season opens at 12:01 a.m., local time, July 12, 2021. The 2021 recreational red snapper season opens at 12:01 a.m., local time, on July 9, 2021, and closes at 12:01 a.m., local time, on July 12, 2021, unless changed by subsequent notification in the
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery includes red snapper and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP, and the FMP is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
For South Atlantic red snapper, the commercial AM requires the sector to close when commercial landings reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL. The recreational AM is the length of the recreational season, with NMFS projecting the season length based on catch rate estimates from previous years.
The commercial ACL is 124,815 lb (56,615 kg), round weight, and in 2020, NMFS closed the commercial sector on September 5 as a result of the commercial ACL being projected to be met (85 FR 54943; September 3, 2020). Subsequent to the commercial closure it was determined that the commercial ACL was exceeded in 2020 by 9,650 lb (4,377 kg), round weight. The recreational ACL is 29,656 fish, and preliminary landings information show this ACL was exceeded in the 4-day fishing season in 2020 by 13,116 fish. For 2021, NMFS has determined that the landings from the recreational sector are expected to reach the recreational ACL in 3 days.
The commercial season for South Atlantic red snapper begins each year on the second Monday in July and closes when the commercial ACL is reached or is projected to be reached. Accordingly, the 2021 commercial season opens on July 12, 2021, and will remain open until 12:01 a.m., local time, on January 1, 2022, unless the commercial ACL is reached or projected to be reached prior to this date. During the commercial fishing season, the commercial trip limit is 75 lb (34 kg), gutted weight. NMFS will monitor commercial landings during the open season, and if commercial landings reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL, then NMFS will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the commercial
The recreational season for South Atlantic red snapper begins on the second Friday in July. Accordingly, the 2021 recreational red snapper season opens at 12:01 a.m., local time, on July 9, 2021, and closes at 12:01 a.m., local time, on July 12, 2021. During the recreational season, the recreational bag limit is one red snapper per person, per day. After the recreational sector closure, the bag and possession limits for red snapper are zero.
There is not a red snapper minimum or maximum size limit for the commercial and recreational sectors during the open seasons.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 622.183(b)(5)(i) and 622.193(y), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule establishing the red snapper ACLs and AMs has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the respective commercial and recreational fishing seasons. In addition, providing prior notice and an opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because the seasons begin in early July and announcing the length of the fishing seasons now allows each sector to prepare for the upcoming harvest, provides opportunity to for-hire fishing vessels to book trips that could increase their revenues and profits, and gives the South Atlantic states just enough time to prepare for their respective data collection needs for the season.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Acting Assistant Administrator for NMFS also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2021-04-15, which applies to all Airbus Helicopters Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters; and certain Model AS350B3 helicopters. AD 2021-04-15 requires repetitive visual inspections of the right-hand side of the vertical fin spar for discrepancies (cracking), and corrective action if necessary. Since the FAA issued AD 2021-04-15, the FAA has determined that additional actions are required to address the unsafe condition. This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2021-04-15, and would require repetitive cleaning and repetitive detailed inspections for cracking of the vertical fin spar and vertical fin upper attachments, and corrective action if necessary, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference (IBR). This proposed AD would also expand the applicability to include additional Model AS350B3 helicopters. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 23, 2021.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For material that is proposed for IBR in this AD, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Kathleen Arrigotti, Program Manager, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3218; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Kathleen Arrigotti, Program Manager, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3218; email
The FAA issued AD 2021-04-15, Amendment 39-21437 (86 FR 13165, March 8, 2021) (AD 2021-04-15), which applies to all Airbus Helicopters Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2,
The preamble to AD 2021-04-15 explains that the FAA was considering further rulemaking to address the actions specified in paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2020-0186, dated August 20, 2020. The FAA has now determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary, and this proposed AD follows from that determination. This proposed AD would require additional actions and would expand the applicability to include additional Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B3 helicopters (
The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0099, dated April 9, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0099) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Helicopters Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters; and all Model AS350B3 helicopters except those that have that embodied Airbus Helicopters Modification 073148 in production. EASA stated that recent analysis identified that AS350B3 helicopters modified through Eurocopter AS350 Service Bulletin 55.00.14 (any revision) in service might also be affected by the identified unsafe condition.
This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that additional actions are required to address the unsafe condition and additional helicopters are affected by the identified unsafe condition. This proposed AD was also prompted by a report that, during an unscheduled post-flight inspection of the tail cone area of an Airbus Helicopters Model AS355NP helicopter, a crack was found in the spar of the upper part of the vertical fin and fractures were found in the two front attachment screws. Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B3 helicopters have a similar vertical fin configuration and are subject to comparable load levels as the affected Model AS355NP helicopter, therefore, this model may be subject to the same unsafe condition revealed on the Model AS355NP helicopter. The FAA is proposing this AD to address cracking in the spar of the upper part of the vertical fin and fractures in the front attachment screws. This condition could lead to in-flight separation of the upper part of the vertical fin, resulting in loss of control of the helicopter. See the MCAI for additional background information.
EASA AD 2021-0099 specifies procedures for repetitive visual inspections of the right-hand side of the vertical fin spar for cracking; repetitive cleaning and repetitive detailed inspections for cracking of the vertical fin spar and vertical fin upper attachments; and corrective action. The corrective action includes repair.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
These products have been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all the relevant information and determining the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.
Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2021-04-15, this proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2021-04-15. Those requirements are referenced in EASA AD 2021-0099, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2021-0099 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2021-0099 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2021-0099 in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in the EASA AD. Service information specified in EASA AD 2021-0099 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2021-0099 will be available on the internet at
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 650 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of helicopters that might need these on-condition actions:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments by July 23, 2021.
This AD replaces AD 2021-04-15, Amendment 39-21437 (86 FR 13165, March 8, 2021) (AD 2021-04-15).
This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters specified in paragraph (c)(1) and (2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters, all serial numbers.
(2) Model AS350B3 helicopters, all serial numbers except those that have embodied Airbus Helicopters Modification 073148 in production.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 5531, Vertical Stabilizer, Spar/Rib.
This AD was prompted by a report that, during an unscheduled post-flight inspection of the tail cone area of an Airbus Helicopters Model AS355NP helicopter, a crack was found in the spar of the upper fin and fractures were found in the two front attachment screws. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking in the spar of the upper part of the vertical fin and fractures in the front attachment screws. This condition could lead to in-flight separation of the upper part of the vertical fin, resulting in loss of control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0099, dated April 9, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0099).
(1) Where EASA AD 2021-0099 refers to its effective date or to July 12, 2017, (the effective date of EASA AD 2017-0114, dated June 28, 2017), this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) The “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2021-0099 does not apply to this AD.
(3) Where EASA AD 2021-0099 refers to flight hours (FH), this AD requires using hours time-in-service.
(4) Where paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2021-0099 specifies to contact the manufacturer for approved repair instructions, for this AD, if
(5) Where the service information referred to in EASA AD 2021-0099 specifies to perform a visual inspection for cracking on the “RH side of spar (a)” and “if you are not sure” remove the rear and the tail rotor gear box (TGB) fairings to perform a detailed inspection and do a dye-penetrant inspection, those actions are required by this AD if any crack indication (
(6) Where the service information referred to in EASA AD 2021-0099 specifies to perform a visual check for cracks in the “spars (a) of the top and bottom fins” and “if you are not sure” do a dye-penetrant inspection, the dye-penetrant inspection is required by this AD if any crack indication (
(7) Where the service information referred to in EASA AD 2021-0099 specifies to check the integrity of the two thrust pad attachment screws for damage, for this AD, damage includes loosening, deformation, and nicks.
Special flight permits, as described in 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199, are prohibited.
(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For EASA AD 2021-0099, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen Arrigotti, Program Manager, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax (206) 231-3218; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
The FAA is withdrawing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream) Model GVII-G600 airplanes. The NPRM was prompted by a report that a failure mode in the data concentration network (DCN) software causes the pitch attitude value to freeze on the primary flight display (PFD) for up to 20 seconds. The NPRM proposed to require updating the DCN and flight deck master operating system (MOS) software. Since issuance of the NPRM, the FAA has determined that there is not an unsafe condition because all affected airplanes have updated software. Accordingly, the NPRM is withdrawn.
As of June 8, 2021, the proposed rule, which published in the
You may examine the AD docket at
Myles Jalalian, Aviation Safety Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: (404) 474-5572; fax: (404) 474-5606; email:
The FAA issued an NPRM that proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain serial-numbered Gulfstream Model GVII-G600 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The effect is evident only if the pitch of the airplane changes during the 20 second reset window. After 20 seconds, the system returns to normal. The standby flight display and heads up display are unaffected by this failure mode and continue to display the correct pitch attitude. However, there is not an alert or annunciation that informs the flight crew of a stale (frozen) pitch display or potentially misleading flight information.
The NPRM proposed to require installing the MOS software update part number EB60001034-0106, updating the DCN software level to version 10.10.12 in support of the MOS software update, and operationally checking the installations. Incorrect pitch indications could result in the loss of control of the airplane during certain phases of flight during instrument meteorological conditions.
After issuance of the NPRM, the FAA received a comment from Gulfstream recommending the FAA withdraw the NPRM based on full fleet compliance. All Gulfstream Model GVII-G600 airplanes have corrected the unsafe condition by complying with the proposed software update. The FAA has determined that the unsafe condition has been removed from the fleet. In addition, since Gulfstream controls the software, it is unlikely the unsafe condition will be re-introduced.
Based on the above information, the FAA has determined that AD action is not warranted and the proposal should be withdrawn.
Withdrawal of the NPRM constitutes only such action and does not preclude the FAA from further rulemaking on this issue, nor does it commit the FAA to any course of action in the future.
Since this action only withdraws an NPRM, it is neither a proposed AD nor a final rule. This action, therefore, is not covered under Executive Order 12866 or the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking, which published in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at County Memorial Airport, New Madrid, MO. The FAA is proposing this action as a result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Malden Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range collocated with Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) navigation aid as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.
Comments must be received on or before July 23, 2021.
Send comments on this proposal to: The U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2021-0418; Airspace Docket No. 21-ACE-12, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11E Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone (404) 305-6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it amends Class E airspace in New Madrid, MO, to support IFR operations in the area.
Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-2021-0418 and Airspace Docket No. 21-ACE-12) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-0418; Airspace Docket No. 21-ACE-12.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for County Memorial Airport, New Madrid, MO, as the Malden VORTAC has been decommissioned and all associated airspace extensions of Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, off the Malden VORTAC have been eliminated. The Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be amended by increasing the radius to 10.3 miles (previously 6.3 miles).
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures”, prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 10.3-mile radius of the County Memorial Airport.
Office of the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Office of the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs is providing notice of an upcoming meeting of the Advisory Committee on Data for Evidence Building (ACDEB or Committee). This will constitute the ninth meeting of the Committee in support of its charge to review, analyze, and make recommendations on how to promote the use of Federal data for evidence building purposes. At the conclusion of the Committee's first and second year, it will submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, an annual report on the activities and findings of the Committee. This report will also be made available to the public.
June 18, 2021. The meeting will begin at approximately 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at approximately 11:00 a.m. (ET).
Those interested in attending the Committee's public meetings are requested to RSVP to
Members of the public who wish to submit written input for the Committee's consideration are welcomed to do so via email to
The safety and well-being of the public, committee members, and our staff are our top priority. In light of current travel restrictions and social-distancing guidelines resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak, each meeting will be held virtually.
Gianna Marrone, Program Analyst, U.S. Department of Commerce, 4600 Silver Hill Road (BE-64), Suitland, MD 20746; phone (301) 278-9282; email
The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act (Pub. L. 115-435, Evidence Act 101(a)(2) (5 U.S.C. 315 (a)), establishes the Committee and its charge. It specifies that the Chief Statistician of the United States shall serve as the Chair and other members shall be appointed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Act prescribes a membership balance plan that includes: One agency Chief Information Officer; one agency Chief Privacy Officer; one agency Chief Performance Officer; three members who are agency Chief Data Officers; three members who are agency Evaluation Officers; and three members who are agency Statistical Officials who are members of the Interagency Council for Statistical Policy established under section 3504(e)(8) of title 44. Additionally, at least 10 members are to be representative of state and local governments and nongovernmental stakeholders with expertise in government data policy, privacy, technology, transparency policy, evaluation and research methodologies, and other relevant subjects. Committee members serve for a term of two years. Following a public solicitation and review of nominations, the Director of OMB appointed members per this balance plan and information on the membership can be found at
The ACDEB is interested in the public's input on the issues it will consider, and requests that interested parties submit statements to the ACDEB via email to
ACDEB Committee meetings are open, and the public is invited to attend and observe. Those planning to attend are asked to RSVP to
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) has preliminarily assigned ARLANXEO Brasil S.A. (ARLANXEO Brasil), the sole respondent subject to this antidumping duty (AD) administrative review, an AD margin based on the application of adverse facts available (AFA). We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable June 8, 2021.
Drew Jackson, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4406.
On October 30, 2020, Commerce published in the
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
The product covered by this review is certain ESB rubber from Brazil. For a full description of the scope
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce is preliminarily relying upon facts otherwise available to determine a weighted-average dumping margin for ARLANXEO Brasil in this review. Commerce preliminarily finds that necessary information is not available on the record, and that ARLANXEO Brasil withheld information requested by Commerce, failed to provide the requested information in the form and manner requested, and significantly impeded the proceeding, warranting a determination on the basis of the facts available under sections 776(a)(1) and (2)(A)-(C) of the Act. Further, Commerce preliminarily determines that ARLANXEO Brasil failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, and thus, Commerce is applying AFA in determining a margin for ARLANXEO Brasil, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions regarding the application of AFA, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period September 1, 2019 through August 31, 2020:
Upon 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. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
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
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for ARLANXEO Brasil will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
Normally, Commerce discloses the calculations performed in connection with preliminary results to interested parties within five days after the date of public announcement or publication of this notice.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless the Secretary alters the time limit. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than seven days after the date for filing case briefs.
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, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results in the
This notice serves as a preliminary 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.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, United States Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge (NWR) from Taiwan for the period of review (POR) September 1, 2019, through August 31, 2020, based on the timely withdrawal of the request for review.
Applicable June 8, 2021.
David Crespo, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3693.
On September 1, 2020, Commerce published in the
On October 30, 2020, Commerce published in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. As noted above, the petitioner timely withdrew its request for review within the 90-day period. Because no other party requested a review of the AD order, we are rescinding this administrative review of the AD order on NWR from Taiwan for the POR in its entirety, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of NWR from Taiwan during the POR at rates equal to the cash deposit rates for estimated antidumping duties that were required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this rescission notice in the
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 doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/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.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that the sole company subject to this administrative review is part of the China-wide entity because it did not file a separate rate application (SRA). The period of review (POR) is April 1, 2019, through March 31, 2020.
Applicable June 8, 2021.
Peter Zukowski, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0189.
On February 2, 2021, Commerce published the
The merchandise covered by the order is 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane, R-134a, or its chemical equivalent, regardless of form, type, or purity level. The chemical formula for 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane is CF
Merchandise subject to the order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 2903.39.2020. Although the HTSUS subheading and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Because we received no comments, we made no changes from the
Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b). Because we determined that Puremann, Inc. was not eligible for a separate rate and is part of the China-wide entity, we will instruct CBP to apply an
Consistent with its recent notice,
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or reviewed Chinese or 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 that for the China-wide entity (
This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 315.402(f)(2) 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 duties
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/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 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable June 8, 2021.
Kate Sliney or Alex Cipolla at (202) 482-0324 or (202) 482-4956, respectively, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On April 19, 2021, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated a countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of imports of certain walk-behind snow throwers and parts thereof (snow throwers) from the People's Republic of China (China).
Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a countervailing duty investigation within 65 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) The petitioner
On May 28, 2021, the petitioner submitted a timely request that Commerce postpone the preliminary CVD determination.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner has stated the reasons for requesting a postponement of the preliminary determination, and Commerce finds no compelling reason to deny the request. Therefore, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, Commerce is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination to no later than 130 days after the date on which this investigation was initiated,
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily finds that Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co., Ltd. (Saha Thai), and 26 non-examined companies, made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) March 1, 2019, through February 29, 2020. We further preliminarily determine that Blue Pipe Steel Center (Blue Pipe) and K Line Logistics (Thailand) Ltd. (K-Line) had no shipments during the POR. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable June 8, 2021.
William Langley or Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3861 or (202) 482-0410, respectively.
In accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes (pipes and tubes) from Thailand. On May 6, 2020, in accordance with 19 CFR 251.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated the administrative review of the order
On April 24, 2020, Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines in administrative reviews by 50 days.
The products covered by the antidumping order are pipes and tubes from Thailand. For a full description of the scope of this order,
Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Act. Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results,
Commerce selected Blue Pipe as a mandatory respondent because it and Saha Thai accounted for the largest volume of subject merchandise during the POR. Blue Pipe reported that its supplier, Saha Thai, had knowledge of the final destination of the subject merchandise that they produced and sold to Blue Pipe, and which Blue Pipe resold to U.S. customers during the POR, which Saha Thai confirmed in its responses.
Based on an analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) information, and comments provided by interested parties regarding the CBP data, Commerce preliminarily determines that K-Line had no shipments during the POR. For additional information regarding this determination,
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period March 1, 2019, through February 29, 2020:
The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a weighted-average dumping margin to be applied to companies 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 a less-than-fair-value investigation, for guidance when calculating the weighted-average dumping margin for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding rates that are zero,
Consistent with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we determined the weighted-average dumping margin for each of the non-selected companies by using the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Saha Thai in this administrative review.
Upon completion of this administrative review, Commerce shall determine and CBP shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If an examined respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
Commerce clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.
We intend 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
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies under review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review (except, if that rate is
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days after public announcement of the preliminary results in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than the date which Commerce will announce subsequent to this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than seven days after the date for filing case briefs.
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, filed electronically via Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS. 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 those raised by each party in their respective case brief.
Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice.
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless extended, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
This notice serves as a preliminary 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 review period. 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.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(4).
International Trade Administration, Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before August 9, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Amanda Reynolds, Senior International Economist, International Trade Administration (ITA) by email to
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Amanda Reynolds, Senior International Economist, (202) 482-4691 and email
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act (hereinafter “the Act”) of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-290, 15 U.S.C. 4001
The Department of Commerce conducts its economic and legal analysis of the information supplied by applicants through the Office of Trade and Economic Analysis and the Office of the General Counsel. In the Department of Justice, analysis is conducted by the Antitrust Division.
Title III was enacted to reduce uncertainty regarding the application of U.S. antitrust laws to export activities. An Export Trade Certificate of Review provides its holder and members named in the Certificate with (a) protection from government actions under state and federal antitrust laws for the export conduct specified in the Certificate, and (b) certain protection from private suits, by limiting liability in private actions to actual damages when the challenged activities are covered by an Export Trade Certificate of Review.
The form is sent by request to U.S. firms.
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.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the changed circumstances reviews (CCRs) of the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products (solar products) from the People's Republic of China (China) with respect to certain off-grid portable small panels.
Applicable June 8, 2021.
Mark Hoadley, Enforcement and Compliance, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3148.
On July 28, 2020, Commerce published a notice of initiation of CCRs, and consideration of revocation of the
On April 19, 2021, Commerce extended the deadline for the final results of the CCRs by 45 days until June 2, 2021.
On May 14, 2021, Maodi Solar informed Commerce that it “no longer wishes to pursue this action, and hereby withdraws its request for a finding of changed circumstances and partial revocation.”
Although it does not specifically reference CCRs, 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) provides that Commerce will rescind an administrative review if the party requesting the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Commerce's practice has been to apply the 90-day deadline to requests for CCRs. However, 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) also provides that Commerce may extend the 90-day time limit for withdrawing the request for an administrative review if we determine that it is reasonable to do so. In this case, Maodi Solar requested a rescission of this review on May 14, 2021, which is beyond 90 days from the date of initiation. However, we note that no party has objected to Maodi Solar's rescission request. Additionally, Commerce has not expended significant resources conducting this review. Therefore, we determine that it is reasonable to extend the 90-day time limit in this instance. Consequently, Commerce has accepted Maodi Solar's rescission request in this case as timely and is now rescinding the CCRs. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to suspend entries of subject merchandise at the appropriate cash deposit rate for all entries of solar products from China.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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 violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
As COVID-19 conditions persist, populations around the U.S. and the world have and will continue to experience heat waves, floods, hurricanes, fire, and drought during the period of virus transmission and into the period of recovery (
The goal of this longitudinal effort is to inform NIST research and recommendations as well as provide Federal partners (
A third wave of data collection is proposed in order to address the research goals as SMEs begin to recover from the pandemic. This effort addresses the gap in research on the experiences of SMEs dealing with complex events generally and those that arise during a pandemic, specifically. This longitudinal study accounts for SME vulnerabilities, which may further amplify the impacts of a singular or complex event.
Proposed respondents to this data collection have already registered their interest in participation in the data collection (during Wave 2). The proposed collection is critical to understand the resilience of SMEs, which in turn allows NIST to refine recommendations relevant to SMEs. This is critical as SMEs and the communities in which they exist plan for future events while continuing to recover from COVID-19 impacts.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before August 9, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Laurie Golden, Grants Administrator, 240-533-0285 or
This request is for a revision and extension of a currently approved information collection. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Coastal Ocean Program (COP), now known as the Competitive Research Program (CRP) under the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, provides direct financial assistance through grants and cooperative agreements for research supporting the management of coastal ecosystems and the NOAA RESTORE Science Program (RSP). The statutory authority for COP is Public Law 102-567 Section 201 (Coastal Ocean Program). NOAA was authorized to establish and administer the Restore Science Program, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, by the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies (RESTORE) of the Gulf States Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-141, Section 1604). Identified in the RESTORE Act as the Gulf Coast Ecosystem restoration Science, Observation, Monitoring, and Technology Program, the Program is commonly known as the NOAA RESTORE Science Program. In addition to standard government application requirements, applicants for financial assistance are required to submit a project summary form, current and pending form, and a key contacts form for both programs. CRP recipients are required to file annual progress reports and a project final report using CRP formats. The RSP are required to file semi-annual progress reports, a final report, and a Gantt chart showing project milestones using RSP formats. All of these requirements are needed for better evaluation of proposals and monitoring of awards.
Revisions to the approved annual and final reports for CRP include the request for publication digital object identifiers (DOIs). Additional information requested for RSP semi-annual and final reports include end-user details.
Respondents have a choice of either electronic or paper forms.
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.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before August 9, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Clifford Hutt, Fishery Management Specialist, NOAA Fisheries Highly Migratory Species Management Division, at 301-427-8542 or
This request is for the renewal and extension of a current information collection, which includes both vessel and dealer permits.
Under the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
Regulations at 50 CFR 635.4 require that vessels participating in commercial and recreational fisheries for Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) and dealers purchasing Atlantic HMS from a vessel obtain a Federal permit issued by NMFS. This action addresses the renewal of permit applications currently approved under PRA 0648-0327, including both vessel and Atlantic Tunas Dealer permits. Vessel permits include Atlantic Tunas (except Longline permits, which are approved under PRA 0648-0205), HMS Charter/Headboat, HMS Angling, and Swordfish General Commercial permits. This action also includes the one-time requirement for commercial vessels greater than 20 meters in length to obtain an International Maritime Organization/Lloyd's Registry (IMO/LR) number.
The burden estimates in this renewal are being updated to reflect increases in the number of permits issued each year, and a $6 increase in the price of permits due to increased costs associated with maintaining and executing the program.
Methods of submittal include online, email, and mail.
We are soliciting public comments to allow 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.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments on proposed Renewal incidental harassment authorization (IHA).
NMFS received a request from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for the Renewal of their currently active incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals incidental to the Elkhorn Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Project (Phase II) which includes the excavation and movement of soil with heavy machinery for marsh restoration in Monterey County, California. These activities consist of activities that are covered by the current authorization but will not be completed prior to its expiration. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, prior to issuing the currently active IHA, NMFS requested comments on both the proposed IHA and the potential for renewing the initial authorization if certain requirements were satisfied. The Renewal requirements have been satisfied, and NMFS is now providing an additional 15-day comment period to allow for any additional comments on the proposed Renewal not previously provided during the initial 30-day comment period.
Comments and information must be received no later than June 23, 2021.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Written comments should be submitted via email to
Kim Corcoran, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the original application, Renewal request, and supporting documents (including NMFS
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation measures”). Monitoring and reporting of such takings are also required. The meaning of key terms such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact” can be found in section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362) and the agency's regulations at 50 CFR 216.103.
NMFS' regulations implementing the MMPA at 50 CFR 216.107(e) indicate that IHAs may be renewed for additional periods of time not to exceed one year for each reauthorization. In the notice of proposed IHA for the initial authorization, NMFS described the circumstances under which we would consider issuing a Renewal for this activity, and requested public comment on a potential Renewal under those
(1) A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the Renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from expiration of the initial IHA).
(2) The request for renewal must include the following:
• An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested Renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor (
• A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.
(3) Upon review of the request for Renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
An additional public comment period of 15 days (for a total of 45 days), with direct notice by email, phone, or postal service to commenters on the initial IHA, is provided to allow for any additional comments on the proposed Renewal. A description of the Renewal process may be found on our website at:
The NDAA (Pub. L. 108-136) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations indicated above and amended the definition of “harassment” as it applies to a “military readiness activity.”
The current action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental harassment authorizations with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed renewal qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review just as the initial IHA did.
On March 13, 2020, NMFS issued an IHA to CDFW to take marine mammals incidental to construction activities associated with the second phase of the tidal marsh restoration project in Elkhorn Slough, California (85 FR 14640; March 13, 2021), effective from June 01, 2020 through May 31, 2021. On May 11, 2021, NMFS received an application for the Renewal of that initial IHA. Although the request was not received 60 days prior to the expiration date of the initial IHA, the applicant has been informed that the Renewal may not be issued until 60 days past the May 11, 2021 submission date. As described in the application for Renewal IHA, the activities for which incidental take is requested consist of activities that are covered by the initial authorization but will not be completed prior to its expiration. As required, the applicant also provided a preliminary monitoring report (available at
CDFW is unable to complete all of the planned work under the initial 2020 IHA for Phase II of the Elkhorn Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Project. The initial IHA planned to restore 58 acres of saltmarsh habitat in two areas, Minhoto-Hester Restoration Area (subareas M4a-b, M5, and M6) and the Seal Bend Restoration Area (S1-S4) (Figure 1). To date, the majority of earthwork at the Minhoto-Hester Restoration Area has been completed, including earthwork in subareas M4a-b and M5, however outstanding work in subareas M5 and M6 will not be completed before the May 31, 2021 IHA expiration date. Therefore, CDFW has requested a Renewal IHA to authorize the take of marine mammals for a subset of the initially planned work that has not been completed which will include the outstanding work in subareas M5 and M6. A separate IHA application will be submitted by CDFW for the work at the Seal Bend Restoration Area which has not been initiated to date, and is expected to start later in the year. Of note, the work in the Minhoto-Hester Restoration Area has taken more days to conduct than initially expected, but the completion of work in that Area is still expected to occur within the total number of workdays contemplated in the initial IHA.
Anticipated impacts would include only Level B harassment of marine mammals (though fewer, since the duration of the proposed activity is shorter). CDFW's request is for one species of pinniped by Level B harassment: Harbor seal (
As discussed earlier, this is a Renewal to complete the subset of the activity not completed under the initial IHA (85 FR 14640; March 13, 2020). Due to construction delays attributed to severe weather in the winter of 2020 which limited the ability for heavy equipment to access and mobilize onsite in addition to smaller construction crew sizes than anticipated, only 118 days of work occurred between August 2020 and April 2021 of the 180 days anticipated and authorized for this project. The completed work to date includes the majority of earthwork at Minhoto-Hester Restoration Area in subareas M4a-b, and M5. As of the submission of their Renewal request, 62 days of work remains at the Minhoto-Hester Restoration Area which will occur between the time the Renewal is issued and September 2021. The applicant requests authorization for the work remaining as of June 1, 2021 which includes placement of additional fill in subareas M5 and M6 (see Table 1) to raise the subsided marsh plain; excavation of tidal channels in all subareas; and rerouting tidal flow from the existing tidal channel adjacent to Yampah Marsh to the new tidal channel that bisects subareas M4b and M5. All of the remaining work is consistent with work described in the initial IHA. Table 1 (same as Table 1 from application and initial proposed) presents the acreages and extents of proposed fill within each marsh subarea, as well as the volume of fill required for each marsh subarea to be restored. The upland borrow area, onsite, would be used as the fill source. The project would rely primarily on natural vegetation recruitment in the restored marsh areas.
This Renewal request is identical to that of the 2020 IHA, in that it is comprised of a subset of the work that was covered in the initial IHA. The location, timing, and nature of the activities, including the types of equipment planned for use, are identical to those described in the previous notices. The proposed Renewal would be effective until May 31, 2022 and does not authorize activities related to restoration work in the Seal Bend Restoration Area as a subsequent IHA application will be submitted by CDFW for such activities at a later date.
The mitigation and monitoring will be identical to that of the 2020 IHA. A detailed description of the restoration activities for which take is proposed may be found in the notices of the proposed (84 FR 72308; December 31, 2019) and the final IHAs (85 FR 14640; March 13, 2020) for the 2020 authorization. All documented associated with the 2020 IHA (
A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities for which authorization of take is proposed here, including information on abundance, status, distribution, and hearing, may be found in the notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial authorization. NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial IHA, recent draft Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and other scientific literature, and determined that neither this nor any other new information affects which species or stocks have the potential to be affected or the pertinent information in the Description of the Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities contained in the supporting documents for the initial IHA.
A description of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat for the activities for which take is proposed here may be found in the notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial authorization. NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial IHA, recent draft Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and other scientific literature, and determined that neither this nor any other new information affects our initial analysis of impacts on marine mammals and their habitat.
A detailed description of the methods and inputs used to estimate take for the specified activity are found in the final IHA notice for the initial authorization. Specifically, the activity, days of operation, and marine mammal density data applicable to this authorization remain unchanged from the previously issued IHA. Similarly, the stock taken, method of take, and type of take remain unchanged from the previously issued IHA. The number of Level B harassment takes will be fewer since the proposed Renewal is for a subset of the days which can be seen in Table 2. The authorized take was determined by multiplying the daily take estimate (37.53) by the number of construction days remaining (62 days) at Minhoto-Hester Restoration Area and rounding up (Table 2).
All estimates are considered conservative. Construction activities will occur in sections. Noise from construction activities in more southern sections may thus cause fewer disturbances to seals given their distance from seal haul outs (approximately 100 m and greater). There are unlikely to be 417 animals in the project area on any given day. Not all seals that previously used the haul outs within the footprint of the construction are expected use the haul outs just outside the project based on observations from Phase I of the project. Some seals may seek alternative haul out habitat in other parts of Elkhorn Slough.
The proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included as requirements in this authorization are identical to those included in the
When construction activities occur near the “borrow” areas where marsh fill material is gathered, monitoring must occur every fifth day when work is occurring, unless the borrow area is more than 300 m from any area where marine mammals have been observed. Occurrence of marine mammals within the Level B harassment zone must be communicated to the construction lead to prepare for the potential shutdown when required.
Pupping Season—Construction activities may not be initiated: (1) Within 300 m of a mom/pup pair that is hauled out, or (2) within 100 m of a mom/pup pair in the water. If there is a gap in construction activities of more than an hour or if construction moves to a different area, this initiation protocol must again be implemented. During site containment activities that are underway, heavy machinery must not approach closer than 100 m of where mothers and pups are actively hauled out. If a pup less than one week old (neonate) comes within 20 m of where heavy machinery is working, construction activities in that area must be shutdown or delayed until the pup has left the area. In the event that a pup less than one week old remains within those 20 m, NMFS will be consulted to determine the appropriate course of action.
Activities must cease if a marine mammal species for which take was not authorized, or a species for which authorization was granted but the authorized number of takes have been met, is observed by Protected Species Observers (PSOs) approaching or within the Level B harassment zone. Activities must not resume until the animal is confirmed to have left the area.
Construction activities must not be initiated if any marine mammal is within 10 m of planned operations. If a marine mammal is observed within 10 m of planned operations during the 30-minute pre-clearance period, ramp-up must not begin until the animal(s) has been observed exiting the zones or until an additional time period has elapsed with no further sightings (15 minutes for small odontocetes and pinnipeds and 30 minutes for all other species). Furthermore, the PSO will have the authority to stop project activities if marine mammals approach or enter the Level B Harassment Zone and/or at any time for the safety of any marine mammals. Work will commence only with approval of the PSO to ensure that no marine mammals are present in the Level B Harassment Zone.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the authorized mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks.
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
PSOs will be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals within the Level B harassment zone, defined above. If multiple construction activities occur simultaneously, enough PSOs must be on duty to monitor all Level B Harassment zones.
Qualifications for PSOs for visual monitoring include:
• Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of harbor seals on land or in the water with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target.
• Successfully attained a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with a major in one of the
• Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic experience).
• Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors.
• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations.
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when construction activities were conducted; dates and times when construction activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound or visual disturbance of marine mammals observed; and marine mammal behavior.
• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
(a) PSOs must be provided with the equipment necessary to effectively monitor for marine mammals in order to record species, the distance from species' location to the construction activities, behaviors, and responses to construction activities.
(b) The PSO must also conduct biological resources awareness training for construction personnel. The awareness training will be provided to brief construction personnel on identification of marine mammals (including neonates) and the need to avoid and minimize impacts to marine mammals. If new construction personnel are added to the project, the contractor shall ensure that the personnel receive the mandatory training before starting work. Monitoring requirements also include:
Data collected must include:
Notes should include any of the following information to the extent it is feasible to record:
A draft marine mammal monitoring report would be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal activities, or 60 days prior to a requested date of issuance of any future IHAs for projects at the same location, whichever comes first. The report must include full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. It shall also include marine mammal observations pre-activity, during-activity, and post-activity of construction, and shall also provide descriptions of any behavioral responses by marine mammals due to disturbance from construction activities and a complete description of total take estimate based on the number of marine
As noted previously, NMFS published a notice of a proposed IHA (84 FR 72308; December 31, 2019) and solicited public comments on both our proposal to issue the initial IHA for CDFW's activity and on the potential for a Renewal IHA, should certain requirements be met. All public comments were addressed in the notice announcing the issuance of the initial IHA (85 FR 14640; March 13, 2020). Below, we describe how we have addressed, with updated information where appropriate, any comments received that specifically pertain to the Renewal of the 2020 IHA.
NMFS has preliminarily concluded that there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change from those reached for the initial IHA. Based on the information and analysis contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) The required mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; (4) CDFW activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action, and; (5) appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements are included.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16. U.S.C. 1531
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for authorization or expected to result from this activity in the Elkhorn Slough Reserve. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue a Renewal IHA to CDFW for conducting Phase II of the Elkhorn Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Project in Elkhorn Slough located in Monterey County, California, provided the previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed and final initial IHA can be found at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an IHA to the U.S. Navy (Navy) to incidentally harass, by Level B and Level A harassment, marine mammals incidental to Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNSY) Dry Dock 1 (DD1) modification and expansion in Kittery, Maine.
This authorization is effective from June 2, 2021 through June 1, 2022.
Carter Esch, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8421. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation”). Monitoring and reporting of such takings are also required. The meaning of key terms such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact” can be found in section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362 and the agency's regulations at 50 CFR 216.103.
On October 22, 2020, NMFS received a request from the Navy for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to modification and expansion of DD1 at PNSY in Kittery, Maine. The Navy submitted revised versions of the application on December 30, 2020, and January 19 and February 11, 2021. The application was deemed adequate and complete on February 19, 2021. The Navy's request is for take of a small number of harbor porpoises, harbor seals, gray seals, harp seals, and hooded seals by Level B harassment and Level A harassment for a subset of these species. Neither the Navy nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this activity; therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
NMFS previously issued three IHAs to the Navy for waterfront improvement work, in 2016 (81 FR 85525; November 28, 2016), 2018 (83 FR 3318; January 24, 2018), 2019 (84 FR 24476, May 28, 2019), and a renewal of the 2019 IHA (86 FR 14598; March 17, 2021). As required, the applicant provided monitoring reports (available at:
As part of its overall objective to modernize and maximize dry dock capabilities for performing current and future missions efficiently and with maximum flexibility, the Navy plans to modify and expand DD1 at the PNSY by constructing two new dry docking positions capable of servicing Virginia class submarines within the super flood basin of the dry dock. The in-water portion of the dock modification and expansion, which will occur within and at the boundaries of the super flood basin, includes: Construction of the west closure wall, construction of entrance structure closure walls, and bedrock excavation. Construction activities include in-water impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving and removal, rock drilling, and underwater blasting. Underwater sounds produced by these activities may result in Level B harassment and Level A harassment of marine mammal species.
In-water construction activities are expected to occur between June 2021 and June 2022, with an estimated total of 29 days for pile driving and pile removal, 130 days for drilling of blast charge holes, and 130 days of blasting for bedrock excavation, for a total of 289 construction days. Some of these activities will occur on the same day, resulting in 159 total construction days over 12 months. However, as a conservative measure, construction days are accounted for as consecutive rather than concurrent activities in take estimates (see Estimated Take section). All in-water construction work will be limited to daylight hours, with the exception of pre-dawn (beginning no earlier than 3:00 a.m.) drilling of blast charge holes; drilling will not occur from sunset to pre-dawn. The daily construction timeframe for blasting will begin no sooner than 30 minutes after sunrise to allow for initial marine mammal monitoring to take place and will end at least 60 minutes before sunset to allow for post-activity monitoring.
A summary of in-water pile driving activity is provided in Table 1. In addition, a total of 1,580, 4.5-inch blast charge holes will be drilled at a rate of 12 holes per day over 130 days. The Navy anticipates one to two blast events per day, with a maximum of 6 blast events per week; a total of 150 blast events will occur over 130 days.
Construction activities will occur at the PNSY in Kittery, Maine. Please see Figures 1-1 to 1-6 in the Navy's IHA application for detailed maps of the project area and super flood basin. A detailed description of the planned modification and expansion of DD1 is provided in the
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to the Navy was published in the
The majority of the Commission's comments pertained to errors or inconsistencies that have been addressed in this notice and the final authorization. NMFS' small numbers finding and negligible impact determination were not affected by the changes from the proposed to the final authorization; therefore, NMFS is not republishing a notice of the proposed authorization.
The following corrections and additions have been incorporated into this notice and/or the issued IHA:
• Corrected the reference for the 28-inch Z-shaped sheet pile source level (NAVFAC 2020; Table 6);
• Revised source levels for impact pile driving of 18-inch flat-webbed sheet piles, as well as all associated acoustic analyses and take estimation;
• Included a description of transmission loss modeling, as well as the coefficients used to estimate Level B harassment zones for construction activities;
• Included the input parameters used to estimate Level A harassment zones for pile driving and removal, and blast-charge hole drilling (Table 8);
• Corrected distance to the Level B harassment isopleth for removal of 30-inch steel pipe piles to 13.6 kilometers (km) from 46 km (Table 8);
• Corrected typographical errors specifying ensonified zones in Tables 8 and 9;
• Included ranges to peak SPL thresholds for PTS for blasting events as a footnote of Table 9;
• Refined identification of the specific activities to which take is attributed (Table 11);
• Corrected take estimate for harbor porpoises (reduced from 6 to 4) to align with the IHA application, and adjusted take estimates for impact pile driving of 18-inch flat-webbed sheet piles based on revised source levels (Table 11);
• Added additional mitigation requirements for blasting, including (1) requiring stemmed charges, (2) restricting blasting to a time period at least 30 minutes after sunrise and one hour before sunset, (3) requiring monitoring to occur for at least one hour after blasting activities cease, (4) requiring that the Navy notify NMFS and the Greater Atlantic Regional Stranding Coordinator or local stranding network at least 24 hours prior to commencing a blasting event and within 24 hours after a blasting event ceases (if occurring on consecutive days, the Navy can provide notice of how long blasting is scheduled to last and when it has been completed), and (5) requiring that the Navy immediately report any injured or dead marine mammal to the
• Clarified the number and potential locations of Protected Species Observers (PSOs);
• Clarified that pile driving/removal must only occur during daylight hours;
• Clarified in this notice that 10, 18-inch flat-webbed piles will be acoustically monitored during vibratory and impact pile driving, and 4, 30-inch steel piles will be monitored during vibratory pile driving, as was included in the draft IHA;
• Added hydroacoustic monitoring plan, which can be accessed at:
• Corrected contact information and requirements for reporting a dead or injured marine mammal to provide consistency between this notice and the IHA;
• Clarified that the IHA condition 4(e) applies to all activities; and
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
Table 2 lists the five marine mammal species, including one cetacean and four pinnipeds, with the potential to occur in the area of the specified activity and for which take is authorized for this action, and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, NMFS follows Committee on Taxonomy (2020). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Atlantic Marine Mammal SARs. All values presented in Table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available in the final 2019 SARs (Hayes
Detailed descriptions of the species likely to be affected by the Navy's activities, including brief introductions to the species and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence were provided in the notice of the proposed IHA (86 FR 18244; April 8, 2021). Since that time, NMFS is not aware of any substantive new information regarding these species or stocks; therefore, detailed descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to that notice for descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS' website (
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information. As mentioned previously, five marine mammal species (one cetacean and four pinniped (all phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the construction activities. Please refer to Table 2. The only cetacean species that may be present, the harbor porpoise, is classified as a high-frequency cetacean.
The effects of underwater noise from impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving and removal, drilling, and blasting activities for the Navy's modification and expansion of DD1 have the potential to result in Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance, TTS) for marine mammal species authorized for take. Level A harassment (injury) in the form of PTS may also occur in limited numbers of animals. No other forms of Level A harassment would occur, nor would serious injury or mortality. The project would not result in permanent impacts to habitats used directly by marine mammals, such as haulout sites, but may have potential short-term impacts to food sources such as forage fish and impacts to the substrate during installation and removal of piles and as a result of bedrock removal. The
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes authorized by the IHA, which informed both NMFS' consideration of “small numbers” and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would be primarily by Level B behavioral harassment, as noise generated from in-water pile driving (vibratory and impact), drilling, and blasting has the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. The use of the explosive source (
The primary relevant mitigation measure to minimize Level A harassment is delaying these activities, to the extent practicable, when any marine mammal is observed in the Level A harassment zones for PTS. While this requirement is expected to minimize take by Level A harassment, NMFS is authorizing takes by Level A harassment (in the form of PTS) to account for the possibility that marine mammals escape observation in the PTS zone and because the shutdown zones (see Mitigation Requirements section) are, in most cases, smaller than the Level A harassment zones. The distances to thresholds associated with the onset of and 50 percent probability of injury to the gastrointestinal tract for harbor porpoises (5 meters (m)) and phocids (9
As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized for these activities. The method by which take is estimated is described below.
Generally speaking, NMFS estimates take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. NMFS notes that while these basic factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available (
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed or experience TTS (equated to Level B harassment), or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). Thresholds have also been developed to identify the pressure levels above which animals may incur different types of tissue damage from exposure to pressure waves from explosive detonations.
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources—Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source (
The Navy's Portsmouth Naval Shipyard modification and expansion project includes the use of continuous, or non-impulsive, (
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources—NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (NMFS, 2018) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). As noted above, the Navy's planned activity includes the use of impulsive and non-impulsive sources.
These thresholds are provided in Table 4. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS' 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
Explosive sources—Based on the best available science, NMFS uses the acoustic and pressure thresholds indicated in Table 5 to predict the onset of behavioral harassment, PTS, and non-auditory impacts. Because of the instantaneous nature of blasting, there is no established Level B behavioral harassment threshold associated with
The operational and environmental parameters of the activity that fed into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and transmission loss, are described below.
The project includes impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving and pile removal, drilling, and blasting. Of these, only drilling and vibratory pile driving will occur concurrently. When two continuous noise sources have overlapping sound fields, there is a potential for higher sound levels (and a larger associated ensonified zone) than for non-overlapping sources. When drilling and vibratory pile driving co-occur, the larger of the two shutdown zones will trigger mitigation measures.
Source levels of pile driving activities are based on reviews of measurements of the same or similar types and dimensions of piles available in the literature. Source levels for impact pile driving of a 30-inch steel pipe pile are used as a proxy for impact driving of 28-inch Z-shaped steel sheet piles (NAVFAC, 2020). Similarly, source levels for impact pile driving of an 18-inch flat-webbed sheet pile were unavailable, so proxy values for installation of a 24-inch Z-shaped sheet pile are used. In the notice of the proposed IHA, the proxy source levels were incorrectly specified. As a result of NMFS' review of public comment, the approach to estimating the source levels for this pile type was modified by taking the mean of the maximum values for each type of sound level in Table 1.6-5 of CALTRANS (2015), resulting in the decreased source levels shown in Table 6.
The source levels in Table 6 are assumed for pile driving and drilling underwater noise produced by construction activities.
The proxy source level for drilling of blast-charge holes is derived from Denes
There are no data on sound source levels from explosives used under circumstances identical to the blasting activity described here (
These source levels for pile driving, drilling, and blasting are used to estimate the Level B harassment zones and calculate the Level A harassment zones.
Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:
The degree to which underwater sound propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading occurs in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log[range]). A practical spreading value of 15 is often used under conditions, such as at the Shipyard dock, where water increases with depth as the receiver moves away from the shoreline, resulting in an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions. The Level B harassment distances for construction activities are calculated using practical spreading (impact and vibratory pile driving, drilling) and spherical spreading with absorption (blasting), which includes an additional term in the equation that accounts for frequency-specific transmission loss to the environment due to absorption, using the source levels provided in Tables 6 and 7, respectively.
Ensonified areas (
However, the maximum distance from the source is capped due to landmass interception in the surrounding area. For this reason, the maximum area that could be ensonified by noise from pile driving and drilling is an estimated 0.418 km
When the original NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition of the fact that the ensonified area/volume could be more technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new thresholds, NMFS developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. NMFS notes that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for these tools, NMFS anticipates that isopleths produced are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in some degree of overestimate of Level A harassment take. However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address the output where appropriate. For stationary sources such as in-water vibratory and impact pile driving, NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance the entire duration of the activity, it would not incur PTS. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet (
For blasting, the calculated distances to Level A harassment thresholds are based on a single blast event per day. The Navy plans to conduct 150 blast events over 130 days, so on the majority of construction days (110) only one blast event will occur. NMFS recognizes that if two blasts do occur on a single day, the cumulative SEL for the 24-hour timeframe over which blasting occurs would be higher than that analyzed here. However, the distances to the Level A harassment thresholds in Table 9 do not reflect the attenuating influence of the double bubble curtain that will be in place across any openings between the super flood basin and the surrounding environment during blasting events. If multiple blast events occur within a 24-hour period, they will be separated by 4 to 5 hours. It is likely that if marine mammals are present in the vicinity of the construction area (outside of the shutdown zone) during the first blast event they will avoid the area for at least the remainder of day.
Blasting will occur at multiple locations within the super flood basin. The minimum and maximum distances from the blasting locations to the center of the entrance to the super flood basin are 37.5 and 160 m, respectively. Acoustic modeling is based on the location closest to the entrance to the basin; the resulting distances to Level B harassment and Level A harassment isopleths are, therefore, a conservative estimate of the maximum extent of potential acoustic impact outside of the basin. The distance to the Level A harassment isopleth for blasting for harbor porpoises (1,007 m) is larger than that for phocids (110 m), but the density of harbor porpoises near the construction area is very low (see
The Level A harassment zones are calculated using the same Equation (2). For all pile driving/drilling activities, ensonified areas are based on distances to the cumulative SEL Level A harassment thresholds using the NMFS acoustic guidance (NMFS 2018) because they were larger than the values calculated against the SPL
The calculated distances to Level A harassment and non-auditory injury (to the gastrointestinal tract) isopleths, estimated distances to Level B harassment isopleths, and associated ensonified areas for the marine mammal species likely to be affected by the construction activities are provided in Tables 8 and 9.
Marine mammal density estimates for the harbor porpoise, harbor seal, and gray seal are based on marine mammal monitoring observations during 2017 and 2018 (CIANBRO 2018a, b). Density values were calculated from visual sightings of all marine mammals divided by the monitoring days (total of 154 days) and the total ensonified area in which the sightings occurred in the 2017 and 2018 activities (0.8401 km
Hooded and harp seals are much rarer than harbor and gray seals in the Piscataqua River, and no density information for these two species is available. To date, marine mammal monitoring for the Berth 11 Waterfront Improvements Construction project has not recorded a sighting of a hooded or harp seal in the project area (Cianbro 2018ab; NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic 2018, 2019b; Navy 2019; Stantec 2020); however, two harp seals were observed outside of the timeframe of dedicated marine mammal monitoring of Berth 11 pile-driving activities, one on May 12, 2020 and one on May 14, 2020 (Stantec 2020). The Navy requested authorization of take for these two species, given the potential for occurrence, and NMFS is acting on that request.
The approach by which the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate is described here.
For marine mammals with calculated density information (
However, in consideration of the prevalence of seals in the project area and in accordance with the approach utilized in IHAs previously issued to the Navy for expansion and modification of DD1, NMFS has determined that it is appropriate to increase the number of harbor seal and gray seal Level B behavioral harassment takes. Harbor seal Level B behavioral harassment takes have been adjusted upwards by multiplying the average number of harbor seals sighted per day from May through December 2020 (721 sightings divided by 150 days of monitoring, or 5 harbor seals/day) by the number of actual construction days (159), resulting in 795 Level B behavioral harassment takes. Gray seal Level B harassment takes have been increased utilizing the same approach (47 sightings divided by 150 days of monitoring, or 0.31 gray seals/day), resulting in 50 Level B behavioral harassment takes.
NMFS authorized one Level B harassment take per month for both hooded seals and harp seals for the Berth 11 Waterfront Improvements construction project in both 2018 and 2019. Following the same approach, the Navy has requested, and NMFS has authorized, one Level B harassment take each of hooded seals and harp seals per
The total number of takes authorized is presented in Table 11. Non-auditory take estimates were zero for all species and are, therefore, not included in Table 11.
In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses. NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS carefully considers two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
In addition to the measures described later in this section, the Navy will employ the following standard mitigation measures:
• The Navy must employ PSOs, establish monitoring locations, and monitor the project area to the maximum extent possible based on the required number of PSOs, required monitoring locations, and environmental conditions;
• Monitoring must take place from 30 minutes prior to initiation of construction activities through 30 minutes post-completion of pile-driving and drilling, and 60 minutes post-completion of blasting events;
• The Navy must conduct a briefing between construction supervisors and crews and the marine mammal monitoring team prior to the start of construction, and when new personnel join the work, to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures;
• For in-water and over-water heavy machinery work, if a marine mammal comes within 10 m, operations shall cease and vessels shall reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions;
• With the exception of pre-dawn drilling, work must only occur during daylight hours, when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted;
• For those marine mammals for which take has not been requested, pile driving and removal, drilling, and blasting will shut down immediately when the animals are sighted approaching the Level B harassment zone;
• If take reaches the authorized limit for an authorized species, activity for which take is authorized will be stopped as these species approach the Level B harassment zone to avoid additional take;
• Blasting will not begin until at least one sheet pile face of the west closure wall has been installed;
• Blasting must only occur in good visibility conditions between 30 minutes after sunrise and one hour before sunset;
• Stemming procedures must be used for blasting events; and
• A double bubble curtain will be installed across any openings at the entrance of DD1 to mitigate underwater noise impacts outside of the super flood basin during pre-dawn drilling of blast-charge holes and blasting events.
The following measures will apply to the Navy's mitigation requirements:
Although drilling activities may occur during pre-dawn hours in order to maintain the project schedule, the shutdown distance for drilling is small (10 m) and will likely be entirely visible for monitoring despite visibility limitations during this timeframe. As mentioned previously, drilling will not occur between sunset and pre-dawn hours.
Shutdown zones typically vary based on the activity type and marine mammal hearing group. A summary of the shutdown zones is provided in Table 12.
Based on our evaluation of the required measures, NMFS has determined that the prescribed mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
The Navy shall employ trained PSOs to conduct marine mammal monitoring for its PNSY modification and expansion project. The purposes of marine mammal monitoring are to implement mitigation measures and learn more about impacts to marine mammals from the Navy's construction activities.
NMFS-approved PSOs shall meet the following requirements:
1. Independent observers (
2. At least one observer must have prior experience working as an observer;
3. Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience;
4. Where a team of three or more observers are required, one observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an observer; and
5. NMFS will require submission and approval of observer curricula vitae (CVs).
The Navy will monitor all Level B harassment zones and Level A harassment zones before, during, and after construction activities. The Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan must include the following procedures:
• At least two (2) PSOs shall be posted to monitor marine mammals during in-water pile driving and removal, drilling, and blasting. Additional PSOs will be required in conditions of low visibility (
• PSOs must be stationed at the best possible vantage point(s) in order to properly see the entire shutdown zone(s) and zones associated with behavioral impact thresholds, which may include the following locations: Berth 2, Berth 12, Isle of Shoals Steamship Company, Prescott Park, Four Tree Island, Peirce Island, and/or a boat or barge within the project limits;
• PSOs must record all observations of marine mammals, regardless of distance from the construction activity;
• During all observation periods, PSOs will use high-magnification (25X), as well as standard handheld (7X) binoculars, and the naked eye to search continuously for marine mammals;
• Monitoring distances will be measured with range finders. Distances to animals will be based on the best estimate of the PSO, relative to known distances to objects in the vicinity of the PSO;
• Pile driving and removal, drilling, and blasting will only take place when the shutdown zones are visible and can be adequately monitored. If conditions (
Information Collection:
PSOs shall collect the following information during marine mammal monitoring:
○ PSO locations during monitoring;
○ Date and time that monitored activity begins and ends for each day conducted (monitoring period);
○ Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including how many and what type of piles driven, number of blast holes drilled, and number or blast events;
○ Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly); including Beaufort sea state and any other relevant weather conditions, including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and estimated observable distance;
○ For each marine mammal sighting:
• Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO location and activity at time of sighting;
• Time of sighting;
• Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals;
• Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from construction activity;
• Location, distance, and bearing from pile driving, drilling, and blasting activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
• Animal's closet point of approach and estimated amount of time that the animals remained in the Level B harassment and Level A harassment zones; and
• Detailed information about implementation of any mitigation (
• Percentage of time that activities (
The Navy must conduct hydroacoustic monitoring of in-water construction activities, including the installation of (10) 28-inch Z-shaped sheet piles and (10) 18-inch flat-webbed sheet piles for both impact and vibratory pile driving, (4) 30-inch steel piles for vibratory pile driving, (10) 120 lbs blasting events, and (10) 4.5-inch blast-charge hole drilling events. Near-field monitoring will occur at 10 m from the pile driving hammers and drilling location. During blasting, near-field data will be collected using a pressure transducer to estimate sounds levels based on received impulse. The far-field hydrophone will be placed as far from the acoustic source as is practicable, although the distance will limited by DD1's proximity to a navigable channel outside of the entrance to the super flood basin. Monitoring will only be conducted when concurrent activities are not occurring, limiting interference in the recordings from other sources of noise in the environment.
The Navy is required to submit a draft monitoring report (including all PSO data sheets and/or raw sighting data) within 90 days after completion of the construction work or the expiration of the IHA, whichever comes earlier. This report must detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed. The draft hydroacoustic monitoring report must be submitted within the same timeframe and must contain the informational elements described in the hydroacoustic monitoring plan for all acoustically monitored events, including: A description of the hydrophones used, hydrophone locations (both near- and far-field) and water depths, recording device(s), distance from the acoustic source, and sediment type at the recording location; type and size of pile being driven, method of pile-driving during recording (hammer model and energy), and total driving/removal or drilling duration. For impact pile driving, the Navy must also report: Number of strikes and strike rate, depth of substrate penetrated, pulse duration, and mean, median, and maximum sound levels (db re 1 µ Pa) (root mean square sound pressure level (SPL
The Navy is required to notify NMFS' Office of Protected Resources (OPR) and NMFS' Greater Atlantic Regional Stranding Coordinator or local stranding network at least 24 hours prior to commencing blasting events as well as within 24 hours after blasting events cease. If blasting events occur on consecutive days, the Navy must communicate how long the blasting is scheduled to last as well as when it is completed. In addition, in the event that personnel involved in the construction activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the Navy must immediately report the incident to NMFS OPR and the Stranding Coordinator or local stranding network and follow any instructions provided by the Stranding Coordinator or stranding network. If the death or injury was clearly caused by the specific activity, the Navy must immediately cease the specified activities until NMFS OPR is able to review the circumstances of the incident and determine what, if any, additional measures are appropriate to ensure compliance with the terms of the IHA. The Navy must not resume their activities until notified by NMFS OPR. The Navy shall provide NMFS OPR and the Stranding Coordinator or local stranding network with the species or description of the animal(s), the condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition, if the animal is dead), location, time of first discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), and photo or video (if available).
In the event that the Navy finds an injured or dead marine mammal that is not in the construction area, the Navy would report the same information as listed above to the Stranding Coordinator or local stranding network and NMFS OPR as soon as is operationally feasible.
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
Pile driving and removal, drilling, and blasting activities associated with the project, as described previously, have the potential to disturb or temporarily displace marine mammals. The specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level A harassment (potential injury; from impact pile driving or blasting) or Level B harassment (potential behavioral disturbance or TTS) from underwater sounds generated from pile driving (impact and vibratory), drilling and blasting. Potential takes could occur if individual marine mammals are present in the ensonified zone when pile driving, drilling, or blasting activities are occurring.
To avoid repetition, this introductory discussion of NMFS' analysis applies to all of the species listed in Table 2, given that the anticipated effects of the Navy's PNSY modification and expansion construction project activities on marine mammals are expected to be relatively similar in nature. There is no information about the nature or severity of the impacts, or the size, status, or structure of any species or stock that would lead to a different analysis by species for this activity, or else species-specific factors would be identified and analyzed.
Although some individual harbor porpoises and harbor and gray seals are estimated to experience Level A harassment in the form of PTS if they remain within the impact pile driving Level A harassment zone for an entire day, or are present within the Level A harassment zone during a blasting event, the degree of injury is expected to be mild and is not likely to affect the reproduction or survival of the individual animals. It is expected that, if hearing impairments occurs as a result of impact pile driving or blasting, the affected animal would lose a few dB in its hearing sensitivity, which in most cases is not likely to affect its survival and recruitment. Hearing impairment that might occur for these individual animals would be limited to the dominant frequency of the noise sources, (
Under the majority of the circumstances, anticipated takes are expected to be limited to short-term Level B behavioral harassment or TTS. Marine mammals present in the vicinity of the action area and taken by Level B harassment would most likely show overt brief disturbance (startle reaction) from blasting events and avoidance of the area impacted by elevated noise levels during pile driving (and removal) and drilling. Given the limited estimated number of predicted incidents of Level B harassment and Level A harassment and the limited, short-term nature of the responses by the individuals, the impacts of the estimated take cannot be reasonably expected to, and are not reasonably likely to, rise to the level that they would adversely affect the species considered here at the population level, through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. There are no known important habitats, such as rookeries or haulouts, in the vicinity of the Navy's PNSY DD1 modification and expansion construction project. The project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitat, including prey, as analyzed in detail in the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and their Habitat section in the
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No mortality is anticipated or authorized;
• Some individual marine mammals might experience a mild level of PTS, but the degree of PTS is not expected to affect their survival;
• Most adverse effects to marine mammals are likely to be temporary behavioral harassment or TTS; and
• No biologically important area is present in or near the construction area.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken is less than one third of the species or stock abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
NMFS authorizes incidental take of 5 marine mammal stocks. The total amount of take authorized is three percent or less for all five of these stocks (Table 11).
Based on the analysis contained herein of the activity (including the prescribed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHA with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which NMFS has not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to the Navy for the taking of marine mammals incidental to modification and expansion of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Dry Dock 1 in Kittery, Maine, effective for one year from the date of issuance, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A copy of the final IHA can be found at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; modified proposal of an incidental harassment authorization; request for comments on modified proposed authorization and possible renewal; correction.
This document contains corrections to the
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Written comments should be submitted via email to
Robert Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
NMFS published a notice of a modified proposed IHA in the
In the
The closing date for public comments regarding the notice of modified proposed IHA published on May 20, 2021 (86 FR 27393) in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments on proposed renewal incidental harassment authorization.
NMFS received a request from Vineyard Wind, LLC (Vineyard Wind) for the Renewal of their currently active incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals incidental to marine site characterization survey activities off the coast of Massachusetts in the areas of the Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0501 and OCS-A 0522) and along potential submarine cable routes to landfall locations in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York. These activities consist of activities that are covered by the current authorization but will not be completed prior to its expiration. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), prior to issuing the currently active IHA, NMFS requested comments on both the proposed IHA and the potential for renewing the initial authorization if certain requirements were satisfied. The Renewal requirements have been satisfied, and NMFS is now providing an additional 15-day comment period to allow for any additional comments on the proposed Renewal not previously provided during the initial 30-day comment period.
Comments and information must be received no later than June 23, 2021.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Written comments should be submitted via email to
Reny Tyson Moore, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the original application, Renewal request, and supporting documents (including NMFS
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation measures”). Monitoring and reporting of such takings are also required. The meaning of key terms such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact” can be found in section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362) and the agency's regulations at 50 CFR 216.103.
NMFS' regulations implementing the MMPA at 50 CFR 216.107(e) indicate that IHAs may be renewed for additional periods of time not to exceed one year for each reauthorization. In the notice of proposed IHA for the initial authorization, NMFS described the circumstances under which we would consider issuing a Renewal for this activity and requested public comment on a potential Renewal under those circumstances. Specifically, on a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, one-year Renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly identical, or nearly identical, activities as described in the Detailed Description of Specified Activities section of the initial IHA issuance notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Detailed Description of Specified Activities section of the initial IHA issuance notice would not be completed by the time the initial IHA expires and a Renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the
(1) A request for Renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the Renewal IHA expiration date
(2) The request for Renewal must include the following:
• An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested Renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor (
• A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.
(3) Upon review of the request for Renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
An additional public comment period of 15 days (for a total of 45 days), with direct notice by email, phone, or postal service to commenters on the initial IHA, is provided to allow for any additional comments on the proposed Renewal. A description of the Renewal process may be found on our website at:
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA Renewal qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the IHA Renewal request.
On May 06, 2020, NMFS issued an IHA to Vineyard Wind to take marine mammals incidental to marine site characterization survey activities off the coast of Massachusetts in the areas of the Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0501 and OCS-A 0522) and along potential submarine cable routes to landfall locations in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York (85 FR 26940), effective from June 01, 2020 through May 31, 2021. This IHA was re-issued on July 14, 2020 with the only change being a change in effective dates from June 21, 2020 through June 20, 2021 (85 FR 42357). On March 25, 2021, NMFS received a request for a Renewal of the re-issued IHA. As described in the request for Renewal IHA, the activities for which incidental take is requested consist of activities that are covered by the initial authorization but will not be completed prior to its expiration. As required, the applicant also provided a preliminary monitoring report (available at
Vineyard Wind plans to conduct high-resolution geophysical (HRG) surveys in support of offshore wind development projects in the areas of Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (#OCS-A 0501 and #OCS-A 0522) (Lease Areas) and along potential submarine cable routes to landfall locations in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York. The purpose of the marine site characterization surveys is to obtain a baseline assessment of seabed/sub-surface soil conditions in the Lease Area and cable route corridors to support the siting of potential future offshore wind projects. Underwater sound resulting from Vineyard Wind's planned site characterization surveys has the potential to result in incidental take of 14 marine mammal species in the form of Level B behavioral harassment. Vineyard Wind requested a Renewal of the initial IHA that was re-issued by NMFS in July 2020 on the basis that the activities as described in the Specified Activities section of the initial IHA would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a Renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section of the initial IHA.
In their 2020 IHA application, Vineyard Wind estimated that it would take a year to complete the HRG surveys. This schedule was based on 24-hour operations and included potential down time due to inclement weather. With up to eight survey vessels operating concurrently, a maximum of 736 vessel days were anticipated. Each vessel would maintain a speed of approximately 3.5 knots (kn; 6.5 kilometers [km]/hour) while transiting survey lines and each vessel would cover approximately 100 km per day. However, during the 2020-2021 survey season, Vineyard Wind completed only 184 vessel days of the 736 vessel days estimated to complete the work and only surveyed approximately 25 percent of the planned survey routes. Vineyard Wind predicts that a maximum of 552 vessel days, with up to eight survey vessels operating concurrently, over 181 days will be required to survey the remaining routes, estimated to be approximately 55,200 km. The Renewal IHA would authorize harassment of marine mammals for this remaining survey distance using survey methods identical to those described in the initial IHA application; therefore, the anticipated effects on marine mammals and the affected stocks also remain the same. All active acoustic sources and mitigation and monitoring measures would remain as described in the
A detailed description of the HRG activities for which take is proposed here may be found in the
A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities for which authorization of take is proposed here, including information on abundance, status, distribution, and hearing, may be found in the notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial authorization (85 FR 7952, February 12, 2020; 85 FR 26940, May 06, 2020). NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial IHA, recent draft Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and other scientific literature, and determined that neither this nor any other new information affects which species or stocks have the potential to be affected or the pertinent information in the Description of the Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities contained in the supporting documents for the initial IHA.
The draft 2020 Stock Assessment Report (SAR, available online at:
Roberts
NMFS has preliminarily determined that neither the updated abundance and density information presented above nor any other new information affects which species or stocks have the potential to be affected or the pertinent information in the Description of the Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities contained in the supporting documents for the initial IHA.
A description of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat for the activities for which take is proposed here may be found in the notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial authorization (85 FR 7952, February 12, 2020; 85 FR 26940, May 06, 2020). NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial IHA, recent draft Stock Assessment Reports, Technical Reports (
A detailed description of the methods and inputs used to estimate take for the specified activity are found in the notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial authorization (85 FR 7952, February 12, 2020; 85 FR 26940, May 06, 2020). The acoustic source types, as well as source levels applicable to this authorization remain unchanged from the initial IHA. Similarly, the stocks taken, methods of take, and type of take (
In the initial authorization for the HRG survey activities, the potential for take was estimated using the following parameters: (1) Maximum number of survey days that could occur over a 12-month period; (2) maximum distance each vessel could travel per 24-hour period in each of the identified survey areas; (3) maximum ensonified area (zone of influence (ZOI)); and (4) maximum marine mammal densities for any given season that a survey could occur. The calculated radial distances to the Level B harassment threshold (160 decibel (dB) root mean square (rms)) from a survey vessel are included in Table 1.
The equation for estimating take for all species remains the same as the initial IHA:
In the notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial authorization (85 FR 7952, February 12, 2020; 85 FR 26940, May 06, 2020), a conservative ZOI was calculated by applying the maximum radial distance for any category and type of HRG survey equipment considered in its assessment to the mobile source ZOI calculation. This maximum calculated distance to the Level B harassment threshold for the GeoMarine Geo Spark 2000 of 195 m was also used to calculate the ZOI for the requested extension. Vineyard Wind estimates that proposed survey vessels will achieve a maximum daily track line distance of 100 km per day during proposed HRG surveys. This distance accounts for the vessel traveling at roughly 3.5 kn (6.5 km/hour) and accounts for non-active survey periods. Based on the maximum estimated distance to the Level B harassment threshold of 195 m (Table 1) and the maximum estimated daily track line distance of 100 km, Vineyard Wind estimated that an area of 39.12 km
This methodology of calculating take in the initial IHA applies to the proposed Renewal IHA for all species, with the only difference being the fewer amount of vessel days (
In their request for a Renewal IHA application, Vineyard Wind requested that the number of Level B harassment takes (per the equation above) for Risso's dolphins be equal to their average group size estimate (6 individuals), given a proportional reduction in take based on the reduction in the number of days of work remaining would result in a take estimate that is smaller than the average group size estimate. As described in Vineyard Wind's preliminary monitoring report, they did not observe any Risso's dolphins during the survey work thus far completed. Therefore, we have carried over the same amount of take as proposed in the initial IHA, which is based on an average group size of 6 Risso's dolphins (Table 2).
In the notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial authorization (85 FR 7952, February 12, 2020; 85 FR 26940, May 06, 2020) takes by Level B harassment authorized for North Atlantic right whales were limited to 10 individuals, which was reduced from the calculated take of 31 whales. There were several reasons justifying this reduction. Vineyard Wind established and monitored a shutdown zone at least 2.5 times (500-meters (m)) greater than the predicted Level B harassment threshold distance (195 m). Take had also been conservatively calculated based on the largest source, which will not be operating at all times, and take is therefore likely over-estimated to some degree. Furthermore, the potential for incidental take during daylight hours is very low given that two Protected Species Observers (PSOs) are required for monitoring. Additionally, sightings of right whales had been uncommon during previous HRG surveys conducted in areas near the proposed surveys. For example, no North Atlantic right whales were sighted during Bay State Wind surveys in adjacent and overlapping survey areas over 376 vessel days between May 11, 2018 and March 14, 2019. Vineyard Wind also had no North Atlantic right whales sighted in their marine mammal monitoring report that included Lease Areas OCS-A 0501 and OCS-A 0522 from May 31, 2019 through January 7, 2020. Therefore, the aforementioned factors led NMFS to conclude that the unadjusted modeled exposure estimate was likely a significant overestimate of actual potential exposure. Accordingly, in the initial IHA NMFS made a reasonable adjustment to conservatively account for these expected mitigating effects on actual taking of right whales.
During the 2020-2021 surveys, Vineyard Wind reported four sightings of seven North Atlantic right whales in their preliminary monitoring report. While all of these individuals were observed on a single day (December 20, 2020) and outside both the estimated 195-m Level B harassment Zone and the 500 m Exclusion Zone (EZ) for North Atlantic right whales (closest approaches were >900 m), they represent an increased amount of sightings observed during HRG surveys, though the information suggests that there were no takes. Updated model outputs from Roberts
As documented in Vineyard Wind's preliminary monitoring report, there was a number of sightings of delphinids both within the estimated 195 m Level B Harassment Zone and the 100 m EZ that were characterized by the PSOs as `voluntary approaches.' A “voluntary approach” is defined as a purposeful approach toward the vessel by the delphinid(s) with a speed and vector that indicates that the delphinid(s) is approaching the vessels and remains near the vessel or towed equipment (BOEM 2014). Vineyard Wind PSOs reported 270 sightings of approximately 3,332 individual common dolphins within the estimated 195 m Level B harassment zone for the sparker. During these marine mammal observations, no behavior was observed that would be considered consistent with a behavioral response to harassment (
On August 20, 2020 Vineyard Wind PSOs observed two white-beaked
The proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included as requirements in this authorization are identical to those included in the FR Notice announcing the issuance of the initial IHA (85 FR 26940, May 06, 2020), and the discussion of the least practicable adverse impact included in that document and the notice of the proposed IHA remains accurate (85 FR 7952, February 12, 2020; 85 FR 26940, May 06, 2020). All mitigation, monitoring and reporting measures in the initial IHA are carried over to this proposed Renewal IHA and summarized here:
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Vineyard Wind will conduct HRG survey activities in the Cape Cod Bay Mid-Atlantic U.S. Seasonal Management Area (SMA) and Off Race Point SMA only during the months of August and September to ensure sufficient buffer between the SMA restrictions (January to May 15) and known seasonal occurrence of the North Atlantic right whale north and northeast of Cape Cod (fall, winter, and spring). Vineyard Wind will also limit to three the number survey vessels that will operate concurrently from March through June within the lease areas (OCS-A 0501 and 0487) and offshore export cable corridor (OECC) areas north of the lease areas up to, but not including, coastal and bay waters. Another seasonal restriction area south of Nantucket will be in effect from December to February in the area delineated by the DMA that was effective from January 31, 2020 through February 15, 2020. In addition, Vineyard Wind would operate either a single vessel, two vessels concurrently or, for short periods, no more than three survey vessels concurrently in the areas described above during the December-February and March-June timeframes when right whale densities are greatest. The seasonal restrictions described above will help to reduce both the number and intensity of North Atlantic right whale takes.
•
As noted previously, NMFS published a notice of a proposed IHA (85 FR 7952, February 12, 2020) and solicited public comments on both our proposal to issue the initial IHA for marine site characterization surveys and on the potential for a Renewal IHA, should certain requirements be met.
All public comments were addressed in the notice announcing the issuance of the initial IHA (85 FR 26940, May 06, 2020). Below, we describe how we have addressed, with updated information where appropriate, any comments received that specifically pertain to the Renewal of the 2020 IHA.
The Commission was also concerned that NMFS had not explicitly identified that a 1-year Renewal IHA was a one-time opportunity in our
While there are additional documents submitted with a Renewal request, for a qualifying Renewal these are limited to documentation that NMFS will make available and use to verify that the activities are identical to those in the initial IHA, are nearly identical such that the changes would have either no effect on impacts to marine mammals or decrease those impacts, or are a subset of activities already analyzed and authorized but not completed under the initial IHA. NMFS will also confirm, among other things, that the activities will occur in the same location; involve the same species and stocks; provide for continuation of the same mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements; and that no new information has been received that would alter the prior analysis. The renewal request also contains a preliminary monitoring report, but that is to verify that effects from the activities do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed. The additional 15-day public comment period provides the public an opportunity to review these few documents, provide any additional pertinent information and comment on whether they think the criteria for a renewal have been met. NMFS also will provide direct notice of the proposed Renewal to those who commented on the initial IHA, to provide an opportunity to submit any additional comments. Between the initial 30-day comment period on these same activities and the additional 15 days, the total comment period for a renewal is 45 days.
In addition to the IHA Renewal process being consistent with all requirements under section 101(a)(5)(D), it is also consistent with Congress's intent for issuance of IHAs to the extent reflected in statements in the legislative history of the MMPA. Through the provision for Renewals in the regulations, description of the process and express invitation to comment on specific potential Renewals in the Request for Public Comments section of each proposed IHA, the description of the process on NMFS' website, further elaboration on the process through responses to comments such as these, posting of substantive documents on the agency's website, and provision of 30 or 45 days for public review and comment on all proposed initial IHAs and Renewals respectively, NMFS has ensured that the public “is invited and encouraged to participate fully in the agency decision-making process.”
For more information, NMFS has published a description of the Renewal process on our website (available at
The survey activities proposed by Vineyard Wind are identical to (and a subset of) those analyzed in the initial IHA, as are the method of taking and the effects of the action. The mitigation measures and monitoring and reporting requirements as described above are also identical to the initial IHA. The planned number of days of activity will be reduced given the completion of a small portion of the originally planned work. Therefore, the amount of take proposed is equal to or less than that authorized in the initial IHA. The potential effect of Vineyard Winds' activities remains limited to Level B harassment in the form of behavioral disturbance. In analyzing the effects of the activities in the initial IHA, NMFS determined that Vineyard Wind's activities would have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks and that the authorized take numbers of each species or stock were small relative to the relevant stocks (
NMFS has preliminarily concluded that there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change from those reached for the initial IHA. This includes consideration of the estimated abundances of four stocks (North Atlantic right whales, humpback whales, fin whales, and minke whales) decreasing and the estimated abundances of one stock (common dolphins) increasing (Hayes
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
The NMFS Office of Protected Resources is authorizing the incidental take of four species of marine mammals which are listed under the ESA: The North Atlantic right, fin, sei and sperm whale. We requested initiation of consultation under Section 7 of the ESA with NMFS GARFO on February 12, 2020, for the issuance of this IHA. BOEM consulted with NMFS GARFO under section 7 of the ESA on commercial wind lease issuance and site assessment activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York and New Jersey Wind Energy Areas. The NMFS GARFO issued a Biological Opinion concluding that these activities may adversely affect but are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the North Atlantic right, fin, sei and sperm whale. Upon request from the NMFS Office of Protected Resources, NMFS GARFO issued an amended incidental take statement associated with this Biological Opinion to include the take of the ESA-listed marine mammal species authorized through this IHA in April 2020. On May 12, 2021 NMFS GARO determined that their initial consultation remains valid and that the proposed MMPA Renewal IHA provides no new information about
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue a Renewal IHA to Vineyard Wind for conducting marine site characterization survey activities off the coast of Massachusetts in the areas of the Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0501 and OCS-A 0522) and along potential submarine cable routes to landfall locations in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York for a period of one year from the date of issuance, provided the previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed and final initial IHA can be found at
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before August 9, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Jaclyn Taylor, National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8402 or
National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) Office of Protected Resources sponsors this information collection and is requesting renewal of the currently approved collection.
Section 118 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act requires any commercial fisherman operating in Category I and II fisheries to register for a certificate of authorization that will allow the fisherman to take marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. Category I and II fisheries are those identified by NOAA as having either frequent or occasional takings of marine mammals. All states have integrated the NMFS registration process into the existing state fishery registration process and vessel owners do not need to file a separate federal registration. If applicable, vessel owners will be notified of this simplified registration process when they apply for their state or Federal permit or license. A valid certificate of authorization protects the vessel owner from prosecution under the MMPA for violation of the moratorium on taking marine mammals. The information needed to register or update a commercial fishery authorization is found at 50 CFR 229.4.
Fishermen's information is imported directly into the Marine Mammal Authorization Program (MMAP) from their state. If they do not have a state or Federal fishery permit or license, fishermen can request a MMAP registration form (OMB No. 0648-0293) from their NMFS regional office and mail in the registration form.
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
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before August 9, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Gabrielle Aberle (907) 586-7356.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Alaska Regional Office, is requesting renewal of a currently approved information collection that contains the requirements for the annual participant letter for the Aleutian Islands pollock fishery.
Amendment 82 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) established a framework for the management of the Aleutian Islands subarea (AI) directed pollock fishery. The Aleut Corporation receives an annual AI pollock allocation for the purpose of economic development in Adak, Alaska. The Aleut Corporation is identified in Public Law 108-199 as a business incorporated pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601
The Aleut Corporation's AI pollock fishery is set up so that harvesting pollock in the AI directed pollock fishery and processing pollock taken in the AI directed pollock fishery are authorized only for those harvesters and processors that are selected by the Aleut Corporation and approved by the NMFS Regional Administrator.
Each year and at least 14 days before harvesting pollock or processing pollock in the AI directed pollock fishery, the Aleut Corporation must submit its selections to NMFS. The information submitted by the Aleut Corporation consists of the names of the harvesting vessels and processors it has selected, the Federal fisheries permit numbers or Federal processor permit numbers of the participants, and the fishing year for which approval is requested.
On approval, NMFS sends the Aleut Corporation a letter that includes a list of the approved participants. A copy of this letter must be retained on board each participating vessel and on site at each shoreside processor at all times.
This information collection is necessary for NMFS to obtain the list of vessels and processors selected by the Aleut Corporation to harvest and process its annual AI pollock allocation. The Aleut Corporation is required by Federal regulations at 50 CFR 679.4(m)(2) to provide its selected harvesters and processors to NMFS for approval. Without this information, NMFS would not know the participants selected by the Aleut Corporation and harvest rates could not be determined, which may result in allocations being exceeded.
The Aleut Corporation submits the participant letter to NMFS by mail, email, or fax.
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.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before August 9, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Janine Harris, Marine Habitat Resource Specialist, Office of Habitat Conservation, Restoration Center, 1315-East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, (301-427-8625) or
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection. The NOAA Restoration Center (NOAA RC) is sponsoring this collection. NOAA RC provides technical and financial assistance to identify, develop, implement, and evaluate community-driven habitat restoration projects. Awards are made as grants or cooperative agreements under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 2006, 16 U.S.C. 1891a and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661, as amended by the Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970.
The NOAA RC requires collection of specific information on habitat restoration projects that we fund, as part of routine progress reporting. Recipients of NOAA RC funds submit information such as project location, restoration techniques used, species benefited, acres restored, stream miles opened to access for diadromous fish, volunteer participation, and other parameters.
The required information enables NOAA to track, evaluate and report on coastal and marine habitat restoration and demonstrate accountability for federal funds. This information is used to populate a database of NOAA RC-funded habitat restoration. The database, with its robust querying capabilities, is instrumental to provide accurate and timely responses to NOAA, Department of Commerce, Congressional and constituent inquiries. It also facilitates reporting by NOAA on the Government Performance and Results Act “acres restored” performance measure. Grant recipients are required by the NOAA Grants Management Division to submit periodic performance reports and a final report for each award; this collection stipulates the information to be provided in these reports.
There are two progress report forms for simplicity. The Performance Report Form focuses on tracking project implementation, milestones, performance measures, monitoring, and expenditures. The Administrative Form only applies to recipients with an award that will implement multiple projects. It collects information on the administration of the award, the number of projects supported by the award, and award expenditures. The Project Performance Report and Administration Report Forms and Example Report Form Instructions can be reviewed under the Progress Reporting heading at
NOAA's preferred method of collection is submission of electronic fillable forms attached to an award file in Grants Online, NOAA's award management system.
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
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before August 9, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed Frank M. Sprtel, (301) 628-1641 or
This request is for a revision and extension of a currently approved information collection through the
The NOFO will indicate the specific questions to which an applicant must respond in one of three ways: (1) The applicable questions are inserted directly into the NOFO with reference to the OMB Approval Number (0648-0538) for this form; (2) the NOFO will specify which questions (
This Questionnaire has been revised to (1) update specific questions to use plain language, and (2) add questions that would be helpful to a wider range of NOAA programs.
The information may be submitted electronically or on paper (faxed or mailed).
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.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council, NEFMC) will hold a three-day meeting to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Due to ongoing public safety considerations related to COVID-19, this meeting will be conducted entirely by webinar.
The webinar meeting will be held on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, June 22-24, 2021, beginning at 9 a.m. each day.
All meeting participants and interested parties can register to join the webinar at
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492, ext. 113.
After introductions and brief announcements, the Council will receive reports on recent activities from its Chairman and Executive Director, NMFS's Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) Regional Administrator, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) Director, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council liaison, staff from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), and representatives from NOAA General Counsel, the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement, the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, and the Northeast Trawl Advisory Panel. Next, members of the public will have the opportunity to speak during an open comment period on issues that relate to Council business but are not included on the published agenda for this meeting. The Council asks the public to limit remarks to 3-5 minutes. These comments will be received through the webinar. A guide for how to publicly comment through the webinar is available on the Council website at
Following the lunch break, the Council will receive the Habitat Committee Report, which will include: (1) Updates from GARFO, NEFSC, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) on offshore wind-related projects and activities; and (2) updates on the Council's habitat-related work, including efforts to revise the Council's Wind Energy Policy. The Scallop Committee Report will be next. The Council will discuss and approve research priorities for the 2022-23 Scallop Research Set-Aside (RSA) Program. It also will initiate Framework Adjustment 34 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which will include 2022 fishery specifications, 2023 default specifications, and other measures. Additionally, the Council will receive a short update on work being done to evaluate the scallop fishery's rotational area management program. Finally, the Council will review a letter from the Scallopers Campaign that was sent to NMFS requesting secretarial action to implement a scallop leasing program. At the request of GARFO, the Council will approve a response to this letter. As the final order of business for the day, the Council will receive an update from GARFO on the 2021 Atlantic Sea Scallop Biological Opinion to address turtle interactions in the fishery.
The Council will start off the day with a progress report from its Atlantic Herring Committee, which will begin with a discussion of Framework Adjustment 9 to the Atlantic Herring FMP. First, the Council will: (1) Receive the Scientific and Statistical Committee's (SSC) recommendations on herring rebuilding plan alternatives to address the overfished status of Atlantic herring; and (2) receive an update on the framework's rebuilding plan alternatives, as well as measures to potentially adjust herring accountability measures. Second, the Council will receive an update on Framework Adjustment 7, which is an action to protect adult spawning herring on Georges Bank. Next, the Council will take up 2021-25 Council Research Priorities by first hearing the SSC's recommendations on research priorities and then discussing and approving the final list.
Following the lunch break, the Council will receive the Groundfish Report, which will cover three items. The first item relates to acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rules. The Council will receive a presentation on a draft report titled “Evaluation of Alternative Harvest Control Rules for New England Groundfish,” which will be followed by the SSC's comments on the ABC control rule presentation and report. The Council then will discuss the draft report, as well as the SSC's comments, and provide further guidance as needed on the work being done to evaluate an alternative ABC control rule for groundfish. Next, the Council will receive a progress report on the Atlantic Cod Stock Structure Working Groups' public workshops and other activities. Then, the Council will initiate Framework Adjustment 62 to the Groundfish FMP, which will include (1) 2022 total allowable catches (TACs) for U.S./Canada shared resources on Georges Bank (GB), (2) 2022-24 specifications for GB cod, Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod, GB haddock, and GOM haddock, (3) 2022-23 specifications for GB yellowtail and 2022 specifications for white hake, and (4) other measures. The Council then will adjourn for the day.
The Council will begin the third day of its meeting with the Skate Committee Report, which will include three items: (1) An update on 2022-23 specifications; (2) an update on Amendment 5 to the Northeast Skate Complex FMP; and (3) consideration of updating the existing control dates for both the skate wing and skate bait fisheries. Then, the Council will discuss and approve comments on a draft NMFS policy directive and procedural guidance for financial disclosures and recusals for regional fishery management councils. Next, the Council will hear from its Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management (EBFM) Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) Steering Committee. The Council will review and approve the Steering Committee's plan for informational workshops using public outreach materials and focusing on potential
Following the lunch break, the Council will be briefed on the NOAA Fisheries Southeast Region's for-hire electronic reporting requirements and their application to New England recreational party/charter vessels that possess permits for South Atlantic species. Next, the Council will receive a presentation from the NMFS Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Management Division on Amendment 13 to the Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan, which focuses on bluefin tuna issues. The Council will discuss and approve comments on this proposed rule. Immediately following, the Council will receive reports on recent meetings of NMFS's HMS Advisory Panel and the Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. The Council then will close out the meeting with other business.
Although non-emergency issues not contained on this agenda may come before the Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
This meeting is being conducted entirely by webinar. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
Issuance of an incidental take authorization (Authorization) under section 101(a)(5)(A) or 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA requires three sets of information collection: (1) A complete application for an Authorization, as set forth in our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104, which provides the information necessary for us to make the necessary statutory determinations, including estimates of take and an assessment of impacts on the affected species and stocks; (2) information relating to required monitoring; and (3) information related to required reporting. These collections of information enable us to: (1) Evaluate the proposed activity's impact on marine mammals; (2) arrive at the appropriate determinations required by the MMPA and other applicable laws prior to issuing the authorization; and (3) monitor impacts of activities for which we have issued Authorizations to determine if our predictions regarding impacts on marine mammals remain valid.
We do not propose any changes to the information collection beyond expecting an increased number of respondents and responses due to increases in the number of requests for incidental take authorizations and requests for Letters
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received by August 9, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Adam Bailey, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, Sustainable Fisheries Division, 263 13th Ave. South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The NMFS Southeast Regional Office proposes to extend without revision the information collection currently approved under OMB Control Number 0648-0365.
The NMFS Southeast Regional Office manages commercial fishing in Federal waters of the South Atlantic under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801
Federally permitted seafood dealers who process or sell snapper-grouper species during seasonal fishery closures in the South Atlantic for those applicable species must maintain documentation, as specified in 50 CFR part 300 subpart K and 50 CFR 622.192(i), that such fish were harvested from areas other than state or Federal waters in the South Atlantic. The applicable snapper-grouper species are greater amberjack, gag, black grouper, red grouper, scamp, red hind, rock hind, yellowmouth grouper, yellowfin grouper, graysby, and coney. The documentation includes information on the vessel that harvested the fish, and where and when the fish were offloaded. NMFS requires the information for the enforcement of fishery regulations at 50 CFR 622, subpart I.
The information is in the form of a paper affidavit, which a respondent creates and retains.
We are soliciting public comments 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.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The USPTO invites comment on this information collection renewal, which helps the USPTO assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
This information collection covers data gathered by the FQA applications for Recordal of Insignia and the applications for Renewal/Reactivation of Recordal. The USPTO uses the information in this information collection to record or renew insignias under the FQA and to maintain the Fastener Insignia Register, which is open to public inspection. The public may download the Fastener Insignia Register from the USPTO website at
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
Further information can be obtained by:
•
•
Office for Civil Rights (OCR), U.S. Department of Education.
Request for information.
This notice is a request for information in the form of written comments that include information, research, and suggestions regarding the administration of school discipline in schools serving students in pre-K through grade 12. OCR solicits these comments to inform determinations about what policy guidance, technical assistance, or other resources would assist schools that serve students in pre-K through grade 12 with improving school climate and safety, consistent with the civil rights laws that OCR enforces, to ensure equal access to education programs and activities. OCR has promulgated regulations to implement civil rights laws and periodically provides policy guidance and technical assistance to clarify these statutory and regulatory requirements. Information received through this request may be used to assist OCR in preparing further guidance, technical assistance, and other resources.
We must receive your comments on or before July 23, 2021.
Written comments may be submitted as indicated below:
•
•
Alejandro Reyes, Director, Program Legal Group, Office for Civil Rights, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Room 6125, 550 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 245-7272. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), please call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
If you have difficulty understanding English, you may request language assistance services for Department information that is available to the public. These language assistance services are available free of charge. If you need more information about interpretation or translation services, please call 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-877-8339).
OCR enforces Federal civil rights laws and their implementing regulations, including those that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, or national origin (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d
These laws apply to a wide range of entities, including all State educational agencies (SEAs); approximately 17,600 local educational agencies (LEAs); over 5,000 postsecondary institutions; 80 State vocational rehabilitation agencies and their subrecipients; and other institutions that receive Departmental financial assistance, such as libraries, museums, and correctional institutions.
OCR fulfills its mission to protect civil rights in many ways, including by (1) responding to civil rights complaints filed by members of the public; (2) proactively conducting compliance reviews and directed investigations to enforce Federal civil rights laws; (3) monitoring recipients' adherence to resolution agreements reached with OCR; (4) issuing policy guidance to increase recipients' understanding of their civil rights obligations and students' and families' awareness of students' civil rights; (5) providing technical assistance and other information to recipients and the public; and (6) administering and disseminating the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC).
OCR develops policy guidance based on legal developments, its enforcement work, and civil rights data trends. In addition, OCR develops policy guidance, technical assistance, and other informational materials in response to compliance concerns raised by public inquiries, requests for technical assistance, and engagement with a wide array of education and civil rights stakeholders. OCR's policy guidance and technical assistance are designed to ensure that every student has equal access to education programs and activities free from discrimination. These guidance and technical assistance documents are available on OCR's website at
As described below, OCR and other Federal agencies have taken multiple approaches to analyze and address longstanding issues related to the nondiscriminatory administration of school discipline and the creation of positive school climates.
In 2018, OCR and CRT issued a Dear Colleague letter that rescinded the 2014 guidance.
Likewise, in its 2019 report—BEYOND SUSPENSIONS: Examining School Discipline Policies and Connections to the School-to-Prison Pipeline for Students of Color with Disabilities—the USCCR found that:
These disparities in referrals to law enforcement are apparent in the treatment of students with disabilities as well. Students served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
With respect to other exclusionary discipline practices, CRDC data from 2017-18 show that Black students represented 38 percent of students who received one or more out-of-school suspensions—over two times their share of overall student enrollment (15 percent). In addition, Black students accounted for 36 percent of all expulsions and 33 percent of students who were expelled without educational services.
Disparities worsen when you examine the intersection between race and sex. According to the 2017-18 CRDC data, Black girls were the only group across all races or ethnicities for girls where a disparity in school suspensions was observed. Black girls accounted for 11.1 percent of in-school suspensions and 13.3 percent of out-of-school suspensions, which is almost two times their share of total student enrollment of 7.4 percent. Black boys accounted for 7.7 percent of total student enrollment and received both in-school suspensions and out-of-school suspensions at rates (20.1 percent and 24.9 percent, respectively) almost three times their share of total student enrollment—the largest disparity across all race/ethnicity and sex groupings.
Students with disabilities were also overrepresented in exclusionary disciplinary actions as shown by CRDC data from 2017-18. Despite representing only 13 percent of the student population, they represented 25 percent of all students who received one or more out-of-school suspensions and 15 percent of those who were expelled without educational services in 2017-18. Black students with disabilities represented 26 percent of expulsions without educational services although they accounted for only 18 percent of all students provided services under IDEA in 2017-18.
On January 20, 2021, President Joe Biden issued an Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government to affirm the Administration's policy of and commitment to pursuing “a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality.”
Consistent with this approach, OCR is issuing this notice to solicit information on school climate and discipline practices in our nation's schools serving students in pre-K through grade 12, and how best to support and build schools' capacity to promote positive, inclusive, safe, and supportive school climates in a nondiscriminatory manner.
The Department requests information from students, families, educators, school leaders, SEAs, LEAs, community-based organizations, civil rights organizations, and other stakeholders regarding the ongoing discipline challenges in our nation's schools. OCR is also interested in learning about discipline issues arising during this unprecedented time of school closures, virtual learning, hybrid learning, and reopening schools during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as promising practices for addressing student discipline and creating positive school climates in these unique learning environments.
In particular, OCR is soliciting responses to the questions and requests below in the form of written comments to inform determinations about what policy guidance, technical assistance, or other resources would aid schools serving students in pre-K through grade 12 in providing positive, inclusive, safe, and supportive school climates and ensuring the nondiscriminatory administration of school discipline under the laws OCR enforces.
When responding to this request for information, please be as specific as possible in your comments. If you are aware of any supportive research (qualitative or quantitative) or promising school- or community-based programs, please include citations, websites, or other information that might enable OCR to follow up on the information you have shared.
OCR recognizes students may experience multiple forms of
If you are commenting on materials that OCR has issued in the past, please indicate if you believe OCR should consider affirming, changing, or rejecting such materials in future guidance, and the reasons for your recommendations.
Please
Please address one or more of the following questions or requests:
1. What are your views on the usefulness of current and previous guidance OCR and CRT have issued on school discipline? We would appreciate your comments on the guidance documents described above, including the 2014 guidance, the 2018 Dear Colleague letter, and the 2018 Questions & Answers on Racial Discrimination and School Discipline guidance.
2. What ongoing or emerging school discipline policies or practices are relevant to you or the communities you serve, including any that you believe raise concerns about potentially discriminatory implementation or effects on students' access to educational opportunities based on race, color, national origin, sex, or disability?
3. What promising practices for the administration of nondiscriminatory school discipline or creating positive school climates have you identified?
4. What are your views on this non-exhaustive list of disciplinary policies, practices, and other issues below?
(a) Discipline of students in pre-K through third grade, including in-school and out-of-school suspensions.
(b) Use of exclusionary disciplinary penalties, such as suspensions or expulsions, for minor, non-violent, or subjectively defined types of infractions, such as defiance or disrespect of authority.
(c) Discipline issues relating to dress and grooming codes (including restrictions on hairstyles).
(d) Corporal punishment.
(e) Inappropriate use of seclusion and restraint for disciplinary purposes.
(f) Referrals to and the resulting interactions with school police, school resource officers, or other law enforcement.
(g) Referrals to alternative schools and programs.
(h) Threat assessment practices.
(i) Students bringing weapons or using them at school.
(j) Use of surveillance technologies in a discriminatory manner.
(k) School policies or practices related to teacher and staff training related to discipline, the role teachers play in referrals of students for discipline, and the role of implicit bias in disciplinary decisions.
(l) Discipline related to attendance and time management.
(m) Discipline of victims of race, color, or national origin harassment, sex harassment, or disability harassment for misconduct that arises as a result of such harassment.
(n) Zero tolerance or strict, three-strike policies.
(o) Reintegration of students who return to school after a long-term out-of-school suspension or expulsion.
(p) Discipline issues relating to virtual learning.
(q) Discipline issues relating to returning to in-person instruction.
(r) Discipline issues relating to activities off school campus or in virtual school settings, such as bullying through social media usage.
5. What types of guidance and technical assistance can OCR provide to best help SEAs and LEAs create positive, inclusive, safe, and supportive school climates and identify, address, and remedy discriminatory student discipline policies and practices (for example, Dear Colleague letters, Frequently Asked Questions documents, fact sheets, tool kits, videos on the nondiscriminatory administration of school discipline or positive school climate, and guidance on returning students to in-person instruction)?
6. What promising practices that have reduced the use of discipline or the disparities in the use of discipline between different groups of students (including promising evidence-based programs and success stories from particular school districts) should OCR consider highlighting in any future guidance or resource materials?
7. How do school discipline policies impact (a) students' opportunity to learn; (b) academic achievement; (c) students' mental health; (d) drop out and graduation rates; (e) school climate and safety; (f) access to instructional time; (g) teacher retention and satisfaction; (h) the rates at which staff refer students for formal discipline; (i) student participation in STEM courses, honors and advanced placement courses, arts and theater, and extra-curricular programming; (j) impact of discipline records on access to scholarships or on enrollment in college; (k) student participation in ceremonies (for example, graduation ceremonies and National Honor Society ceremonies); and (l) life outcomes (for example, earnings, reliance on public support, income, employment opportunities, and housing)?
8. To what extent can hiring and professional development practices be designed and aligned to ensure that teachers and staff are adequately prepared to manage classrooms and work with students in a fair and equitable manner?
9. Describe any data collection, analysis, or record-keeping practices that you believe are helpful in identifying and addressing disparities in discipline. Conversely, describe any barriers or limitations in these areas, and any ideas you may have on how to overcome them.
OCR appreciates the contributions of students, families, educators, school leaders, SEAs, LEAs, community-based organizations, civil rights organizations, and others to this request for information. We will review every comment, and, as described above, electronic comments in response to this request for information will be publicly available on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Please note that OCR will not directly acknowledge or respond to comments, including comments that contain specific questions or inquiries. OCR issues a limited number of policy guidance and technical assistance documents each year. Receipt of comments in response to this request for information does not imply that OCR has decided to issue policy guidance, technical assistance, or other resources.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of change in control.
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of receipt of a Statement of Change in Control filed jointly on April 30, 2021 (Statement) (as supplemented on May 3 and May 19, 2021) by the following entities: Cameron LNG, LLC; Ecogas Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V.; ECA Liquefaction, S. de R.L. de C.V.; Energía Costa Azul, S. de R.L. de C.V.; Port Arthur LNG, LLC; Port Arthur LNG Phase II, LLC; Sempra Gas & Power Marketing, LLC; Sempra LNG International, LLC; Sempra LNG Marketing, LLC; Termolectrica de Mexicali, S. de R.L. de C.V.; and Vista Pacifico LNG, S.A.P.I de C.V. (collectively, Authorization Holders) in the above-referenced dockets. The Authorization Holders are all affiliates of Sempra Energy (Sempra). The Statement, as supplemented, describes a change in the Authorization Holders' upstream ownership. The Statement was filed under the Natural Gas Act (NGA).
Protests, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention, as applicable, and written comments are to be filed electronically as detailed in the Public Comment Procedures section no later than 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, June 23, 2021.
Electronic Filing by email:
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. DOE is currently accepting only electronic submissions at this time. If a commenter finds that this change poses an undue hardship, please contact Office of Fossil Energy staff at (202) 586-2627 or (202) 586-4749 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once the Covid-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates resuming all of its regular options for public comment submission, including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
The Authorization Holders state that the upstream ownership change described in the Statement is the result of the acquisition (Transaction) by KKR Pinnacle Aggregator L.P. (KKR Pinnacle), a subsidiary of KKR & Co. Inc. (together with its subsidiaries, KKR), of a non-controlling 20% interest in the equity of the reorganized Sempra Global Holdings, LP (Sempra Global), a subsidiary of Sempra.
According to the Authorization Holders, the Transaction is part of a series of integrated transactions involving Sempra's portfolio of Northern American energy infrastructure projects. Prior to the closing of the Transaction, Sempra will conduct an internal reorganization to consolidate the assets of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) business and its ownership in Infraestructura Energética Nova, S.A.B. de C.V. (IEnova) under Sempra Global, which will be renamed Sempra Infrastructure Partners (SIP). The Authorization Holders state that, as part of the integrated transactions, on April 26, 2021, Sempra launched a stock-for-stock exchange offer with the intent of acquiring the outstanding
Following the reorganization and consummation of the Transaction, KKR Pinnacle will own a 20% non-controlling equity interest in SIP. Post-consummation, Sempra will maintain control of SIP as the 80% owner, with KKR Pinnacle having certain minority protections.
Additional details can be found in the Statement and related supplements, posted on the DOE/FE website at:
DOE/FE will review the Statement, as supplemented, in accordance with its Procedures for Changes in Control Affecting Applications and Authorizations to Import or Export Natural Gas (CIC Procedures).
Interested persons will be provided 15 days from the date of publication of this notice in the
As noted, DOE is only accepting electronic submissions at this time. Please email the filing to
The Authorization Holders' Statement, the supplements thereto, and any filed protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, and comments will be available electronically by going to the following DOE/FE Web address:
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on June 2, 2021, by Amy R. Sweeney, Director, Office of Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, Office of Electricity, Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Request for information.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) invites public comment on its Request for Information (RFI) number DE-FOA-0002529 regarding the DOE's Hydrogen Energy Earthshot initiative to enable low cost, clean hydrogen at scale. Energy Earthshots being launched by DOE look beyond incremental advances and aim, instead, at the game-changing breakthroughs that will secure American leadership in enabling net-zero carbon technologies and address the climate crisis through the build-up of a clean and equitable energy future for all. The information being sought is intended to assist DOE's Hydrogen Program in further defining the scope and priorities of its initiatives to accelerate the production, storage, delivery, and end use of clean, affordable hydrogen in the United States. Specifically, this RFI seeks input on viable hydrogen demonstration and deployment projects, as well as science and innovation, that enable clean and affordable hydrogen production, infrastructure and end use to reduce emissions, create jobs, provide benefits to disadvantaged communities, and enable a net-zero carbon emissions economy by 2050. This is solely a request for information and not a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA). DOE is not accepting applications.
Responses to the RFI must be received by July 7, 2021 by 5:00 p.m.
Interested parties are to submit comments electronically to
Questions may be addressed to
There are extensive opportunities to produce clean hydrogen from diverse domestic resources, and both the DOE Hydrogen Program and industry have identified opportunities for using that clean hydrogen across multiple applications and sectors. The Hydrogen Program is interested in hearing from stakeholders, which of these areas would provide potential locations for
Specific questions can be found in the RFI. The RFI is available at:
On May 21, 2021, North Loup River Public Power and Irrigation District filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). The proposed North Loup Canal Hydroelectric Project would have an installed capacity of 30 kilowatts (kW), and would be located in the applicant's existing North Loup Main Canal in Valley County, Nebraska.
A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all the criteria shown in the table below.
Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i. PG&E filed its request to use Traditional Licensing Process on April 19, 2021. PG&E provided public notice of its request on simultaneously. In a letter dated June 2, 2021 the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved PG&E's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
j. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
k. With this notice, we are designating PG&E as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
l. PG&E filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
m. A copy of the PAD may be viewed and/or printed on the Commission's website (
n. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a new license for Project No. P-175-029. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any competing license applications
o. Register online at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted and is now ready for environmental analysis.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued a final rule on July 15, 2020, revising the regulations under 40 CFR parts 1500-1518 that federal agencies use to implement NEPA (see Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 85 FR 43304). The Final Rule became effective on and applies to any NEPA process begun after September 14, 2020. An agency may also apply the regulations to ongoing activities and environmental documents begun before September 14, 2020, which includes the RITE Project. Commission staff intends to conduct its NEPA review in accordance with CEQ's new regulations.
l.
On October 22, 2020, Verdant installed three turbine-generator units attached to one tri-frame mount under the existing pilot project license. Between October 2020 and January 2021, the pilot project generated about 90 megawatt-hours. Under the current pilot project license, Verdant is required to remove all project facilities, including triframe mounts and turbines, prior to the expiration of its pilot project license.
The proposed project would consist of a maximum of fifteen 35-kilowatt, 5-meter-diameter axial flow turbine-generator units with a total installed capacity of 0.525 megawatt, with underwater cables connecting five triframe mounts to two shoreline switchgear vaults. The project would operate using the natural tidal currents of the East River, during both ebb and flood tidal periods. As the direction of tidal flow changes, each turbine-generator unit would rotate (or yaw) to align the rotor to the direction of flow, through a passive system caused by hydrodynamic forces on the turbine-generator unit. The annual generation is expected to be from 840 to 1,200 megawatt-hours.
m. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's website at
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
You may also register online at
n.
o.
Take notice that on May 28, 2021, pursuant to sections 206, 306, and 309 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, 825e, and 825h and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Illinois Municipal Electric Agency (IMEA or Complainant) filed a formal complaint against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM or Respondent), requesting that PJM properly administer the payment of Incremental Capacity Transfer Rights to IMEA without reduction in the 2021/2022 Delivery Year and future Delivery Years, in accordance with PJM's Open Access Transmission Tariff and in a just and reasonable manner, all as more fully explained in its complaint.
The Complainant certify that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts listed for Respondent in the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainant.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Heartland Divide Wind II, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is June 22, 2021.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's order for the cancellations, voluntarily requested by the registrants and accepted by the Agency, of the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II., pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This cancellation order follows a March 10, 2021
The cancellations are effective June 8, 2021.
Carolyn Smith, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-8325; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0132, is available at
This notice announces the cancellation, as requested by registrants, of products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a) or 24(c) (7 U.S.C. 136v(c)). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number (or company number and 24(c) number) in Table 1 of this unit.
Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit.
During the public comment period provided, EPA received no comments in response to the March 10, 2021
Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)), EPA hereby approves the requested cancellations of the registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders that the product registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. are canceled. The effective date of the cancellations that are the subject of this notice is June 8, 2021. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II. in a manner inconsistent with any of the provisions for disposition of existing stocks set forth in Unit VI. will be a violation of FIFRA.
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. The existing stocks provisions for the products subject to this order are as follows.
The registrants may continue to sell and distribute existing stocks of the cryolite products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. until December 8, 2022, which is 18 months after the publication of the Cancellation Order in the
7 U.S.C. 136
Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.
Virtual meeting. Note: Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, we will conduct the open meeting virtually. If you would like to access the meeting, see the instructions below.
This meeting will be open to the public. To access the virtual meeting, go to the Commission's website
Motion to Amend Directive 68 to Include Additional Information in Quarterly Status Reports to Commission.
Management and Administrative Matters.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer. Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreements to the Secretary by email at
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later June 23, 2021.
1.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than June 23, 2021.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than July 8, 2021.
1.
Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation; Administration for Children and Families; HHS.
Request for public comment.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is proposing a new information collection to assess the implementation of Project Connect, a comprehensive home visitation intervention that provides home-based services and treatment to child welfare-involved, substance-affected families with children and adolescents ages 0 to 17.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The implementation study will support a planned effectiveness evaluation that will rely on administrative data to examine the impact of the program on child welfare outcomes. These information collection activities will take place over the course of five site visits to the program and child welfare agency that are participating in the study. Information collection activities include interviews with program and child welfare agency administrators, focus groups with program and child welfare agency staff, interviews and focus groups with participants, interviews with other program stakeholders, and observations of program staff meetings, program delivery, and judicial hearings. Site visits will also include direct observations of staff delivery of the program, program staff meetings, and relevant judicial hearings/activities for program families.
This evaluation is part of a larger project to help ACF build the evidence base in child welfare through rigorous evaluation of programs, practices, and policies. The activities and products from this project will contribute to evidence building in child welfare and help to determine the effectiveness of a substance use program on child welfare outcomes.
42 U.S.C. 676.
Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
Request for public comment.
The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is proposing to collect data for a new wave of the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES).
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
FACES 2019 focuses on Head Start Regions I through X (which are geographically based); AIAN (American Indian and Alaska Native) FACES 2019 focuses on Region XI (which funds Head Start programs that serve federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes). Both studies will provide data on a set of key indicators for Head Start programs. Information about the Head Start program recruitment and center selection processes and on the fall 2019 and spring 2020 data collection activities for both FACES and AIAN FACES can be found here:
The studies are adding a fall 2021 data collection to address how families are faring during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data collection activities will include classroom and child sampling information collection, parent surveys, teacher child reports, and teacher surveys.
Sampling will begin with a freshening of the programs included in FACES fall 2019 and spring 2020 waves for a target of 180 programs that are nationally representative of all Head Start programs in the 2021-2022 program year. FACES fall 2021 data collection will take place in 60 of the 180 programs. AIAN FACES will return to the same 22 programs that participated in 2019 and 2020 data collection.
Sampling of teachers and children starts with sampling activities for 162 Head Start centers (120 for FACES 2019 and 42 for AIAN FACES 2019) in fall 2021. Study team members will request a list of all teachers and home visitors working with Head Start-funded children. Next, for each selected teacher or home visitor, we will request information for each child enrolled.
For the fall 2021 collection, FACES will survey the parents of 2,400 Head Start children in Regions I-X (FACES 2019) and 800 children in Region XI (AIAN FACES 2019) and ask their Head Start teachers to rate children's social and emotional skills. Parents of sampled children (2,400 for FACES and 800 for AIAN FACES) will complete surveys on the web or by telephone about their children and family in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Head Start teachers will rate each sampled child (approximately 10 children per classroom) using the Web or paper-and pencil forms. Teachers will also complete a survey, also using the web or paper-and-pencil forms, about their well-being and background. Additional data collection activities, to include the programs and respondents from fall 2021 plus the remaining 120 FACES programs, are planned for spring 2022 and will be included in a future
Section 640(a)(2)(D) and section 649 of the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than July 8, 2021.
Submit your comments, including the ICR Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Lisa Wright-Solomon, the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at
A 60-day notice published in the
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Bioengineering of Neuroscience, Vision and Low Vision Technologies Study Section, June 17, 2021, 08:00 a.m. to June 18, 2021, 07:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
In the
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Committee management; notice of Federal advisory committee meeting.
The Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) will hold its quarterly meeting on Wednesday, June 23, 2021. The meeting will be open to the public via webinar only. There is no on-site, in-person option for this quarterly meeting.
The COAC will meet on Wednesday, June 23, 2021, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT. Please note that the meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business. Comments must be submitted in writing no later than June 22, 2021.
The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar link and conference number will be provided to all registrants by 5:00 p.m. EDT on June 22, 2021. For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Ms. Florence Constant-Gibson, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, at (202) 344-1440 as soon as possible.
Ms. Florence Constant-Gibson, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229; or Ms. Valarie M. Neuhart, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 344-1440.
Notice of this meeting is given under the authority of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix. The Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) provides advice to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on matters pertaining to the commercial operations of CBP and related functions within the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of the Treasury.
Please feel free to share this information with other interested members of your organization or association.
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues the committee will consider prior to the formulation of recommendations as listed in the Agenda section below.
Comments must be submitted in writing no later than June 22, 2021, and must be identified by Docket No. USCBP-2021-0020, and may be submitted by one (1) of the following methods:
•
•
•
There will be multiple public comment periods held during the meeting on June 23, 2021. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to two (2) minutes or less to facilitate greater participation. Please note that the public comment period for speakers may end before the time indicated on the schedule that is posted on the CBP web page,
The COAC will hear from the current subcommittees on the topics listed below and then will review, deliberate, provide observations, and formulate recommendations on how to proceed:
1. The Secure Trade Lanes Subcommittee will present the following updates: The Trusted Trader Working Group will provide an update on the progress of the White Paper on the Implementation of CTPAT Trade Compliance Requirements for Forced Labor; the In-Bond Working Group will provide an update on the progress with the technical enhancements being addressed through the Trade Support Network and the review of regulatory recommendations incorporated within the COAC In-Bond Modernization White Paper to create future efficiency and process development; the Export Modernization Working Group will present their White Paper on Export Operations for the 21st Century along with proposed recommendations; and, the Remote and Autonomous Cargo Processing Working Group will provide an update on the development of a draft White Paper identifying the potential impact of Remote and Autonomous Vehicles to CBP Cargo Processing Operations.
2. The Next Generation Facilitation Subcommittee will provide an update on the following working groups and task force activities: First, the Re-Imagined Entry Processes (RIEP) Working Group has begun a series of deep-dive sessions to review the entire entry process and examine when entry data becomes available. The intent of these sessions is to determine the points along the supply-chain where the data is first available in order to enhance the facilitation and security of the entry process and may provide some strategic recommendations in this area. Next, the One U.S. Government Working Group will provide an update on the following key project: The automation of electronic documents that are currently required at time of entry and the Partner Government Agency Disclaim Handbook. Finally, CBP will provide an update on the progress of the E-Commerce and 21st Century Customs Framework Task Forces.
3. The Intelligent Enforcement Subcommittee will provide a status update on the following: The Bond Working Group will report on the continued work with CBP on the Monetary Guidelines of Setting Bond Amounts, the status of the risk-based bonding initiative, and recommendations on the eBond Pilot; the Antidumping/Countervailing Duty (AD/CVD) Working Group will discuss the ongoing challenges associated with the growing number of AD/CVD cases; the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Process Modernization Working Group will provide updates on past recommendations to further the modernization of IPR processes; and, the Forced Labor Working Group will provide an update related to the progress of the three subgroups outlined in the Statement of Work: Informed Compliance Fact Sheet Subgroup, Emerging Traceability Subgroup, and Forced Labor Report and Metrics Subgroup.
4. The Rapid Response Subcommittee will provide an update on the progress of its two working groups. First, the USMCA Working Group has identified specific topics for review with the USMCA Center as the anticipated publication of the new regulations approaches. The topics for discussion include export guidance, e-signatures, and the marking rules in part 102 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 102). Second, the Broker Exam Modernization Working Group will provide an update on recent exam modernization activities.
Meeting materials will be available by June 21, 2021, at:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Demonstration continuation.
Through this notice, HUD announces the continuation of HUD's demonstration to test the new method of assessing the physical condition of housing assisted by HUD vouchers (voucher-assisted housing) through October 1, 2022 and renews its call for additional Public Housing Authority (PHA) volunteers (eligible PHAs administering the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program). This continuation supports HUD's ability to align the HCV program with the National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE) physical inspection model and to assess the HCV program's inspection protocol against this model. In addition, this notice updates the relevant participation provisions and selection criteria.
Kevin Laviano, Assessment Manager, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street SW, Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410-4000, telephone number 216-659-2193 (this is not a toll-free number) or via email to
On May 4, 2016, HUD published a notice implementing the “Demonstration To Test Proposed New Method of Assessing the Physical Conditions of Voucher-Assisted Housing.”
Furthermore, HUD is lifting the three-year limitation to PHA participation contained in Section III, Part C., of the
HUD is also seeking additional volunteers for the demonstration. Interested PHAs should email HUD at
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of Information Collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the National Park Service (NPS) are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 9, 2021.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to Phadrea Ponds, NPS Information Collection Clearance Officer, 1201 Oakridge Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525; or by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Patty Henry by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Is Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NPS, including whether or not the information will have practical utility.
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
(4) How might the NPS minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological 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 can 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.
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 authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Arizona Museum of Natural History has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. 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 to the Arizona Museum of Natural History. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
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 the Arizona Museum of Natural History at the address in this notice by July 8, 2021.
Melanie Deer, Arizona Museum of Natural History, 53 N Macdonald, Mesa, AZ 85201, telephone (480) 644-4381, email
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 Arizona Museum of Natural History, Mesa, AZ. The human remains were most likely removed from Maricopa County, AZ.
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 Arizona Museum of Natural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona, and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona.
In 2021, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown location most likely in Maricopa County, AZ. The human remains belong to an individual of undetermined age and sex. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The human remains were discovered when the box in which they were housed was moved from the Historic Post Office. As information on the box references Scottsdale, AZ, the Arizona Museum of Natural History has determined that the human remains most likely were removed from Maricopa County. According to archeological understanding, the region where these human remains were most likely collected was occupied by the Hohokam Material Culture in prehistoric times. As the primary collection of the Arizona Museum of Natural History focuses on Hohokam Material Culture, the Arizona Museum of Natural History has determined that the human remains most likely are Hohokam.
According to archeological and ethnographic understandings, the Hohokam Material Culture people were ancestors to the Four Southern Tribes of Arizona (Ak-Chin Indian Community [previously listed as Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona]; Gila River
Officials of the Arizona Museum of Natural History 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 Ak-Chin Indian Community [previously listed as Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona]; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River-Pima Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; and the Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona (hereafter referred to as “The 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 Melanie Deer, Arizona Museum of Natural History, 53 N Macdonald, Mesa, AZ 85201, telephone (480) 644-4381, email
The Arizona Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of California, Berkeley, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects and objects of cultural patrimony, respectively. 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 to the University of California, Berkeley. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
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 the University of California, Berkeley at the address in this notice by July 8, 2021.
Dr. Thomas Torma; The University of California, Berkeley; 119 California Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-1500, telephone: (510) 672-5388, email:
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 University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects and objects of cultural patrimony, respectively, 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 1940 or 1941, one lot of beans was removed from Santa Clara Pueblo in Rio Arriba County, NM. At that time, George F. Carter collected the beans from representatives of the “East Delaware Indians of Okla.”, a term used for the modern Delaware Tribe of Indians. The exact breed of bean is unknown. The one object of cultural patrimony is one vial of beans.
In c. 1900, one hank of wampum was removed from an unknown location in Nebraska. It was collected by Frank B. Hutchens “from Indians who were being relocated by the government.” The items were made of shell, and the place of manufacture was recorded as New Jersey. The one object of cultural patrimony is a hank of wampum consisting of 27 strands of cylindrical shell beads.
In 1904, 1,895 funerary objects were removed from the vicinity of Abbott Farm in Mercer County, NJ. These items were collected by Ernest Volk as part of his annual excavations in the area and sent to the University of California. The items collected were from funerary sites south of Trenton that stretch along Crosswicks Creek, from the Delaware River to Yardville, NJ. The 1,895 unassociated funerary objects are: 842 items described as “lithics and pottery”; three sets of faunal remains; 62 items described as “hammerstones and flakes”; 511 lithics; 21 items described as “lithics and mica”; 27 items described as “lithics, pottery, and bone”; 115 items described as “lithics, pottery, and charcoal”; 93 items described as “lithics, pottery, antler, and pipe”; 220 items described as “lithics, pottery, bone, charcoal and botanical remains”; and one piece of pottery.
Officials of the University of California, Berkeley have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 1,895 cultural items collected from New Jersey and 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(3)(D), the two cultural items collected from
• 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 objects and objects of cultural patrimony and the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; and the Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin (hereafter referred to as “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 Torma, The University of California, Berkeley, 119 California Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-1500, telephone (510) 672-5388, email
The University of California, Berkeley is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Indiana State Museum and Historic Sites Corporation, State of Indiana (ISMHS) has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. 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 to the ISMHS. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
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 the ISMHS at the address in this notice by July 8, 2021.
Michele Greenan, Indiana State Museum and Historic Sites Corporation, 650 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46214, telephone (317) 473-0836, email
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 Indiana State Museum and Historic Sites Corporation, State of Indiana, Indianapolis, IN. The human remains were removed from Ferdinand State Forest, Dubois County, IN.
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. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by ISMHS professional staff in consultation with representatives 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; 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; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma; and the Wyandotte Nation (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes.)”
On March 30, 2009, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered in association with looting activity at Ferdinand State Park in Dubois County, IN. Conservation officers were contacted, and the Indiana Department of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) assigned accidental discovery number 2009019 to the looting area and associated materials. An archeologist from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, was then contacted to assess the looting. Based on the archeologist's assessment, no other information could be determined, and it appeared that the looters quickly deposited/discarded the material as they were retreating. In July 2013, the human remains were transferred to the ISMHS.
The human remains consist of two teeth—a lower left molar and right first molar. The roots were gone taphonomically. The wear patterns indicate that teeth belong to an adult. Determinations of sex, pathology or other traits were not possible. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At the ISMHS, staff from the University of Indianapolis assessed the human remains and determined that they could be Native American. Taking into account the archeological history of the area, the ISMHS has determined that the human remains are more likely than not Native American.
Officials of the Indiana State Museum and Historic Sites Corporation, State of Indiana have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on analysis of the teeth and the archeological history of the find locality.
• 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), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains 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; 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; 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; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the Wyandotte Nation (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to 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 should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Michele Greenan, Indiana State Museum and Historic Sites, Corporation, 650 West Washington St., Indianapolis, IN 46204, telephone (317) 473-0836, email
The Indiana State Museum and Historic Sites Corporation, State of Indiana is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Metropolitan Park District of the Toledo Area (Metroparks Toledo) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. 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 to Metroparks Toledo. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
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 Metroparks Toledo at the address in this notice by July 8, 2021.
Joseph Fausnaugh, Metroparks of the Toledo Area, 5100 West Central Avenue, Toledo, OH 43615, telephone (419) 407-9700, email
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 Metropolitan Park District of the Toledo Area, Toledo, OH. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Fore Site (33LU0133) in the City of Maumee, Lucas County, OH.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made for Metroparks Toledo by The Mannik Smith Group, Inc. professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; 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; 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; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Mille Lacs Band); Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan [previously listed as Huron Potawaomi, Inc.]; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Shawnee Tribe, Tonawanda Band of Seneca [previously listed as Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York]; and the Wyandotte Nation (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes”).
Between May 18 and June 19, 1987, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the Fore Site (33LU0133) in Lucas County, OH. The Fore Site was excavated by archeologists from Heidelberg College in 1986 and 1987. During the 1987 field season, a burial feature was excavated. The burial contained one individual. Based on artifacts contained in the feature, the burial was dated to the Younge Phase of the Late Woodland period (ca. 1050-800 B.P.), part of the Western Basin Tradition culture as described by archeologists. No radiometric dating of any materials from the feature was undertaken. In addition to the burial, the human remains of one individual were recovered from another stratum. No known individuals were identified. The 2,828 associated funerary objects include: One fossilized crinoid bead, 594 pieces of lithic debitage, cores, and tools made of Dundee/Stoney Creek, Ten Mile Creek, Bayport, Cedarville/Guelph, Delaware, Upper Mercer, Upper Mercer Nellie Variety, Greywacke, Onondaga, Quartzite, Local Devonian Limestone, Flint Ridge, and Pipe Creek cherts, one ground stone tool made of igneous rock, three projectile points made of Flint Ridge and Bayport cherts, four fire-cracked rocks made of igneous rock and limestone, 62 unmodified natural rocks, 408 fired and unfired clay sherds, four pottery temper fragments, 1,408 faunal remains representing deer, cow, rabbit, raccoon, squirrel, turtle, unidentified rodents, unidentified birds, unidentified reptiles, and shell fragments, two burned nut fragments, 276 charcoal fragments, one bag of soil with numerous small charcoal fragments, five slag pieces, one nail fragment, three unidentified ferrous metal fragments, 53 brick fragments, and two whiteware sherds.
Following the excavations, all the materials removed from the Fore Site were taken to the Heidelberg College Archaeology Laboratory in Tiffin, Ohio. A report of investigations for the 1987 field season at the Fore Site was completed by Dr. G. Michael Pratt in the spring of 1988. The Fore Site collection remained at Heidelberg College (now Heidelberg University) until the summer of 2017, when the university eliminated its anthropology program. At that time, all archeological collections from Metroparks Toledo-owned property were returned to Metroparks Toledo. Metroparks Toledo then negotiated an agreement with the Ohio History Connection (OHC) in Columbus to have the OHC permanently store Metroparks Toledo's archeological collections in its archeological curation facility (which meets the Secretary of the Interior's standards [36 CFR 79] for such facilities).
Officials of the Metropolitan Park District of the Toledo Area 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, biological evidence, museum, and lab records.
• 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 2,828 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 were removed is the aboriginal land of the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma.
• 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; 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; 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;
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to 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 Joseph Fausnaugh, Metroparks of the Toledo Area, 5100 West Central Avenue, Toledo, OH 42615, telephone (419) 407-9700, email
The Metropolitan Park District of the Toledo Area is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary object, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary object and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. 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 object should submit a written request to the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary object to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
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 object should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology at the address in this notice by July 8, 2021.
Dr. Christopher Woods, Williams Director, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 3260 South Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6324, telephone (215) 898-4050, email
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 object under the control of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, PA. The human remains and associated funerary object were removed from Lalor and Wright Fields site (28ME10), Mercer County, NJ.
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 object. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; and the Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).
In November 1890, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals (record numbers 8286 and 8292) were removed from “ash pits” near Trenton, Mercer County, NJ, by Ernest Volk (b. 1845-d. 1919), according to the Museum's records. At the time, Volk was an archeologist working under the aegis of the Harvard Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Based on what is known about Volk's fieldwork activities (as gleaned from his notes of November 1890 and other, published information), these human remains most likely were removed from Lalor and Wrights Field site (28ME10). According to Volk's records, he dug two trenches at Lalor Field during November 3-8, 1890. In one, he found features that he labeled “Potholes.” Volk described the presence of bone, ash or charcoal (or both), lithics, pottery, and faunal remains. Based on this description, the Museum's records, and consultation information, the above listed human remains most likely were removed from these “Potholes” or from other features located during the Lalor Field excavations. That same month, these human remains were gifted to the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology by Carl Edelheim and Clarence S. Bement, both of whom were associated with the University of Pennsylvania and its museum. How the human remains came to be in the possession of Edelheim and Bement is unclear. The human remains—cranial elements—belong to two adults of undetermined sex. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is an unidentified animal bone (record number 8290).
The archeological evidence from Lalor Field indicates this site dates to the Middle and Late Woodland Period. These human remains were determined to be Native American based on their archeological context and collection history. Archeological, consultation, historical, and linguistic information, and oral tradition support a cultural affiliation of this Woodland site with the Delaware (Lenape). Today, the Lenape are represented by three Indian Tribes—the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; and the Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin.
Officials of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology
• 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 one object described in this notice 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.
• 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 associated funerary object and The 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 and associated funerary object should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Christopher Woods, Williams Director, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 3260 South Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6324, telephone (215) 898-4050, email
The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. 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 to the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
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 the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology at the address in this notice by July 8, 2021.
Dr. Christopher Woods, Williams Director, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 3260 South Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6324, telephone (215) 898-4050, email
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 University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, PA, 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.
At an unknown date, 12 cultural items were removed from a “sarcophagus 4 ft. below the surface” at an unidentified location near Trenton in Mercer County, NJ, by Charles C. Abbott (b. 1843-d. 1919). These 12 cultural items were donated to the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia most likely between 1876 and 1894. In 1876, Abbott removed a further 10 cultural items from a grave at an unknown location near Trenton. Subsequently, these 10 cultural items were transferred to Samuel S. Haldeman. In September 1877, Haldeman's collection, including the 10 cultural objects, was donated to the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.
In 1936/1937, collections from the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia were loaned to the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, including the above enumerated 22 cultural items, and in 1997, these 22 cultural items were gifted to the Museum. The 22 unassociated funerary objects are two pottery sherds (record numbers 97-563-337 and 97-563-6473A), 10 animal and fish bones (record number 97-563-6473B), and 10
Based on archeological, consultation, historical, linguistic, oral traditional, and geographic information, the cultural items date to the Woodland Period, and they were most likely connected to the Delaware (Lenape). Today, the Delaware (Lenape) are represented by three Indian Tribes—the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; and the Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).
Officials of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 22 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), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and 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. Christopher Woods, Williams Director, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and
The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The University of California, Berkeley has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. 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 to the University of California, Berkeley. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
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 the University of California, Berkeley at the address in this notice by July 8, 2021.
Dr. Thomas Torma; University of California, Berkeley; Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research, 119 California Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-1500, telephone (510) 672-5388, email
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 University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Mercer County, NJ.
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.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the University of California, Berkeley professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; and the Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).
In 1904, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from Major Woodward's Farm and Squire Willey's Farm in Mercer County, NJ. They were collected by Ernest Volk as part of his annual excavations in the area. Although in most years during his 22-year-long study, Volk's work was done under the supervision of Frederick Ward Putnam at Harvard University, for some unknown reason, all the materials Volk collected in 1904 were sent to the University of California. The human remains belong to four individuals of unknown age and sex. No known individuals were identified. The 713 associated funerary objects are one axe; one set of faunal remains; 87 pieces of flake and cobble; 109 pieces of flake and gravel; 190 pieces of flake and comb fragment; six pieces of flake and scraper; 44 pieces of flake and stone; 100 pieces of flake, hammerstone, and gravel; five flakes; one graver; two knives; 27 pieces of pebble, stone tools, and flake; one pestle; 27 points and flakes; 11 potsherds; one pottery fragment; two projectile points; five scrapers; seven spear points; 84 pieces of stone tools and flakes; and two stones.
The preponderance of the evidence shows that these human remains and associated funerary objects are of Native American origin and date sometime between the middle woodland period and the early historic era. Mercer County, NJ, is the aboriginal territory of the Lenape, or Delaware people. Moreover, archeological, historic, linguistic, oral traditional, and other lines of evidence support a cultural affiliation of these human remains and objects with the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; and the Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin.
Officials of the University of California, Berkeley have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of four individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 713 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), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and The 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 and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Thomas Torma; University of California, Berkeley; Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research, 119 California Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-1500, telephone (510) 672-5388, email
The University of California, Berkeley is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of Information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the National Park Service (NPS) are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 9, 2021.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to Phadrea Ponds, NPS Information Collection Clearance Officer, National Park Service, 1201 Oakridge Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525; or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact, Alexis Abernathy, National Register of Historic Places, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility.
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
(4) How might the agency 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,
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 can 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.
The NPS is responsible for administering the National Register. Nominations for listing historic properties come from State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO), from Federal Preservation Officers (FPO) for properties owned or controlled by the United States Government, and from Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO) for properties on tribal lands. Private individuals and organizations, local governments, and American Indian tribes often initiate this process and prepare the necessary documentation. Regulations at 36 CFR 60 and 63 establish the criteria and guidelines for listing and for determining the eligibility of properties.
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 authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The McClure Archives and University Museum, University of Central Missouri, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural item listed in this notice meet the definition of an object of cultural patrimony. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim this cultural item should submit a written request to the McClure Archives and University Museum. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural item to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim this cultural item should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the McClure Archives and University Museum at the address in this notice by July 8, 2021.
Ashley McGuffey, NAGPRA Preparator, McClure Archives and University Museum of JCKL 1470, 601 Missouri Street, Warrensburg, MO 64093, telephone (660) 543-4649, email
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 a cultural item under the control of the McClure Archives and University Museum, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO, that meets the definition of an object 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 item. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
In the 1920s, one cultural item was removed from an unknown location most likely on the southeastern coast of Alaska. In the 1920s, anthropologist Erna Gunther collected or bought a wooden food box from the Tsimshian people. After her death in 1982, Gunther's son, anthropologist Robert Spier, inherited the box. Spier reported that his mother did not tell him much about the box, as it caused tension between his parents and ultimately played a part in their divorce. Robert Spier died in 2014. In 2017, his widow, Carolyn Spier, donated the box to the McClure Archives and University Museum, along with many other items in her husband's personal anthropological collection. The one object of cultural patrimony is this wooden food box.
Following analysis by McClure Archive and University Museum staff, a determination was made that this wooden food box is Tsimshian, and is connected to the Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve, in Alaska.
Officials of the McClure Archives and University Museum, University of Central Missouri have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(D), the one cultural item described above has 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 object of cultural patrimony and the Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim this cultural item should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Ashley McGuffey, NAGPRA Preparator, McClure Archives and University Museum of JCKL 1470, 601 Missouri Street, Warrensburg, MO 64093, telephone (660) 543-4649, email
The McClure Archives and University Museum, University of Central Missouri is responsible for notifying the Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve that this notice has been published.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that a proposed Final Judgment, Stipulation, and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in
Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, and Competitive Impact Statement are available for inspection on the Antitrust Division's website at
Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this notice. Such comments, including the name of the submitter, and responses thereto, will be posted on the Antitrust Division's website, filed with the Court, and, under certain circumstances, published in the
The United States of America, acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, brings this civil antitrust action to prevent Zen-Noh Grain Corp. from acquiring assets of Bunge North America, Inc. The United States alleges as follows:
1. American farmers produce the crops that feed our nation and the world. The United States' primary crops are corn and soybeans (collectively referred to here as “grain”). American farmers produced 14.2 billion bushels of corn and 4.14 billion bushels of soybeans in 2020, and roughly one-quarter of these grains were exported. In the United States, grain may flow from the farm directly to end users like ethanol plants and feed mills, or farmers can sell their grain to local grain elevators, where it is stored and aggregated, and later transported by train or barge to more distant domestic end users or to port elevators for export. To earn a fair return on their hard work and investments, farmers rely on vigorous competition between the companies that purchase their grain for direct use or further resale.
2. Zen-Noh Grain Corp. (“ZGC”) seeks to acquire 35 operating and 13 idled U.S. grain elevators from Bunge North America, Inc. (“Bunge”). These elevators are located in nine states, mainly along the Mississippi River and its tributaries. ZGC and Bunge are both grain traders and exporters, each purchasing millions of tons of corn and soybeans annually from farmers located across the United States' agricultural regions, and through their networks distributing the grain to customers throughout the United States and the rest of the world.
3. Today, ZGC, along with its affiliate CGB Enterprises, Inc. (“CGB”), a 50-50 joint venture between ZGC and Itochu Corporation, competes against Bunge to purchase corn and soybeans at numerous U.S. grain elevators and at their port elevators. In particular, in some areas along the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers where the Defendants operate competing river elevators, farmers have few—if any—alternative purchasers for their grain. The acquisition will eliminate competition between ZGC and Bunge in those locations; as a result, many U.S. farmers are likely to receive lower prices and poorer quality service when seeking to sell their grain.
4. In nine geographic areas, a Bunge elevator and a nearby ZGC or CGB elevator represent two of only a small number of alternatives where area farmers can sell their grain. In those nine areas, ZGC and Bunge currently compete aggressively to win farmers' business by offering better prices and more attractive amenities such faster grain drop-off services and better grain grading. Faster drop-off services mean farmers can get back to their fields more quickly and make better use of their trucks and employees, ultimately saving time and money. If one elevator is grading grain more harshly or inconsistently, which may lead to a lower price paid to a farmer for the grain, the farmer has the option of selling to a competing elevator which may grade differently.
5. If the proposed transaction proceeds in its current form, farmers located in these areas are likely to receive lower prices and lower quality services, and have fewer choices for the sale of their crops. The proposed transaction therefore is likely to lessen competition substantially in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, and the Court should enjoin this unlawful transaction.
6. The United States brings this action pursuant to Section 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 25, to prevent and restrain Defendants from violating Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.
7. Defendants are engaged in, and their activities substantially affect, interstate commerce. ZGC and Bunge both purchase, store, and sell grain throughout the United States. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 25, and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1337(a), and 1345.
8. ZGC and Bunge have each consented to personal jurisdiction and venue in this jurisdiction for purposes of this action. Venue is proper under 15 U.S.C. 22, and 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c).
9. This case arises from ZGC's proposed acquisition of certain grain elevator assets from Bunge for approximately $300 million pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement entered on April 21, 2020.
10. ZGC, headquartered in Covington, Louisiana, is a subsidiary of the National Federation of Agricultural Cooperative Associations of Japan. ZGC owns and operates a state-of-the-art export elevator located on the Mississippi River near Convent, Louisiana, from which it trades and exports corn, soybeans, sorghum, wheat, and grain by-products. Recently expanded in 2018 to handle up to 17 million tons of grain annually, ZGC's Convent elevator is the largest port elevator on the Mississippi. ZGC does not own any inland grain elevators and relies upon its affiliate, CGB, to supply the majority of the massive quantities of corn and soybeans ZGC exports annually from Convent. Post-acquisition, ZGC intends to lease the Bunge elevators to CGB to operate through CGB's wholly owned subsidiary, Consolidated Grain and Barge Co.
11. CGB is a 50-50 joint venture between ZGC and Itochu Corporation, a global trading company. CGB operates more than 100 elevators, many of which are located along the Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, and Illinois Rivers. CGB is the fifth-largest grain company in the United States by storage capacity. CGB's grain merchandizers are in daily contact with thousands of farmers, actively seeking to purchase grain from them. Currently, CGB sells approximately 60% of the grain it purchases to ZGC.
12. Bunge, headquartered in Chesterfield, Missouri, is the North American subsidiary of Bunge Limited. Bunge is a large agribusiness and food ingredient company that owns and operates grain elevators, oilseed processing plants, and edible oil refineries, as well as grain export terminals. Bunge is the eighth-largest grain company in the United States by storage capacity. Post-acquisition, Bunge will continue purchase grain in the United States via its export elevator on the Mississippi River in Destrehan, Louisiana and its export terminal in Longview, Washington (a joint venture
13. The livelihood of farmers depends on their ability to sell the corn and soybeans they grow to purchasers who offer them the best price, net of transportation and other selling costs that farmers incur. Ethanol plants and feed and crush mills purchase grain and process it into usable products such as soymeal or fuel. Rail and river elevators also purchase grain and store it until it is sold and transported to end users, in either domestic or export markets.
14. For convenience, some farmers may sell their grain to smaller, “country” elevators, located in closer proximity to the farmer than end users or rail and river elevators. Such elevators serve as grain collection and buying points in rural communities, and may provide other services like grain storage, drying, and conditioning services. Upon aggregating sufficient quantities of grain, or when market prices are most attractive, country elevators ultimately resell the grain to end users or to the larger rail or river elevators that can transport the grain to end users or export elevators.
15. More than 45% of the grain exported from the U.S. is shipped out from port elevator export terminals located at the mouth of the Mississippi River near the Gulf of Mexico. The vast majority of this grain is sourced from river elevators located along the Mississippi and its tributaries. These river elevators, found as far north as Minnesota, purchase grain from surrounding farms, and load it onto barges for transport to the port elevators.
16. ZGC (mainly through CGB) and Bunge own grain elevators, primarily located at rail terminals and along navigable rivers. They compete with other grain purchasers, including ethanol processors, feed mills, and crush processors, to purchase corn and soybeans from U.S. farmers, brokers and country elevators. Corn and soybeans are each distinct products without reasonable substitutes, differing from other agricultural commodities and one another in their physical characteristics, means of production, uses, and pricing. Because of the length of growing seasons, and the suitability of corn and soybeans to certain climates and regions, farmers of these crops would not switch to production of other agricultural commodities in sufficient numbers to render unprofitable a small but significant decrease in price by a hypothetical monopsonist of that crop. The purchase of corn and the purchase of soybeans for end use or for sale to the export market each constitute a relevant product market and line of commerce under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.
17. Farmers typically haul grain by truck to nearby elevators or end users. Transportation costs increase significantly with every mile the farmers must transport the grain to reach a purchaser, reducing the farmers' profits. Transporting grain also consumes farmers' time. For these reasons, a small change in price would not likely cause farmers to significantly expand the distance they are willing to drive to sell their grain. The distance a farmer is willing to drive is determined in large part by the second-closest potential purchaser, which is the best competitive threat to the purchaser closest to the farmer.
18. Rail or river elevators and other grain purchasing facilities, such as grain crush plants and ethanol plants, typically purchase grain from within the facility's draw area. “Draw area” is an industry term that describes the locations of farms from which the facility expects to acquire most of its grain. Each elevator or end user has a unique draw area due to characteristics such as surrounding road conditions, crop output, local topography, and proximity of competing purchasers. The draw area of a grain purchasing facility is determined by transportation time and costs and so is usually very localized.
19. The draw area of one grain facility frequently will overlap with that of another, resulting in competition between the facilities to purchase grain from farmers. Some farming areas of the country may be located such that they fall within the overlapping draw areas of only a few competing grain purchasing facilities. In particular, in the following areas where the Defendants' river elevators have overlapping draw areas, there are only a small number of grain purchasers competing to purchase farmers' corn and soybeans:
(a) The overlapping draw areas of elevators in the vicinity of McGregor, Iowa;
(b) The overlapping draw areas of elevators in the vicinity of Albany/Fulton, Illinois;
(c) The overlapping draw areas of elevators in the vicinity of Shawneetown, Illinois;
(d) The overlapping draw areas of elevators in the vicinity of Caruthersville, Missouri;
(e) The overlapping draw areas of elevators in the vicinity of Huffman, Arkansas;
(f) The overlapping draw areas of elevators in the vicinity of Osceola, Arkansas;
(g) The overlapping draws areas of elevators in the vicinity of Helena, Arkansas;
(h) The overlapping draw areas of elevators in the vicinity of Lake Providence, Louisiana; and
(i) The overlapping draw areas of elevators in the vicinity of Lettsworth, Louisiana.
20. These geographic areas satisfy the hypothetical monopsonist test (a “monopsonist” is a buyer that controls the purchases in a given market), the buyer-side counterpart to the hypothetical monopolist test. A hypothetical monopsonist of the purchase of corn or soybeans in each of these areas would impose at least a small but significant and non-transitory decrease in the price paid to farmers. Such a price decrease for these products would not be defeated by farmers selling to purchasers outside their local area due to the added costs of transportation. As farmers in these areas have already determined the best use of their farmland, a price decrease would also not be defeated by farmers' switching to growing alternative crops. Farmers currently growing corn or soybeans are unlikely convert to production of other agricultural commodities in sufficient numbers to prevent a small but significant decrease in price. Nor could area farmers thwart a post-transaction price decrease by selling instead to local country elevators. Country elevators simply resell grain to river and rail elevators or to other end users; if Defendants lower prices post-transaction, country elevators would be forced to lower their own price to farmers to maintain profitability. Consequently, country elevators cannot mitigate a price decrease resulting from this transaction. Therefore, each of the overlapping draw areas above constitute a relevant geographic market within the meaning of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, for the purposes of analyzing this transaction.
21. In each of the nine relevant geographic markets, ZGC (and its affiliate CGB) and Bunge are two of a very small number of grain purchasers competing to buy corn and soybeans; in
22. Because there are few alternative grain purchasers within these geographic areas, purchases of grain are highly concentrated, with the Defendants accounting for a majority of corn and/or soybean purchases in a given year. For example, in 2019, the Defendants purchased upwards of 95% of the total corn and soybean output of farmers in Pemiscot County, Missouri; Pemiscot County falls within the draw area of Bunge's Caruthersville, Missouri river elevator, and the draw areas of CGB's Caruthersville and Cottonwood, Missouri river elevators.
23. By eliminating head-to-head competition between ZGC (and its affiliate CGB) and Bunge for grain purchases in these geographic markets, the proposed acquisition would result in lower prices paid to farmers, lower quality of services offered to farmers at the grain origination elevators, and reduced choice of outlets for farmers to sell their grain. The proposed transaction would substantially lessen competition and harm the many farmers selling their crops to river elevators along the Mississippi River and its tributaries.
24. New entry and expansion by competitors likely will not be timely and sufficient in scope to prevent the acquisition's likely anticompetitive effects. New elevators are unlikely to be constructed in these geographic markets because of the high cost of construction and the difficulty of finding appropriate locations to build such a facility along the Mississippi or its tributaries. Even assuming such a location could be found and regulatory and permitting requirements could be fulfilled, constructing a river elevator would take approximately two years to complete.
25. The proposed acquisition is unlikely to generate verifiable, merger-specific efficiencies sufficient to reverse or outweigh the anticompetitive effects likely to occur.
26. The United States hereby incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 26 above as if set forth fully herein.
27. ZGC's proposed acquisition of the Bunge elevators is likely to substantially lessen competition in the relevant markets, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.
28. Unless enjoined, the proposed acquisition would likely have the following anticompetitive effects, among others:
(a) Eliminate present and future competition between ZGC (and affiliate CGB) and Bunge in the each of the relevant geographic markets for the purchase of corn and the purchase of soybeans;
(b) cause prices paid to farmers for corn and soybeans to be lower than they would be otherwise; and
(c) reduce quality, service, and choice for American farmers.
29. The United States requests that the Court:
(a) Adjudge ZGC's acquisition of Bunge's elevators to violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18;
(b) permanently enjoin Defendants from consummating ZGC's proposed acquisition of Bunge's elevators or from entering into or carrying out any other agreement, understanding, or plan by which the assets or businesses of ZGC and Bunge would be combined;
(c) award the United States its costs of this action; and
(d) grant the United States such other relief the Court deems just and proper.
The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and each of the parties to this action. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted against Defendants under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 18).
As used in this Final Judgment:
A. “Acquirer” or “Acquirers” means Viserion or another entity or entities to which Defendants divest the Divestiture Assets.
B. “ZGC” means Zen-Noh Grain Corp., a Louisiana corporation headquartered in Covington, Louisiana, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates (including CGB), partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
C. “Bunge” means Bunge North America, Inc., a New York corporation headquartered in Chesterfield, Missouri, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
D. “Bunge Elevators” means the elevators located on the properties owned or leased by Bunge listed among the Divested Elevators.
E. “CGB” means CGB Enterprises Inc., a Louisiana corporation headquartered in Covington, LA, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
F. “CGB Elevator” means the elevator located on the property owned or leased by CGB listed among the Divested Elevators.
G. “Viserion” means Viserion Grain, LLC and Viserion International Holdco, LLC, Delaware limited liability companies headquartered in Colorado, their successors and assigns, their subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
H. “Divested Elevators” means the following elevators:
I. “Divestiture Assets” means all of Defendants' rights, titles, and interests in and to:
1. The Divested Elevators;
2. all contracts, contractual rights, and relationships, including customer and supplier relationships, and all other agreements, commitments, and understandings, including, supply agreements, teaming agreements, and leases, and all outstanding offers or solicitations to enter into a similar arrangement that relate exclusively to the Divested Elevators; and
3. all other property and assets, tangible and intangible, wherever located, relating to or used in connection with each Divested Elevator, including:
a. All real property and real property rights, fee simple interests; buildings, facilities, and other structures, including bins, silos, other grain storage facilities, and dock facilities; easements; leasehold and rental rights, including all renewal or option rights; prepaid rent and security deposits; and fixtures, improvements, and assignable improvement warranties;
b. all tangible personal property; equipment, machinery, and tools, such as those used for handling, receiving, unloading, weighing, sampling, grading, elevating, storing, drying, conditioning, loading, and buying and selling grain; vehicles and furniture; supplies, replacement parts, and spare parts; and inventory;
c. all licenses, permits, certifications, approvals, consents, registrations, waivers, and authorizations issued or granted by any governmental organization, and all pending applications or renewals;
d. all records and data, including (a) customer and supplier lists, accounts, sales, and credit records, (b) production, repair, maintenance, and performance records, (c) manuals and technical information Defendants provide to their own employees, customers, suppliers, agents, or licensees, (d) accounting and operating records and ledgers; (e) sales and marketing records, including local marketing plans and sales and advertising materials, (f) records and research data concerning historic and current research and development activities, and (g) drawings, blueprints, and designs; and
e. all other intangible property, including, (a) technical information, (b) design tools and simulation capabilities, (c) computer software and related documentation, know-how, trade secrets, design protocols, specifications for materials, specifications for parts, specifications for devices, safety procedures (
J. “Divestiture Date” means the date[s] on which the Divestiture Assets are divested to Acquirer[s] pursuant to this Final Judgment.
K. “Including” means including, but not limited to.
L. “Relevant Personnel” means: (1) All full-time, part-time, or contract employees employed at the Divested Elevators at any time between August 21, 2020, and the Divestiture Date; (2) all elevator managers, grain merchandisers, and elevator superintendents employed by Bunge or CGB whose job responsibilities are shared between or among Divested Elevators and any non-divested elevators, at any time between August 21, 2020, and the Divestiture Date; and (3) all regional managers employed by Bunge one organizational level above the elevator manager level, wherever located, whose job responsibilities support the grain purchasing business of any of the Bunge Elevators, at any time between August 21, 2020, and the Divestiture Date. The United States, in its sole discretion, will resolve any disagreement regarding which employees are Relevant Personnel.
M. “Transaction” means ZGC's proposed acquisition of 35 operating and 13 idled grain elevators from Bunge.
A. This Final Judgment applies to Defendants ZGC and Bunge, as defined above, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any Defendant who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment.
B. If, prior to complying with Section IV and Section V of this Final Judgment, Defendants sell or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of their assets or of business units that include the Divestiture Assets, Defendants must require any purchaser to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment. Defendants need not obtain such an agreement from an Acquirer.
A. Defendant ZGC is ordered and directed within 30 calendar days after entry of the Asset Preservation Stipulation and Order to divest the Divestiture Assets in a manner
B. Defendant ZGC must use its best efforts to divest the Divestiture Assets as expeditiously as possible, and Defendants may not take any action to impede the permitting, licensing, operation, or divestiture of the Divestiture Assets. Defendants must take no action that would jeopardize the divestiture ordered by the Court.
C. Unless the United States otherwise consents in writing, divestiture pursuant to this Final Judgment must include the entire Divestiture Assets and must be accomplished in such a way as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, that the Divestiture Assets can and will be used by Acquirer as part of a viable, ongoing business of grain purchasing, and that the divestiture to Acquirer or Acquirers will remedy the competitive harm alleged in the Complaint.
D. The divestiture must be made to an Acquirer or Acquirers that, in the United States' sole judgment, has or have the intent and capability (including the necessary managerial, operational, technical, and financial capability) to compete effectively in grain purchasing.
E. The divestiture must be accomplished in a manner that satisfies the United States, in its sole discretion, that none of the terms of any agreement between an Acquirer and Defendant ZGC give Defendants the ability unreasonably to raise an Acquirer's costs, to lower an Acquirer's efficiency, or otherwise to interfere in the ability of an Acquirer to compete effectively in grain purchasing.
F. Divestiture of the Divestiture Assets may be made to one or more Acquirers, in one or more transactions, provided that it is demonstrated to the sole satisfaction of the United States that the criteria required by Paragraphs IV(C), IV(D), and IV(E) will still be met.
G. In the event Defendant ZGC is attempting to divest the Divestiture Assets to an Acquirer other than Viserion, Defendant ZGC promptly must make known, by usual and customary means, the availability of the Divestiture Assets. Defendant ZGC must inform any person making an inquiry regarding a possible purchase of the Divestiture Assets that the Divestiture Assets are being divested in accordance with this Final Judgment and must provide that person with a copy of this Final Judgment. Defendants must offer to furnish to all prospective Acquirers, subject to customary confidentiality assurances, all information and documents relating to the Divestiture Assets that are customarily provided in a due-diligence process;
H. Defendants must provide prospective Acquirers with (1) access to make inspections of the Divestiture Assets; (2) access to all environmental, zoning, and other permitting documents and information regarding the Divestiture Assets; and (3) access to all financial, operational, or other documents and information relating to the Divestiture Assets that customarily would be provided as part of a due-diligence process. Defendants also must disclose all encumbrances on any part of the Divestiture Assets, including on intangible property.
I. Defendants must cooperate with and assist an Acquirer in identifying and, at the option of Acquirer, hiring all Relevant Personnel, including:
1. Within 10 business days following the filing of the Complaint in this matter, or, if the Divestiture Assets are divested to an Acquirer or Acquirers other than Viserion, within 10 business days of notice from the United States pursuant to Paragraph VI.C. that it does not object to a proposed Acquirer, Defendants must identify all Relevant Personnel to Acquirer and the United States, including by providing organization charts covering all Relevant Personnel.
2. Within 10 business days following receipt of a request by an Acquirer or the United States, Defendants must provide to Acquirer and the United States additional information related to Relevant Personnel, including name, job title, reporting relationships, past experience, responsibilities, training and educational histories, relevant certifications, and job performance evaluations. Defendants must also provide to Acquirer and the United States current and accrued compensation and benefits, including most recent bonuses paid, aggregate annual compensation, current target or guaranteed bonus, any retention agreement or incentives, and any other payments due, compensation or benefited accrued, or promises made to the Relevant Personnel. If Defendants are barred by any applicable law from providing any of this information, Defendants must provide, within 10 business days following receipt of the request, the requested information to the full extent permitted by law and also must provide a written explanation of Defendants' inability to provide the remaining information, including specifically identifying the provisions of the applicable laws.
3. At the request of an Acquirer, Defendants must promptly make Relevant Personnel available for private interviews with Acquirer during normal business hours at a mutually agreeable location.
4. Defendants must not interfere with any effort by an Acquirer to employ any Relevant Personnel. Interference includes, but is not limited to, offering to increase the compensation or improve the benefits of Relevant Personnel unless: (a) The offer is part of a company-wide increase in compensation or improvement in benefits that was announced prior to April 21, 2020, or (b) the offer is approved by the United States in its sole discretion. Defendants' obligations under this Paragraph will expire 6 months after the Divestiture Date.
5. For Relevant Personnel who elect employment with an Acquirer within 6 months of the Divestiture Date, Defendants must waive all non-compete and non-disclosure agreements, vest all unvested pension and other equity rights (or to the extent such accelerated vesting is not permitted, provide the equivalent benefits), provide any pay pro-rata, provide all other compensation and benefits that their Relevant Personnel have fully or partially accrued, and provide pro-rata all other benefits that those Relevant Personnel otherwise would have been provided had the Relevant Personnel continued employment with Defendants, including any vested retention bonuses or payments. Defendants may maintain reasonable restrictions on disclosure by Relevant Personnel of Defendants' proprietary non-public information that is unrelated to the Divestiture Assets and not otherwise required to be disclosed by this Final Judgment.
6. For a period of 12 months from the Divestiture Date, Defendants may not solicit to rehire the following categories of Relevant Personnel hired by an Acquirer from Defendants within 6 months of the Divestiture Date: Regional and general managers, elevator managers, grain merchandisers, elevator superintendents, and bookkeepers. Defendants may solicit to rehire these categories of Relevant Personnel if (a) an
J. Defendant ZGC must warrant to Acquirer or Acquirers that (1) the Divestiture Assets will be operational and without material defects on the date of their transfer to Acquirer; (2) there are no material defects in the environmental, zoning, or other permits relating to the operation of the Divestiture Assets; and (3) Defendant ZGC has disclosed all encumbrances on any part of the Divestiture Assets, including on intangible property. Following the sale of the Divestiture Assets, Defendants must not undertake, directly or indirectly, challenges to the environmental, zoning, or other permits relating to the operation of the Divestiture Assets.
K. For any contract or agreement that requires the consent of another party to assign, subcontract, or otherwise transfer, Defendants must use best efforts to accomplish the assignment, subcontracting, or transfer. Defendants must not interfere with any negotiations between an Acquirer and a contracting party.
L. Defendants must make best efforts to assist Acquirer or Acquirers to obtain all necessary licenses, registrations, certifications, and permits to operate the Divestiture Assets, including those issued by governmental entities. Until an Acquirer obtains the necessary licenses, registrations, certifications, and permits, Defendants must provide Acquirer with the benefit of Defendants' licenses, registrations, certifications, and permits to the full extent permissible by law.
M. At the option of Acquirer or Acquirers, and subject to approval by the United States in its sole discretion, on or before the Divestiture Date, Defendants must enter into contracts to provide transition services for back office, human resources, and information technology, for a period of up to six months after the divestiture occurs on terms and conditions reasonably related to market conditions for the provision of the transition services. Any amendments to or modifications of any provision of any contract between either or both Defendants, and Acquirer or Acquirers, to provide transition services are subject to approval by the United States, in its sole discretion. The United States, in its sole discretion, may approve one or more extensions of any contract for transition services between Defendants and Viserion, for a total of up to an additional six months. In the event the Divestiture Assets are divested to an Acquirer or Acquirers other than Viserion, the United States, in its sole discretion, may approve an extension of any contract for transition services for up to 12 months after the divestiture is completed. If an Acquirer seeks an extension of the term of any contract for transition services, the relevant Defendant must notify the United States in writing at least two months prior to the date the contract expires. An Acquirer may terminate a contract for transition services, or any portion of a contract for transition services, without cost or penalty at any time upon 30 days' written notice. The employee(s) of Defendants tasked with providing transition services must not share any competitively sensitive information of an Acquirer with any other employee of Defendants.
N. If any term of an agreement between Defendants and Acquirer or Acquirers, including an agreement to effectuate the divestiture required by this Final Judgment, varies from a term of this Final Judgment, to the extent that Defendants cannot fully comply with both, this Final Judgment determines Defendants' obligations.
A. If Defendant ZGC has not divested the Divestiture Assets within the period specified in Paragraph IV.A., Defendant ZGC must immediately notify the United States of that fact in writing. Upon application of the United States, which Defendants may not oppose, the Court will appoint a divestiture trustee selected by the United States and approved by the Court to effect the divestiture of the Divestiture Assets.
B. After the appointment of a divestiture trustee by the Court, only the divestiture trustee will have the right to sell the Divestiture Assets. The divestiture trustee will have the power and authority to accomplish the divestiture to an Acquirer or Acquirer(s) acceptable to the United States, in its sole discretion, at a price and on terms obtainable through reasonable effort by the divestiture trustee, subject to the provisions of Sections IV, V, and VI of this Final Judgment, and will have other powers as the Court deems appropriate. The divestiture trustee will have sole discretion to select the Divested Elevator to be divested in each geographic area listed in Paragraph II.H. The divestiture trustee must sell the Divestiture Assets as quickly as possible.
C. Defendants may not object to a sale by the divestiture trustee on any ground other than malfeasance by the divestiture trustee. Objections by Defendants must be conveyed in writing to the United States and the divestiture trustee within 10 calendar days after the divestiture trustee has provided the notice of proposed divestiture required by Section VI.
D. The divestiture trustee will serve at the cost and expense of Defendant ZGC pursuant to a written agreement, on terms and conditions, including confidentiality requirements and conflict of interest certifications, that are approved by the United States in its sole discretion.
E. The divestiture trustee may hire at the cost and expense of Defendant ZGC any agents or consultants, including, but not limited to, investment bankers, attorneys, and accountants, that are reasonably necessary in the divestiture trustee's judgment to assist with the divestiture trustee's duties. These agents or consultants will be accountable solely to the divestiture trustee and will serve on terms and conditions, including terms and conditions governing confidentiality requirements and conflict-of-interest certifications, that are approved by the United States in its sole discretion.
F. The compensation of the divestiture trustee and agents or consultants hired by the divestiture trustee must be reasonable in light of the value of the Divestiture Assets and based on a fee arrangement that provides the divestiture trustee with incentives based on the price and terms of the divestiture and the speed with which it is accomplished. If the divestiture trustee and Defendant ZGC are unable to reach agreement on the divestiture trustee's compensation or other terms and conditions of engagement within 14 calendar days of the appointment of the divestiture trustee by the Court, the United States, in its sole discretion, may take appropriate action, including by making a recommendation to the Court. Within three business days of hiring an agent or consultant, the divestiture trustee must provide written notice of the hiring and rate of compensation to Defendant ZGC and the United States.
G. The divestiture trustee must account for all monies derived from the sale of the Divestiture Assets sold by the divestiture trustee and all costs and expenses incurred. Within 30 calendar days of the Divestiture Date, the divestiture trustee must submit that accounting to the Court for approval.
H. Defendants must use their best efforts to assist the divestiture trustee to accomplish the required divestiture. Subject to reasonable protection for trade secrets, other confidential research, development, or commercial information, or any applicable privileges, Defendants must provide the divestiture trustee and agents or consultants retained by the divestiture trustee with full and complete access to all personnel, books, records, and facilities of the Divestiture Assets. Defendants also must provide or develop financial and other information relevant to the Divestiture Assets that the divestiture trustee may reasonably request. Defendants must not take any action to interfere with or to impede the divestiture trustee's accomplishment of the divestiture.
I. The divestiture trustee must maintain complete records of all efforts made to sell the Divestiture Assets, including by filing monthly reports with the United States setting forth the divestiture trustee's efforts to accomplish the divestiture ordered by this Final Judgment. The reports must include the name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding month, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring any interest in the Divestiture Assets and must describe in detail each contact with any such person.
J. If the divestiture trustee has not accomplished the divestiture ordered by this Final Judgment within six months of appointment, the divestiture trustee must promptly provide the United States with a report setting forth: (1) The divestiture trustee's efforts to accomplish the required divestiture; (2) the reasons, in the divestiture trustee's judgment, why the required divestitures have not been accomplished; and (3) the divestiture trustee's recommendations for completing the divestitures. Following receipt of that report, the United States may make additional recommendations to the Court. The Court thereafter may enter such orders as it deems appropriate to carry out the purpose of this Final Judgment, which may include extending the trust and the term of the divestiture trustee's appointment.
K. The divestiture trustee will serve until divestiture of all Divestiture Assets is completed or for a term otherwise ordered by the Court.
L. If the United States determines that the divestiture trustee is not acting diligently or in a reasonably cost-effective manner, the United States may recommend that the Court appoint a substitute divestiture trustee.
A. Within two business days following execution of a definitive agreement to divest the Divestiture Assets to an Acquirer or Acquirers other than Viserion, Defendant ZGC or the divestiture trustee, whichever is then responsible for effecting the divestiture, must notify the United States of the proposed divestiture. If the divestiture trustee is responsible for completing the divestiture, the divestiture trustee also must notify Defendant ZGC. The notice must set forth the details of the proposed divestiture and list the name, address, and telephone number of each person not previously identified who offered or expressed an interest in or desire to acquire any ownership interest in the Divestiture Assets.
B. Within 15 calendar days of receipt by the United States of receipt of the notice required by Paragraph IV.A., the United States may request from Defendants, the proposed Acquirer, other third parties, or the divestiture trustee additional information concerning the proposed divestiture, the proposed Acquirer, and other prospective Acquirers. Defendants and the divestiture trustee must furnish the additional information requested within 15 calendar days of the receipt of the request unless the United States provides written agreement to a different period.
C. Within 45 calendar days after receipt of the notice required by Paragraph VI.A. or within 20 calendar days after the United States has been provided the additional information requested pursuant to Paragraph VI.B., whichever is later, the United States will provide written notice to Defendant ZGC and any divestiture trustee that states whether or not the United States, in its sole discretion, objects to an Acquirer or Acquirers or any other aspect of the proposed divestitures. Without written notice that the United States does not object, a divestiture may not be consummated. If the United States provides written notice that it does not object, the divestiture may be consummated, subject only to Defendants' limited right to object to the sale under Paragraph V.C. of this Final Judgment. Upon objection by Defendants pursuant to Paragraph V.C., a divestiture by the divestiture trustee may not be consummated unless approved by the Court.
D. No information or documents obtained pursuant to this Section VI may be divulged by the United States to any person other than an authorized representative of the executive branch of the United States, except in the course of legal proceedings to which the United States is a party, including grand-jury proceedings, for the purpose of evaluating a proposed Acquirer or securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or as otherwise required by law.
E. In the event of a request by a third party for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, the United States Department of Justice's Antitrust Division will act in accordance with that statute, and the Department of Justice regulations at 28 CFR part 16, including the provision on confidential commercial information, at 28 CFR 16.7. Persons submitting information to the Antitrust Division should designate the confidential commercial information portions of all applicable documents and information under 28 CFR 16.7. Designations of confidentiality expire ten years after submission, “unless the submitter requests and provides justification for a longer designation period.”
F. If at the time that a person furnishes information or documents to the United States pursuant to this Section VI, that person represents and identifies in writing information or documents for which a claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and marks each pertinent page of such material, “Subject to claim of protection under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” the United States must give that person ten calendar days' notice before divulging the material in any legal proceeding (other than a grand-jury proceeding).
Defendants may not finance all or any part of Acquirer's purchase of all or part of the Divestiture Assets.
Defendants must take all steps necessary to comply with the Asset Preservation and Hold Separate Stipulation and Order entered by the Court.
A. Within 20 calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, and every 30 calendar days thereafter until the divestitures required by this Final Judgment have been completed, each Defendant must deliver to the United States an affidavit, signed by each Defendant's Chief Financial Officer and General Counsel, describing in reasonable detail the fact and manner of Defendants' compliance with this Final Judgment. The United States, in its sole discretion, may approve different signatories for the affidavits. Defendant Bunge's obligations under this Paragraph IX.A shall cease 30 calendar days after the closing of the Transaction.
B. Each affidavit required by Paragraph IX.A. must include: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding 30 calendar days, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring, an interest in the Divestiture Assets and describe in detail each contact with such persons during that period; (2) a description of the efforts Defendants have taken to solicit buyers for and complete the sale of the Divestiture Assets and to provide required information to prospective Acquirers; and (3) a description of any limitations placed by Defendants on information provided to prospective Acquirers. Objection by the United States to information provided by Defendants to prospective Acquirers must be made within 14 calendar days of receipt of the affidavit, except that the United States may object at any time if the information set forth in the affidavit is not true or complete.
C. Defendants must keep all records of any efforts made to divest the Divestiture Assets until one year after the Divestiture Date.
D. Within 20 calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, each Defendant must also deliver to the United States an affidavit signed by each Defendant's Chief Financial Officer and General Counsel, describing in reasonable detail all actions Defendants have taken and all steps Defendants have implemented on an ongoing basis to comply with Section VIII of this Final Judgment. The United States, in its sole discretion, may approve different signatories for the affidavits.
E. If a Defendant makes any changes to the actions and steps outlined in any earlier affidavits provided pursuant to Paragraph IX.D., Defendants must, within 15 calendar days after any change is implemented, deliver to the United States an affidavit describing those changes.
F. Defendants must keep all records of any efforts made to comply with Section VIII until one year after the Divestiture Date.
A. For the purpose of determining or securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or related orders such as the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, or for the purpose of determining whether this Final Judgment should be modified or vacated, upon written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, and reasonable notice to Defendants, Defendants must permit, from time to time and subject to legally recognized privileges, authorized representatives, including agents retained by the United States:
1. To have access during Defendants' office hours to inspect and copy, or at the option of the United States, to require Defendants to provide electronic copies of all books, ledgers, accounts, records, data, and documents in the possession, custody, or control of Defendants relating to any matters contained in this Final Judgment; and
2. to interview, either informally or on the record, Defendants' officers, employees, or agents, who may have their individual counsel present, relating to any matters contained in the Final Judgment. The interviews must be subject to the reasonable convenience of the interviewee and without restraint or interference by Defendants.
B. Upon the written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, Defendants must submit written reports or respond to written interrogatories, under oath if requested, relating to any of the matters contained in this Final Judgment.
C. No information or documents obtained pursuant to this Section XI may be divulged by the United States to any person other than an authorized representative of the executive branch of the United States, except in the course of legal proceedings to which the United States is a party, including grand jury proceedings, for the purpose of securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or as otherwise required by law.
D. In the event of a request by a third party for disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, the Antitrust Division will act in accordance with that statute, and the Department of Justice regulations at 28 CFR part 16, including the provision on confidential commercial information, at 28 CFR 16.7. Defendants submitting information to the Antitrust Division should designate the confidential commercial information portions of all applicable documents and information under 28 CFR 16.7. Designations of confidentiality expire 10 years after submission, “unless the submitter requests and provides justification for a longer designation period.” See 28 CFR 16.7(b).
E. If at the time that Defendants furnish information or documents to the United States pursuant to this Section X, Defendants represent and identify in writing information or documents for which a claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Defendants mark each pertinent page of such material, “Subject to claim of protection under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” the United States must give Defendants 10 calendar days' notice before divulging the material in any legal proceeding (other than a grand jury proceeding).
A. Unless a transaction is otherwise subject to the reporting and waiting period requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18a (the “HSR Act”), Defendant ZGC, may not, without first providing at least 30 calendar days advance notification to the United States, directly or indirectly acquire any assets of or any interest, including a financial, security, loan, equity, or management interest, in grain purchasing facilities, including grain elevators and crush mills, located within a 100-mile radius any Divested Elevator during the term of this Final Judgment;
B. Defendant ZGC must provide the notification required by this Section XI in the same format as, and in accordance with the instructions relating to, the Notification and Report Form set forth in the Appendix to Part 803 of Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as amended, except that the information requested in Items 5 through 8 of the instructions must be provided only about grain purchasing facilities located within a 100-mile radius of any Divested Elevator.
C. Notification must be provided at least 30 calendar days before acquiring any assets or interest, and must include, beyond the information required by the instructions, the names of the principal representatives who negotiated the
D. Early termination of the waiting periods set forth in this Section XI may be requested and, where appropriate, granted in the same manner as is applicable under the requirements and provisions of the HSR Act and rules promulgated thereunder. This Section XI must be broadly construed, and any ambiguity or uncertainty regarding whether to file a notice under this Section XI must be resolved in favor of filing notice.
Defendant ZGC may not reacquire any part of or any interest in the Divestiture Assets during the term of this Final Judgment without prior authorization by the United States.
The Court retains jurisdiction to enable any party to this Final Judgment to apply to the Court at any time for further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe this Final Judgment, to modify any of its provisions, to enforce compliance, and to punish violations of its provisions.
A. The United States retains and reserves all rights to enforce the provisions of this Final Judgment, including the right to seek an order of contempt from the Court. Defendants agree that in a civil contempt action, a motion to show cause, or a similar action brought by the United States regarding an alleged violation of this Final Judgment, the United States may establish a violation of this Final Judgment and the appropriateness of a remedy therefor by a preponderance of the evidence, and Defendants waive any argument that a different standard of proof should apply.
B. This Final Judgment should be interpreted to give full effect to the procompetitive purposes of the antitrust laws and to restore the competition the United States alleges was harmed by the challenged conduct. Defendants agree that they may be held in contempt of, and that the Court may enforce, any provision of this Final Judgment that, as interpreted by the Court in light of these procompetitive principles and applying ordinary tools of interpretation, is stated specifically and in reasonable detail, whether or not it is clear and unambiguous on its face. In any such interpretation, the terms of this Final Judgment should not be construed against either party as the drafter.
C. In an enforcement proceeding in which the Court finds that Defendants have violated this Final Judgment, the United States may apply to the Court for a one-time extension of this Final Judgment, together with other relief that may be appropriate. In connection with a successful effort by the United States to enforce this Final Judgment against a Defendant, whether litigated or resolved before litigation, that Defendant agrees to reimburse the United States for the fees and expenses of its attorneys, as well as all other costs including experts' fees, incurred in connection with that effort to enforce the Final Judgment, including in the investigation of the potential violation.
D. For a period of four years following the expiration of this Final Judgment, if the United States has evidence that a Defendant violated this Final Judgment before it expired, the United States may file an action against that Defendant in this Court requesting that the Court order: (1) Defendant to comply with the terms of this Final Judgment for an additional term of at least four years following the filing of the enforcement action; (2) all appropriate contempt remedies; (3) additional relief needed to ensure the Defendant complies with the terms of this Final Judgment; and (4) fees or expenses as called for by this Section XIV.
Unless the Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment will expire 10 years from the date of its entry, except that after five years from the date of its entry, this Final Judgment may be terminated upon notice by the United States to the Court and Defendants that the divestitures have been completed and continuation of this Final Judgment no longer is necessary or in the public interest.
Entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest. The parties have complied with the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16, including by making available to the public copies of this Final Judgment and the Competitive Impact Statement, public comments thereon, and any response to comments by the United States. Based upon the record before the Court, which includes the Competitive Impact Statement and, if applicable, any comments and responses to comments filed with the Court, entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest.
United States of America,
The United States of America, under Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h) (the “APPA” or “Tunney Act”), files this Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed Final Judgment submitted for entry in this civil antitrust proceeding.
On April 21, 2020, Zen-Noh Grain Corp. (“ZGC”) agreed to acquire 35 operating and 13 idled U.S. grain elevators from Bunge North America, Inc. (“Bunge”) for approximately $300 million (“the Transaction”). The United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint on June 1, 2021, seeking to enjoin the proposed Transaction. The Complaint alleges that the likely effect of the Transaction would be to substantially lessen competition for purchases of corn and soybeans in nine geographic areas of the United States in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.
At the same time the Complaint was filed, the United States filed a proposed Final Judgment and an Asset Preservation and Hold Separate Stipulation and Order (“Stipulation”), which are designed to address the anticompetitive effects of the Transaction. The proposed Final Judgment, explained more fully below, requires the Defendants to divest certain grain elevators and related assets of Bunge or ZGC affiliate CGB Enterprises, Inc. (“the Divestiture Assets”) to Viserion Grain LLC and Viserion International Holdco LLC (“Viserion”), or to another acquirer or acquirers acceptable to the United States, within 30 calendar days after entry of the Stipulation.
Under the terms of the Stipulation, the Defendants will take certain steps to ensure that the Divestiture Assets remain independent; that all of the
The United States and Defendants have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with the APPA. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment will terminate this action, except that the Court will retain jurisdiction to construe, modify, or enforce the provisions of the Final Judgment and to punish violations thereof.
Defendant ZGC, headquartered in Covington, Louisiana, is a subsidiary of the National Federation of Agricultural Cooperative Associations of Japan. ZGC owns and operates a state-of-the-art export elevator located on the Mississippi River near Convent, Louisiana, from which it trades and exports corn, soybeans, sorghum, wheat, and grain by-products. Export elevators receive grain, largely via barge or rail, that has been purchased from farmers by inland elevators. Export elevators store the aggregated grain until it can be loaded onto ocean going ships. ZGC does not own any inland grain elevators and relies upon its affiliate, CGB Enterprises Inc. (“CGB”), to supply the majority of the corn, soybeans and other agricultural commodities ZGC exports annually from Convent. Post-acquisition, ZGC intends to lease the elevators that it proposes to acquire from Bunge to CGB to operate through CGB's wholly owned subsidiary, Consolidated Grain and Barge Co.
CGB is a 50-50 joint venture between ZGC and Itochu Corporation, a global trading company. CGB operates more than 100 elevators in the United States, many of which are located along the Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, and Illinois Rivers. CGB is the fifth-largest grain company in the United States by storage capacity. CGB's grain merchandisers are in daily contact with thousands of farmers, actively seeking to purchase grain from them. Currently, CGB sells approximately 60% of the grain it purchases to ZGC.
Defendant Bunge is the North American subsidiary of Bunge Limited. Bunge is a large agribusiness and food ingredient company that owns and operates grain elevators, oilseed processing plants, and edible oil refineries, as well as grain export terminals. Bunge is the eighth-largest grain company in the United States by storage capacity. Post-acquisition, Bunge will continue to purchase grain in the United States via its export elevator on the Mississippi River in Destrehan, Louisiana and its export terminal in Longview, Washington (a joint venture with Itochu Corporation). In addition to the export terminals, Bunge will retain ownership interests in eight grain elevators in Illinois and Indiana.
The 35 operating elevators ZGC proposes to acquire from Bunge are located in nine states—Arkansas, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi and Tennessee—primarily along the Mississippi River and its tributaries, and predominantly handle corn and soybeans.
American consumers benefit from the productivity and efficiency of American farmers, who annually produce far more volume than needed to meet domestic demand. Corn and soybeans (collectively referred to here as “grain”) are the primary crops grown in the United States. American farmers produced 14.2 billion bushels of corn and 4.14 billion bushels of soybeans in 2020, and roughly one-quarter of these grains were exported. In the United States, grain may flow from the farm directly to end users like ethanol plants and feed mills, or farmers may sell their grain to nearby rail or river grain elevators, where it is stored, aggregated, and later transported by train or barge to more distant domestic end users or to port elevators for export.
More than 45% of the grain exported from the United States is shipped out from port elevator export terminals located at the mouth of the Mississippi River near the Gulf of Mexico. The vast majority of this grain is sourced from river elevators located along the Mississippi and its tributaries. These river elevators, found as far north as Minnesota, purchase grain from surrounding farms and load it onto barges for transport to port elevators. Nearly all of the elevators ZGC seeks to acquire from Bunge are river elevators located on the Mississippi or its tributaries.
The livelihood of farmers depends on their ability to sell the corn and soybeans they grow to purchasers who offer them the best price, net of transportation and other selling costs that farmers incur. Ethanol plants and feed and crush mills purchase grain and process it into usable products such as soymeal or fuel. Rail and river elevators also purchase grain and store it until it is sold and transported to end users, in either domestic or export markets.
For convenience, some farmers may sell their grain to smaller, “country” elevators, located in closer proximity to the farmer than end users or rail and river elevators. Such elevators serve as grain collection and buying points in rural communities, and may provide other services like grain storage, drying, and conditioning services. Upon aggregating sufficient quantities of grain, or when market prices are most attractive, country elevators ultimately resell the grain to end users or to the larger rail or river elevators that can transport the grain to end users or export elevators.
Today, ZGC and its affiliate CGB compete against Bunge to purchase corn and soybeans from farmers. In particular, in nine geographic areas a Bunge river elevator and a nearby ZGC or CGB elevator represent two of only a handful of grain purchasing alternatives for area farmers. In those nine geographic areas, ZGC and Bunge currently compete aggressively to win farmers' business by offering better prices and more attractive amenities such as faster grain drop-off services and better grain grading. Faster drop-off services mean farmers can get back to their fields more quickly and make better use of their trucks and employees, ultimately saving time and money. If one elevator is grading grain more harshly or inconsistently, which may lead to a lower price paid, the farmer has the option of selling to a competing elevator which may grade differently. The Transaction will eliminate competition between ZGC and Bunge in those locations. As result, many U.S. farmers are likely to receive lower prices and poorer quality service when seeking to sell their grain.
ZGC (mainly through CGB) and Bunge own grain elevators, primarily located at rail terminals and along navigable rivers. They compete with other grain purchasers, including ethanol processors, feed mills, and crush processors, to purchase corn and soybeans from U.S. farmers, brokers, and country elevators. Corn and soybeans are each distinct products without reasonable substitutes, differing from other agricultural commodities and one another in their physical characteristics, means of production, uses, and pricing. Because of the length of growing seasons, and the suitability of corn and soybeans to certain climates
Farmers typically haul grain by truck to nearby elevators or end users. Transportation costs increase significantly with every mile the farmers must transport the grain to reach a purchaser, reducing the farmers' profits. Transporting grain also consumes farmers' time. For these reasons, a small change in price would not likely cause farmers to significantly expand the distance they are willing to drive to sell their grain. The distance a farmer is willing to drive is determined in large part by the second-closest potential purchaser, which is the best competitive threat to the purchaser closest to the farmer.
Rail or river elevators and other grain purchasing facilities, such as grain crush plants and ethanol plants, typically purchase grain from within the facility's draw area. “Draw area” is an industry term that describes the locations of farms from which the facility expects to acquire most of its grain. Each elevator or end user has a unique draw area due to characteristics such as surrounding road conditions, crop output, local topography, and proximity of competing purchasers. The draw area of a grain purchasing facility is determined by transportation time and costs and so is usually very localized.
The draw area of one grain facility frequently will overlap with that of another, resulting in competition between the facilities to purchase grain from farmers. Some farming areas of the country may be located such that they fall within the overlapping draw areas of only a few competing grain purchasing facilities. In particular, in the following areas where the Defendants' river elevators have overlapping draw areas, there are only a small number of grain purchasers competing to purchase farmers' corn and soybeans:
(a) The overlapping draw areas of elevators in the vicinity of McGregor, Iowa;
(b) The overlapping draw areas of elevators in the vicinity of Albany/Fulton, Illinois;
(c) The overlapping draw areas of elevators in the vicinity of Shawneetown, Illinois;
(d) The overlapping draw areas of elevators in the vicinity of Caruthersville, Missouri;
(e) The overlapping draw areas of elevators in the vicinity of Huffman, Arkansas;
(f) The overlapping draw areas of elevators in the vicinity of Osceola, Arkansas;
(g) The overlapping draws areas of elevators in the vicinity of Helena, Arkansas;
(h) The overlapping draw areas of elevators in the vicinity of Lake Providence, Louisiana; and
(i) The overlapping draw areas of elevators in the vicinity of Lettsworth, Louisiana.
These geographic areas satisfy the hypothetical monopsonist test (a “monopsonist” is a buyer that controls the purchases in a given market), the buyer-side counterpart to the hypothetical monopolist test. A hypothetical monopsonist of the purchase of corn or soybeans in each of these areas would impose at least a small but significant and non-transitory decrease in the price paid to farmers. Such a price decrease for these products would not be defeated by farmers selling to purchasers outside their local area due to the added costs of transportation. As farmers in these areas have already determined the best use of their farmland, a price decrease would also not be defeated by farmers' switching to growing alternative crops. Farmers currently growing corn or soybeans are unlikely convert to production of other agricultural commodities in sufficient numbers to prevent a small but significant decrease in price. Nor could area farmers thwart a post-transaction price decrease by selling instead to local country elevators. Country elevators simply resell grain to river and rail elevators or to other end users; if Defendants lower prices post-transaction, country elevators would be forced to lower their own price to farmers to maintain profitability. Consequently, country elevators cannot mitigate a price decrease resulting from the Transaction. Therefore, each of the overlapping draw areas above constitute a relevant geographic market within the meaning of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, for the purposes of analyzing this transaction.
In the each of the nine relevant geographic markets, ZGC (and its affiliate CGB) and Bunge are two of a very small number of grain purchasers competing to buy corn and soybeans; in two of these markets, CGB and Bunge are the only elevators available to area farmers. Famers located within these geographic areas depend on this competition to obtain a competitive price for their grain. ZGC's acquisition of Bunge's elevators will substantially lessen competition for the purchase of corn and soybeans in these markets, enabling it to unilaterally depress prices paid to farmers for their crops.
Because there are few alternative grain purchasers within these geographic areas, purchases of grain are highly concentrated, with the Defendants accounting for a majority of corn and/or soybean purchases in a given year. For example, in 2019, the Defendants purchased upwards of 95% of the total corn and soybean output of farmers in Pemiscot County, Missouri; Pemiscot County falls within the draw area of Bunge's Caruthersville, Missouri river elevator, and the draw areas of CGB's Caruthersville and Cottonwood, Missouri river elevators.
By eliminating head-to-head competition between ZGC (and its affiliate CGB) and Bunge for grain purchases in these geographic markets, the Transaction would result in lower prices paid to farmers, lower quality of services offered to farmers at the grain origination elevators, and reduced choice of outlets for farmers to sell their grain. The Transaction would substantially lessen competition and harm the many farmers selling their crops to river elevators along the Mississippi River and its tributaries.
New entry and expansion by competitors likely will not be timely and sufficient in scope to prevent the likely anticompetitive effects of Defendant ZGC's acquisition of Bunge's elevators. Competitors are unlikely to construct new elevators in these geographic markets because of the high cost of construction and the difficulty of finding appropriate locations to build along the Mississippi or its tributaries. Even assuming such a location could be found and regulatory and permitting requirements could be fulfilled, constructing a river elevator would take approximately two years to complete.
The divestiture required by the proposed Final Judgment will remedy the loss of competition alleged in the Complaint by establishing an independent and economically viable competitor for the purchase of corn and soybeans in certain geographic markets
The Divestiture Assets include the real property and real property rights, fee simple interests; buildings, facilities, and other structures, including bins, silos, other grain storage facilities, and dock facilities associated with the nine grain elevators. The Divestiture Assets also encompass all existing grain inventories at the elevators, and all contracts (including grain contracts), contractual rights, and relationships, including customer and supplier relationships, and all other agreements, commitments, and understandings, including, supply agreements, teaming agreements, and leases, and all outstanding offers or solicitations to enter into a similar arrangement that relate exclusively to the elevators that will be divested.
The Divestiture Assets must be divested in such a way as to satisfy the United States in its sole discretion that the Divestiture Assets can and will be operated by the purchaser as a viable, ongoing business that can compete effectively in the market for the purchase of corn and the market for the purchase of soybeans. Defendants must take all reasonable steps necessary to accomplish the divestiture quickly and must cooperate with any acquirer.
If Defendants do not accomplish the divestiture within the period prescribed in the proposed Final Judgment, the proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court will appoint a divestiture trustee selected by the United States to execute the divestiture. If a divestiture trustee is appointed, the proposed Final Judgment provides that Defendant ZGC will pay all costs and expenses of the trustee. The divestiture trustee's commission will be structured so as to provide an incentive for the trustee based on the price obtained and the speed with which the divestiture is accomplished. After the divestiture trustee's appointment becomes effective, the trustee will provide periodic reports to the United States setting forth his or her efforts to accomplish the divestiture. If the divestiture has not been accomplished at the end of six months, the divestiture trustee and the United States will make recommendations to the Court, which will enter such orders as appropriate, in order to carry out the purpose of the trust, including by extending the trust or the term of the divestiture trustee's appointment.
Under Paragraph IV.I. of the proposed Final Judgment, Defendants must cooperate with and assist the acquirer in identifying and, at the option of acquirer, hiring (1) all full time, part time, or contract employees employed at the divested elevators at any time between August 21, 2020, and the divestiture date; (2) all elevator managers, grain merchandisers, and elevator superintendents employed by Bunge or CGB whose job responsibilities are shared between or among divested elevators and any non-divested elevators, at any time between August 21, 2020, and the divestiture date; and (3) all regional managers employed by Bunge one organizational level above the elevator manager level, wherever located, whose job duties support the grain purchasing business of any of the Bunge elevators, at any time between August 21, 2020, and the divestiture date. Defendants must provide Viserion, or any other acquirer or acquirers, with information on these employees and are prohibited from interfering with the efforts of Viserion, or any other acquirer or acquirers, to hire them.
The proposed Final Judgment includes a non-solicit provision (Paragraph IV.I.6.) prohibiting the Defendants from attempting to rehire relevant personnel that have agreed to work for the acquirer, subject to certain narrow exceptions, such as if an individual is laid off by the acquirer. The non-solicit provision is limited in duration to 12 months, which is a length of time intended to encompass the first harvest season for which the acquirer will be operating the divested elevators. It is also limited in scope to apply only to certain relevant personnel—regional/general managers, elevator managers, merchandisers, bookkeepers, and site superintendents—the employees most intimately involved with farmer outreach and elevator operation. The categories of employees protected by the non-solicit provision are integral to maintaining customer relations while ownership of the assets is transitioning; elevator managers and the grain merchandisers, in particular, are needed to develop and keep strong customer relationships to get grain into the elevators. Defendants are not restricted, however, from advertising employment openings using general solicitations or advertisements and rehiring relevant personnel who apply for an employment opening through a general solicitation or advertisement.
Under Paragraph IV.M. of the proposed Final Judgment, at the option of the acquirer or acquirers, and subject to approval by the United States in its sole discretion, Defendants must enter into one or more contracts to provide the acquirer or acquirers with transition services for back office, human resources, or information technology, for a period of up to six months after the divestiture occurs, on terms and conditions reasonably related to market conditions for the provision of the transition services. The transition services covered by the proposed Final Judgment are those that might reasonably be necessary to ensure that an acquirer or acquirers can readily and promptly use the assets to compete in the relevant markets.
For the term of the proposed Final Judgment, Paragraph XI.A. requires Defendant ZGC to provide at least 30 calendar days advance notification to the United States of its intent to directly or indirectly acquire any assets of, or any interest in, grain purchasing facilities located within a 100-mile radius any divested elevator. The notification requirement of Paragraph XI.A. applies to transactions that are not subject to the reporting and waiting period requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18a (the “HSR Act”).
The proposed Final Judgment also contains provisions designed to promote compliance and make the enforcement of the Final Judgment as effective as possible. Paragraph XIV.A. provides that the United States retains and reserves all rights to enforce the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment, including its
Paragraph XIV.B. provides additional clarification regarding the interpretation of the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment. The proposed Final Judgment was drafted to restore competition that would otherwise be harmed by the transaction. Defendants agree that they will abide by the proposed Final Judgment, and that they may be held in contempt of this Court for failing to comply with any provision of the proposed Final Judgment that is stated specifically and in reasonable detail, as interpreted in light of this procompetitive purpose.
Paragraph XIV.C. of the proposed Final Judgment provides that if the Court finds in an enforcement proceeding that Defendants have violated the Final Judgment, the United States may apply to the Court for a one-time extension of the Final Judgment, together with such other relief as may be appropriate. In addition, to compensate American taxpayers for any costs associated with investigating and enforcing violations of the proposed Final Judgment, Paragraph XIV.C. provides that in any successful effort by the United States to enforce the Final Judgment against a Defendant, whether litigated or resolved before litigation, that Defendants will reimburse the United States for attorneys' fees, experts' fees, and other costs incurred in connection with any enforcement effort, including the investigation of the potential violation.
Paragraph XIV.D. states that the United States may file an action against a Defendant for violating the Final Judgment for up to four years after the Final Judgment has expired or been terminated. This provision is meant to address circumstances such as when evidence that a violation of the Final Judgment occurred during the term of the Final Judgment is not discovered until after the Final Judgment has expired or been terminated or when there is not sufficient time for the United States to complete an investigation of an alleged violation until after the Final Judgment has expired or been terminated. This provision, therefore, makes clear that, for four years after the Final Judgment has expired or been terminated, the United States may still challenge a violation that occurred during the term of the Final Judgment.
Finally, Section XV of the proposed Final Judgment provides that the Final Judgment will expire ten years from the date of its entry, except that after five years from the date of its entry, the Final Judgment may be terminated upon notice by the United States to the Court and Defendants that the divestiture has been completed and that the continuation of the Final Judgment is no longer necessary or in the public interest.
Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15, provides that any person who has been injured as a result of conduct prohibited by the antitrust laws may bring suit in federal court to recover three times the damages the person has suffered, as well as costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment neither impairs nor assists the bringing of any private antitrust damage action. Under the provisions of Section 5(a) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(a), the proposed Final Judgment has no prima facie effect in any subsequent private lawsuit that may be brought against Defendants.
The United States and Defendants have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered by the Court after compliance with the provisions of the APPA, provided that the United States has not withdrawn its consent. The APPA conditions entry upon the Court's determination that the proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest.
The APPA provides a period of at least 60 days preceding the effective date of the proposed Final Judgment within which any person may submit to the United States written comments regarding the proposed Final Judgment. Any person who wishes to comment should do so within 60 days of the date of publication of this Competitive Impact Statement in the
Written comments should be submitted to:
Robert Lepore, Chief, Transportation, Energy and Agriculture Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street NW, Suite 8000, Washington, DC 20530.
The proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court retains jurisdiction over this action, and the parties may apply to the Court for any order necessary or appropriate for the modification, interpretation, or enforcement of the Final Judgment.
As an alternative to the proposed Final Judgment, the United States considered a full trial on the merits against Defendants. The United States could have continued the litigation and sought preliminary and permanent injunctions against ZGC's acquisition of grain elevators from Bunge. The United States is satisfied, however, that the divestiture of assets described in the proposed Final Judgment will remedy the anticompetitive effects alleged in the Complaint, preserving competition for the purchase of corn and soybeans in the nine relevant geographic markets along the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. Thus, the proposed Final Judgment achieves all or substantially all of the relief the United States would have obtained through litigation, but avoids the time, expense, and uncertainty of a full trial on the merits of the Complaint.
The Clayton Act, as amended by the APPA, requires that proposed consent judgments in antitrust cases brought by the United States be subject to a 60-day comment period, after which the Court shall determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment “is in the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1). In making that determination, the Court, in accordance with the statute as amended in 2004, is required to consider:
(A) the competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and
(B) the impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial.
As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held, under the APPA a court considers, among other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations in the government's complaint, whether the proposed Final Judgment is sufficiently clear, whether its enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, and whether it may positively harm third parties.
The United States' predictions about the efficacy of the remedy are to be afforded deference by the Court.
Moreover, the Court's role under the APPA is limited to reviewing the remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has alleged in its complaint, and does not authorize the Court to “construct [its] own hypothetical case and then evaluate the decree against that case.”
In its 2004 amendments to the APPA, Congress made clear its intent to preserve the practical benefits of using consent judgments proposed by the United States in antitrust enforcement, Public Law. 108-237 § 221, and added the unambiguous instruction that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to require the court to permit anyone to intervene.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2);
There are no determinative materials or documents within the meaning of the APPA that were considered by the United States in formulating the proposed Final Judgment.
On April 12, 2021, I issued a Decision and Order revoking, effective May 12, 2021, Certificate of Registration No. FS2669868 issued to Jennifer L. St. Croix, M.D. (hereinafter, Petitioner) at a registered address in Tennessee.
Later in the day of May 7, 2021, the United States Department of Justice alerted my office that Petitioner had filed a
Having considered the merits of Petitioner's Motion to Stay and of the Government's Response in conjunction with the record evidence, I deny Petitioner's Motion to Stay.
Petitioner requested a hearing on the allegations that the Order to Show Cause (hereinafter, OSC) made against her. 86 FR at 19011. She attended the hearing with her attorney.
In my April 12, 2021 Decision/Order, I found that Petitioner “had committed such acts as would render . . . [her] registration inconsistent with the public interest.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). The acts alleged in the OSC for which I found the Government had submitted substantial evidentiary support for the record and had proven were legal violations were (1) that Petitioner issued controlled substance prescriptions for no legitimate purpose and outside the usual course of professional practice, (2) that Petitioner failed to maintain medical records pertaining to her prescribing of controlled substances, (3) that Petitioner provided misleading information to investigating DEA agents, (4) that Petitioner failed to provide fully-compliant controlled substance prescription drug logs to DEA for periods during which she issued controlled substance prescriptions, (5) that Petitioner stored controlled substances at an unregistered location, and (6) that Petitioner failed to provide effective controls or procedures to guard against the theft or diversion of controlled substances. 86 FR at 19019-21, 19023-25. I did not find substantial evidence and/or a legal basis to support the OSC's allegations (1) that Petitioner had continued to issue controlled substance prescriptions to individuals who are intimate or close acquaintances, and to an individual with whom she had a “romantic interaction,” (2) that Petitioner violated 21 U.S.C. 843(a)(4)(A) by failing to comply with the terms of her June 2011 Memorandum of Agreement (hereinafter, MOA) with DEA, (3) that Petitioner did not maintain records of the controlled substances she dispensed, and (4) that Petitioner did not conduct an initial inventory of the controlled substances she received.
In adjudicating the OSC issued to Petitioner, I found that Petitioner made legal arguments that conflict with a core principle of the Controlled Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA)—the establishment of a closed regulatory system devised to “prevent the diversion of drugs from legitimate to illicit channels.”
In my adjudication of the OSC issued to Petitioner, I also determined that Petitioner urged me to accept positions that minimize statutory and regulatory inventory requirements.
Petitioner argues that there are multiple reasons why her Motion to Stay satisfies the applicable legal standard and why I should grant her requested relief. First, she argues that there is a substantial likelihood that her review petition will prevail because she has had “no further issues regarding her prescribing and management of controlled substances . . . over the past seven years.” Motion to Stay, at 3. Petitioner also argues that the reviewing Circuit Court will find in her favor because the penalty I assessed in my April 12, 2021 Decision/Order “is excessive, unjust, and disproportionate to her actions” based on her “review of other administrative actions against physicians.”
Second, Petitioner posits that she will suffer irreparable injury if enforcement of my April 12, 2021 Decision/Order is not stayed. “It would be difficult,” the Motion to Stay argues, “to overstate the impact that the loss of her [DEA registration] would have on . . . [her] ability to earn a living.”
Third, Petitioner argues that no party “will be harmed if the enforcement of the . . . [April 12, 2021 Decision/Order] is stayed.”
Fourth, Petitioner states in her Motion to Stay that the “public interest is in allowing an experienced practitioner to keep practicing in a medical specialty that is urgently needed during a global pandemic.”
As already discussed, the Government opposes Petitioner's Motion to Stay.
Regarding whether Petitioner's Motion to Stay demonstrates irreparable harm, the Government argues that it does not, because it “offers no evidence in support” of its claims that revocation “would `result in the immediate loss of her current position and essentially make her unemployable as a physician.' ” Govt Opposition, at 5 (citing
The Supreme Court has addressed the purpose of stays and the legal standard for the evaluation of motions to stay. In
In 2009, the Supreme Court provided the legal standard applicable to Petitioner's Motion to Stay.
Having analyzed the Motion to Stay, the Government's Opposition, and the entire record in this matter, I find that Petitioner has not met her burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of my discretion to stay, pending appellate review, enforcement of the sanction I ordered on April 12, 2021.
Regarding whether there is a substantial likelihood that Petitioner will prevail on the merits, even if Petitioner had substantiated her argument, which she did not, that she has had “no further issues regarding her prescribing and management of controlled substances” for the last seven years, her argument is irrelevant to my adjudication of the OSC and to the Circuit Court's review of my Decision/Order.
For the portion of the alleged seven-year period that is before the date of the OSC, I note that neither this Agency nor any other federal law enforcement agency is required to bring all possible charges against any subject at one time.
Further, Petitioner has had, and continues to have, the option of submitting an application for a new DEA registration. The Agency's decisions make clear that an applicant's past actions that violate the law need not result in her being denied a DEA registration indefinitely.
Regarding her allegation that the sanction I assessed in my April 12, 2021 Decision/Order is “excessive, unjust, and disproportionate to her actions,” Petitioner neither submitted evidence for the record during the hearing on the OSC nor now submits evidence that substantiates it. My April 21, 2021 Decision/Order, however, explains how violations that I found Petitioner had committed go to the heart of the CSA and its implementing regulations, and rejects her arguments that minimize applicable legal requirements.
Petitioner's irreparable injury arguments are predictions that she does not tether to existing or new record evidence. For example, as already discussed, Petitioner provides an address for herself in Las Vegas, Nevada in the
Further, Petitioner's loss of earned income claims are of a generic nature that any practitioner whose registration had been revoked or suspended could make. Even if Petitioner had submitted record evidence substantiating these predictions, the CSA does not direct me to consider her loss of earned income or potential loss of earned income. Accordingly, I do not accept Petitioner's irreparable injury arguments.
Assuming,
Fourth, even if the record evidence substantiates Petitioner's public interest claims, which it does not, the Agency has rejected community impact arguments.
Having determined that Petitioner has not met her burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of my discretion to stay enforcement of the sanction I ordered on April 12, 2021, pending appellate review, I deny her Motion to Stay.
It is so ordered.
Community Oriented Policing Services, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 60 days for public comment August 9, 2021.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Lashon M. Hilliard, Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 145 N Street NE, Washington, DC 20530, 202-305-5245.
Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20530 or sent to
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)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
There will be approximately 1,424 awardees submitting a COPS Progress Report on a semi-annually basis, or 4,042 responses annually. The average estimated time to complete a progress report is 35 minutes per awardee submission.
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody D. Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, Room 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, is announcing an opportunity for public comment on a new proposed collection of information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit comments on or before: August 9, 2021.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 1103-NEW, Improving Customer Experience (OMB Circular A-11, Section 280 Implementation), by any of the following methods:
•
•
Under the 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. “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 requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Whether seeking a loan, Social Security benefits, veteran's benefits, or other services provided by the Federal Government, individuals and businesses expect Government customer services to be efficient and intuitive, just like services from leading private-sector organizations. Yet the 2016 American Consumer Satisfaction Index and the 2017 Forrester Federal Customer Experience Index show that, on average, Government services lag nine percentage points behind the private sector.
A modern, streamlined and responsive customer experience means: Raising government-wide customer experience to the average of the private sector service industry; developing indicators for high-impact Federal programs to monitor progress towards excellent customer experience and mature digital services; and providing the structure (including increasing transparency) and resources to ensure customer experience is a focal point for agency leadership. To support this, OMB Circular A-11 Section 280 established government-wide standards for mature customer experience organizations in government and measurement. To enable Federal programs to deliver the experience taxpayers deserve, they must undertake three general categories of activities: Conduct ongoing customer research, gather and share customer feedback, and test services and digital products.
These data collection efforts may be either qualitative or quantitative in nature or may consist of mixed methods. Additionally, data may be collected via a variety of means, including but not limited to electronic or social media, direct or indirect observation (
The results of the data collected will be used to improve the delivery of Federal services and programs. It will include the creation of personas, customer journey maps, and reports and summaries of customer feedback data and user insights. It will also provide government-wide data on customer experience that can be displayed on
The Department will collect this information by electronic means when possible, as well as by mail, fax, telephone, technical discussions, and in-person interviews. The Department may also utilize observational techniques to collect this information.
The Department invites comments on: (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until August 9, 2021.
Written comments and/or suggestion regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or
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) 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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The purpose of this collection is two-fold: (1) To determine front-line advocates' (both system and community based) existing knowledge regarding victims' legal rights, particularly in criminal justice processes; and (2) the existence (or non-existence) and quality of relationships between community- and system-based advocates in a jurisdiction that can aid appropriate referrals for coordinated or complementary services. This collection will identify existing skills and knowledge as well as gaps, together with barriers to meaningful collaboration among and between advocates. This collection is critical because effective advocacy that promotes survivor agency and physical and emotional safety requires collaboration and coordination of community-based and system-based advocates and training and technical assistance provided should fill gaps and build upon existing knowledge and skills. The collection tool was developed in collaboration with an Advisory Committee of subject matter experts after determining that there has
The affected public are victim advocates (both system-based and community-based).
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E, 405B, Washington, DC 20530.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of extension of the registration deadline for Deep Space Food Challenge Phase 1.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces an extension of the Deep Space Food Challenge Phase 1 registration deadline for U.S. and non-Canadian International teams to June 25, 2021.
Challenge registration for Phase 1 opened January 12, 2021, and will remain open until the deadlines stated below. No further requests for registration will be accepted after the stated deadline.
Other important dates:
To register for or get additional information regarding the Deep Space Food Challenge, please visit:
Phase 1 of the Deep Space Food Challenge will be conducted virtually. The Challenge competitors will develop and submit their design proposals from their own location.
The original registration deadline was released in the
10:00 a.m., Thursday, June 10, 2021.
Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the meeting will be held via teleconference.
Closed.
1. Board Appeal. Closed pursuant to Exemption (8).
Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice.
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the address section below within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be sent within 30 days of publication of this Notice to
The NEA is particularly interested in comments which:
• 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;
• 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;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• 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,
The planned data collection is a new information collection request, and the data to be collected are not available elsewhere unless obtained through this information collection. A web-based survey of state arts agencies and regional arts organizations is planned to be administered once during summer 2021, contingent upon OMB approval. Knowledge gained through this information collection will enable the Arts Endowment to collect information on emergency relief funding provided by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) to state-level and regional subgrantees from the Arts Endowment. Currently, the Arts Endowment does not collect any information from state arts agencies or regional arts organizations related to the benefits of the CARES Act funding awarded to states and regions.
The National Endowment for the Arts is compelled by Congress to obligate 40 percent of its program budget to state arts agencies and regional arts organizations through Partnership Agreements (20 U.S.C. 954(g)). In turn, state arts agencies and regional arts organizations use these funds to support state and regional grantmaking and other programming, “developing projects and productions in the arts in such a manner as will furnish adequate programs, facilities, and services in the arts to all the people and communities in each of the several States.” (20 U.S.C. 954. (g)(1)). For regular Partnership Agreements, states, jurisdictions and regions are required to report subgrantee data to the National Endowment for the Arts.
As part of the stimulus package passed by Congress in April 2020, the CARES Act appropriated $75 million to the Arts Endowment for emergency relief. 40 percent of these funds were directed to state arts agencies and regional arts organizations to be distributed for emergency grantmaking. After the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies (NASAA) conducted a listening session on June 24, 2020 with executive directors of state arts agencies, based on OMB guidance to federal agencies in administering and implementing relief funding, the administration emphasized minimal burden to expedite implementing funding decisions, which gave agencies leeway in determining appropriate transparency and accountability mechanisms.
With this guidance, the National Endowment for the Arts determined that there would be no additional reporting requirements associated with these emergency funds in order to minimize burdens of during the pandemic. CARES funds were administered to state arts agencies and regional art organizations via amendments to FY 2019 partnership agreements, which are reported to the Arts Endowment annually in Final Descriptive Reports (OMB Control Number 3135-0140). However, Final Descriptive Reports do not contain data describing jobs and facility or infrastructure investments, which were the primary purpose of CARES Act dollars to state arts agencies. In an effort to understand the benefits and outcomes of emergency relief funds going to the 56 states and jurisdictions, and six regions, the Arts Endowment partnered with NASAA to survey state arts agencies and regional arts organizations to collect data on the how subgrantees used CARES Act funding.
The NEA intends to examine the outcomes of CARES Act funding on subgrantees of state arts agencies and regional arts organizations to understand how these funds were used to support arts organizations and benefit the public.
The Arts Endowment's Office of Research & Analysis decided to survey state arts agencies and regional arts organizations because it would fill a gap in knowledge of the 40 percent of CARES Act funding allocated to states and regions. The questions in the survey will capture the jobs subgrantees were able to maintain or create, and the amount invested in infrastructure, as a result of CARES Act emergency relief. The survey will also provide an opportunity to share any additional qualitative or quantitative subgrantee data related to CARES Act funding that state arts agencies have collected.
NASAA will report the survey data to the public in the aggregate and the Arts Endowment will include an analysis of subgrantee data along with direct grantee data to understand and track outcomes on CARES Act funding. The primary indicators will be the number of jobs created or maintained by grantees and subgrantees (full time and part time), and the facilities/infrastructure supported with CARES Act dollars.
This request is for a full clearance to conduct a web survey.
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice.
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the NEA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection regarding research and evaluation ethics for grant applicants to the NEA for external funding programs other than research programs and who propose research and evaluation activities in their project. A copy of the current information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the address section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the address section below within 60 days from the date of this publication in the
Send comments to Sunil Iyengar, National Endowment for the Arts, via email (
The NEA is particularly interested in comments which:
• 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;
• 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;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• 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,
9:30am, Tuesday, June 29, 2021.
Virtual.
The one item may be viewed by the public through webcast only.
Candi Bing at (202) 590-8384 or by email at
This meeting will take place virtually. The public may view it through a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under “Webcast of Events” on the NTSB home page at
There may be changes to this event due to the evolving situation concerning the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also available at
The National Transportation Safety Board is holding this meeting under the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b).
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Order; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an Order to CampCo, Inc., imposing a civil penalty of $75,000. On February 11, 2021, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty—$75,000 to CampCo, Inc., for failing to comply with regulatory requirements regarding the import and distribution of watches containing radioactive material.
The Order imposing civil monetary penalty of $75,000 was issued on June 3, 2021.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2021-0115 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Leelavathi Sreenivas, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-001; telephone: 301-287-9249, email:
The text of the Order is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
CampCo, Inc. (Licensee) is the holder of Materials License No. 04-23910-01E issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to Part 30 of Title 10 of the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Office of Investigations initiated an investigation on June 20, 2017, and the NRC staff initiated an inspection at the Licensee's facility in Los Angeles, California, on May 11, 2017, with subsequent records review, conducted from May 11, 2017, to September 3, 2020. The purpose of the investigation and inspection was to examine activities conducted under the license and to verify the Licensee's compliance with the Confirmatory Order Modifying License, dated June 20, 2016, issued under previous Enforcement Action EA-14-080.
The results of the investigation and inspection indicated that the Licensee had not conducted its activities in full compliance with NRC requirements. The NRC determined that nine violations of NRC requirements occurred, involving multiple failures (including several repeat failures from EA-14-080) to comply with the license and regulations, failure to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC, and failure to comply with the Confirmatory Order.
A written Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) was served upon the Licensee by letter dated February 11, 2021. The Notice states the nature of the violations, the provisions of the NRC's requirements that the Licensee violated, and the amount of the civil penalty proposed for the violations.
The Licensee responded to the Notice in a letter dated March 8, 2021. In its response, the Licensee stated that they believed the civil penalty was not consistent with NRC policy and not justified by the violations that occurred.
After consideration of the Licensee's response and the statements of fact, explanation, and argument for mitigation contained therein, the NRC staff has, as set forth in the Appendix to this Order, determined that the violations occurred as stated and that the penalty proposed for the violations identified in the Notice should be imposed.
In view of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205,
The Licensee pay a civil penalty in the amount of $75,000 within 30 days of the date of this Order, in accordance with NUREG/BR-0254, “Payment Methods.” (
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, “Orders,” the Licensee must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order within 30 days of the date of the Order. In addition, the Licensee and any other person adversely affected by this Order may request a hearing on this Order within 30 days of the date of the Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to answer or request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be directed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and include a statement of good cause for the extension.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings including documents filed by an interested State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof that requests to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases, to mail copies on electronic storage media, unless an exemption permitting an alternative filing method, as discussed below, is granted. Detailed guidance on electronic submissions is located in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC (ADAMS Accession No. ML13031A056) and on the NRC website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b)-(d). Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving their documents on all other participants. Participants granted an exemption under 10 CFR 2.302(g)(2) must still meet the electronic formatting requirement in 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1), unless the participant also seeks and is granted an exemption from 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is publicly available at
If a person other than CampCo, Inc. requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f).
If a hearing is requested by a licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearings. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), CampCo, Inc. or any other person adversely affected by this Order, may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer on the ground that the Order is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 30 days from the date this Order is published in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an expiring information collection (ICR) with minor edits, Financial Resources Questionnaire (RI 34-1, RI 34-17, and RI 34-18) and Notice of Amount Due Because Of Annuity Overpayment (RI 34-3, RI 34-19, and RI 34-20). This ICR has been revised in the following manner: The display of the OMB control number and an updated edition date.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 9, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) and title, by the following method:
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection (OMB No. 3206-0167). The Office of
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 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,
RI 34-1 (Financial Resources Questionnaire), RI 34-17 (Financial Resources Questionnaire—Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Premiums Underpaid), and RI 34-18 (Financial Resources Questionnaire—Federal Employees Health Benefits Premiums Underpaid), collects detailed financial information for use by OPM to determine whether to agree to a waiver, compromise, or adjustment of the collection of erroneous payments from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. RI 34-3 (Notice of Amount Due Because Of Annuity Overpayment), RI 34-19 (Notice of Amount Due Because of FEGLI Premium Underpayment), and RI 34-20 (Notice of Amount Due Because of FEHB Premium Underpayment), informs the annuitant about the overpayment and collects information from the annuitant about how repayment will be made.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
This Notice will be published in the
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from Section 15(a) of the Act, as well as from certain disclosure requirements in Rule 20a-1 under the Act, Item 19(a)(3) of Form N-1A, Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”), and Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X (“Disclosure Requirements”).
Listed Funds Trust (“Trust”), a Delaware statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series (each a “Fund”) and Skyrocket Investments, LLC (“Initial Adviser”), a Delaware limited liability company registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) that serves an investment adviser to the Funds (collectively with the Trust, the “Applicants”).
The requested exemption would permit Applicants to enter into and materially amend sub-advisory agreements with sub-advisers without shareholder approval and would grant relief from the Disclosure Requirements as they relate to fees paid to the sub-advisers.
The application was filed on February 17, 2021 and amended on May 14, 2021.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by emailing the Commission's Secretary at
The Commission:
Christine Y. Greenlees, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6879, or Lisa Reid Ragen, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number or an Applicant using the “Company” name box, at
1. Applicants request an order to permit the Adviser,
2. Applicants also request an order exempting the Sub-Advised Funds (as defined below) from the Disclosure Requirements, which require each Fund to disclose fees paid to a Sub-Adviser. Applicants seek relief to permit each Sub-Advised Fund to disclose (as a dollar amount and a percentage of the Fund's net assets): (i) The aggregate fees paid to the Adviser and any Wholly-Owned Sub-Advisers; and (ii) the aggregate fees paid to Affiliated and Non-Affiliated Sub-Advisers (“Aggregate Fee Disclosure”).
3. Applicants request that the relief apply to Applicants, as well as to any future Fund and any other existing or future registered open-end management investment company or series thereof that intends to rely on the requested order in the future and that: (i) Is advised by the Adviser; (ii) uses the multi-manager structure described in the application; and (iii) complies with the terms and conditions of the application (each, a “Sub-Advised Fund”).
4. The Adviser serves or will serve as the investment adviser to each Sub-Advised Fund pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with the Fund (each an “Investment Advisory Agreement”). Each Investment Advisory Agreement has been or will be approved by the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, and by the
5. Consistent with the terms of each Investment Advisory Agreement, the Adviser may, subject to the approval of the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, and the shareholders of the applicable Sub-Advised Fund (if required by applicable law), delegate portfolio management responsibilities of all or a portion of the assets of a Sub-Advised Fund to a Sub-Adviser. The Adviser will retain overall responsibility for the management and investment of the assets of each Sub-Advised Fund. This responsibility includes recommending the removal or replacement of Sub-Advisers, allocating the portion of that Sub-Advised Fund's assets to any given Sub-Adviser and reallocating those assets as necessary from time to time.
6. The Sub-Advisory Agreements will be approved by the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, in accordance with Sections 15(a) and 15(c) of the Act. In addition, the terms of each Sub-Advisory Agreement will comply fully with the requirements of Section 15(a) of the Act. The Adviser may compensate the Sub-Advisers or the Sub-Advised Funds may pay advisory fees to the Sub-Advisers directly.
7. Sub-Advised Funds will inform shareholders of the hiring of a new Sub-Adviser pursuant to the following procedures (“Modified Notice and Access Procedures”): (a) Within 90 days after a new Sub-Adviser is hired for any Sub-Advised Fund, that Fund will send its shareholders either a Multi-Manager Notice or a Multi-Manager Notice and Multi-Manager Information Statement;
8. Section 15(a) of the Act states, in part, that it is unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered investment company “except pursuant to a written contract, which contract, whether with such registered company or with an investment adviser of such registered company, has been approved by the vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of such registered company.”
9. Form N-1A is the registration statement used by open-end investment companies. Item 19(a)(3) of Form N-1A requires a registered investment company to disclose in its statement of additional information the method of computing the “advisory fee payable” by the investment company with respect to each investment adviser, including the total dollar amounts that the investment company “paid to the adviser (aggregated with amounts paid to affiliated advisers, if any), and any advisers who are not affiliated persons of the adviser, under the investment advisory contract for the last three fiscal years.”
10. Rule 20a-1 under the Act requires proxies solicited with respect to a registered investment company to comply with Schedule 14A under the 1934 Act. Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A, taken together, require a proxy statement for a shareholder meeting at which the advisory contract will be voted upon to include the “rate of compensation of the investment adviser,” the “aggregate amount of the investment adviser's fee,” a description of the “terms of the contract to be acted upon,” and, if a change in the advisory fee is proposed, the existing and proposed fees and the difference between the two fees.
11. Regulation S-X sets forth the requirements for financial statements required to be included as part of a registered investment company's registration statement and shareholder reports filed with the Commission. Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X require a registered investment company to include in its financial statements information about investment advisory fees.
12. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or any rule thereunder, if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants state that the requested relief meets this standard for the reasons discussed below.
13. Applicants assert that, from the perspective of the shareholder, the role of the Sub-Advisers is substantially equivalent to the limited role of the individual portfolio managers employed by an investment adviser to a traditional investment company. Applicants also assert that the shareholders expect the Adviser, subject to review and approval of the Board, to select a Sub-Adviser who is in the best position to achieve the Sub-Advised Fund's investment objective. Applicants believe that permitting the Adviser to perform the duties for which the shareholders of the Sub-Advised Fund are paying the Adviser—the selection, oversight and evaluation of the Sub-Adviser—without incurring unnecessary delays or expenses of convening special meetings of shareholders is appropriate and in the interest of the Fund's shareholders, and will allow such Fund to operate more efficiently. Applicants state that each Investment Advisory Agreement will continue to be fully subject to Section 15(a) of the Act and approved by the relevant Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, in the manner required by Section 15(a) and 15(c) of the Act.
14. Applicants submit that the requested relief meets the standards for relief under Section 6(c) of the Act. Applicants state that the operation of the Sub-Advised Fund in the manner described in the application must be approved by shareholders of that Fund before it may rely on the requested relief. Applicants also state that the proposed conditions to the requested relief are designed to address any potential conflicts of interest or economic incentives, and provide that shareholders are informed when new Sub-Advisers are hired.
15. Applicants contend that, in the circumstances described in the application, a proxy solicitation to approve the appointment of new Sub-Advisers provides no more meaningful information to shareholders than the proposed Multi-Manager Information Statement. Applicants state that, accordingly, they believe the requested relief is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
16. With respect to the relief permitting Aggregate Fee Disclosure, Applicants assert that disclosure of the individual fees paid to the Sub-Advisers does not serve any meaningful purpose. Applicants contend that the primary reasons for requiring disclosure of individual fees paid to Sub-Advisers are to inform shareholders of expenses to be charged by a particular Sub-Advised Fund and to enable shareholders to compare the fees to those of other comparable investment companies. Applicants believe that the requested relief satisfies these objectives because the Sub-Advised Fund's overall advisory fee will be fully disclosed and, therefore, shareholders will know what the Sub-Advised Fund's fees and expenses are and will be able to compare the advisory fees a Sub-Advised Fund is charged to those of other investment companies. In addition, Applicants assert that the requested relief would benefit shareholders of the Sub-Advised Fund because it would improve the Adviser's ability to negotiate the fees paid to Sub-Advisers. In particular, Applicants state that if the Adviser is not required to disclose the Sub-Advisers' fees to the public, the Adviser may be able to negotiate rates that are below a Sub-Adviser's “posted” amounts as the rate would not be disclosed to the Sub-Adviser's other clients. Applicants assert that the relief will also encourage Sub-Advisers to negotiate lower sub-advisory fees with the Adviser if the lower fees are not required to be made public.
17. The Commission has granted the requested relief with respect to Wholly-Owned and Non-Affiliated Sub-Advisers through numerous exemptive orders. The Commission also has extended the requested relief to Affiliated Sub-Advisers.
18. With respect to the relief permitting Aggregate Fee Disclosure, Applicants assert that it is appropriate to disclose only aggregate fees paid to Affiliated Sub-Advisers for the same reasons that similar relief has been granted previously with respect to Wholly-Owned and Non-Affiliated Sub-Advisers.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Before a Sub-Advised Fund may rely on the order requested in the application, the operation of the Sub-Advised Fund in the manner described in the application will be, or has been, approved by a majority of the Sub-Advised Fund's outstanding voting securities as defined in the Act, or, in the case of a Sub-Advised Fund whose public shareholders purchase shares on the basis of a prospectus containing the disclosure contemplated by condition 2 below, by the initial shareholder before such Sub-Advised Fund's shares are offered to the public.
2. The prospectus for each Sub-Advised Fund will disclose the existence, substance and effect of any order granted pursuant to the application. In addition, each Sub-Advised Fund will hold itself out to the public as employing the multi-manager structure described in the application. The prospectus will prominently disclose that the Adviser has the ultimate responsibility, subject to oversight by the Board, to oversee the Sub-Advisers and recommend their hiring, termination, and replacement.
3. The Adviser will provide general management services to each Sub-Advised Fund, including overall supervisory responsibility for the general management and investment of the Sub-Advised Fund's assets, and subject to review and oversight of the Board, will (i) set the Sub-Advised Fund's overall investment strategies, (ii) evaluate, select, and recommend Sub-Advisers for all or a portion of the Sub-Advised Fund's assets, (iii) allocate and, when appropriate, reallocate the Sub-Advised Fund's assets among Sub-Advisers, (iv) monitor and evaluate the Sub-Advisers' performance, and (v) implement procedures reasonably designed to ensure that Sub-Advisers comply with the Sub-Advised Fund's investment objective, policies and restrictions.
4. Sub-Advised Funds will inform shareholders of the hiring of a new Sub-Adviser within 90 days after the hiring
5. At all times, at least a majority of the Board will be Independent Trustees, and the selection and nomination of new or additional Independent Trustees will be placed within the discretion of the then-existing Independent Trustees.
6. Independent Legal Counsel, as defined in Rule 0-1(a)(6) under the Act, will be engaged to represent the Independent Trustees. The selection of such counsel will be within the discretion of the then-existing Independent Trustees.
7. Whenever a Sub-Adviser is hired or terminated, the Adviser will provide the Board with information showing the expected impact on the profitability of the Adviser.
8. The Board must evaluate any material conflicts that may be present in a sub-advisory arrangement. Specifically, whenever a sub-adviser change is proposed for a Sub-Advised Fund (“Sub-Adviser Change”) or the Board considers an existing Sub-Advisory Agreement as part of its annual review process (“Sub-Adviser Review”):
(a) The Adviser will provide the Board, to the extent not already being provided pursuant to Section 15(c) of the Act, with all relevant information concerning:
(i) Any material interest in the proposed new Sub-Adviser, in the case of a Sub-Adviser Change, or the Sub-Adviser in the case of a Sub-Adviser Review, held directly or indirectly by the Adviser or a parent or sister company of the Adviser, and any material impact the proposed Sub-Advisory Agreement may have on that interest;
(ii) any arrangement or understanding in which the Adviser or any parent or sister company of the Adviser is a participant that (A) may have had a material effect on the proposed Sub-Adviser Change or Sub-Adviser Review, or (B) may be materially affected by the proposed Sub-Adviser Change or Sub-Adviser Review;
(iii) any material interest in a Sub-Adviser held directly or indirectly by an officer or Trustee of the Sub-Advised Fund, or an officer or board member of the Adviser (other than through a pooled investment vehicle not controlled by such person); and
(iv) any other information that may be relevant to the Board in evaluating any potential material conflicts of interest in the proposed Sub-Adviser Change or Sub-Adviser Review.
(b) the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will make a separate finding, reflected in the Board minutes, that the Sub-Adviser Change or continuation after Sub-Adviser Review is in the best interests of the Sub-Advised Fund and its shareholders and, based on the information provided to the Board, does not involve a conflict of interest from which the Adviser, a Sub-Adviser, any officer or Trustee of the Sub-Advised Fund, or any officer or board member of the Adviser derives an inappropriate advantage.
9. Each Sub-Advised Fund will disclose in its registration statement the Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
10. In the event that the Commission adopts a rule under the Act providing substantially similar relief to that in the order requested in the application, the requested order will expire on the effective date of that rule.
11. Any new Sub-Advisory Agreement or any amendment to an existing Investment Advisory Agreement or Sub-Advisory Agreement that directly or indirectly results in an increase in the aggregate advisory fee rate payable by the Sub-Advised Fund will be submitted to the Sub-Advised Fund's shareholders for approval.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal to delay implementation of the change to allow a component of a complex order
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On October 22, 2019, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change to amend subsection (c)(2)(iii) of Exchange Rule 518, Complex Orders, to remove the provision which provides that a component of a complex order that legs into the Simple Order Book may not execute at a price that is outside the NBBO.
The Exchange proposes this delay in order to allow the Exchange to complete its reprioritization of its software delivery and release schedule as a result of a shift in priorities due to the impact the coronavirus pandemic has had on Exchange operations. The Exchange will issue a Regulatory Circular notifying market participants at least 45 days prior to implementing this functionality.
The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's proposal to delay the implementation of the proposed functionality does not impose an undue burden on competition. Delaying the implementation will simply allow the Exchange additional time to properly plan and implement the proposed functionality.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition as the delay will apply equally to all Members of the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition as the proposal is to delay the implementation of approved functionality which affects MIAX Members only and does not impact intermarket competition.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 9, 2021, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc., and NYSE National, Inc. each filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule changes so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule changes. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4606-DR), dated 06/02/2021.
Issued on 06/02/2021.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 06/02/2021, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 16995 B and for economic injury is 16996 0.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes one revision of an OMB-approved information collection.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
Or you may submit your comments online through
SSA submitted the information collection below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding this information collection would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than July 8, 2021. Individuals can obtain copies of this OMB clearance package by writing to
Filing Claims Under the Federal Tort Claims Act—20 CFR 429.101 -429.110—0960-0667. The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is the mechanism for compensating people who Federal employees injured through negligent or wrongful acts that occurred during the performance of those employees' official duties. SSA accepts claims filed under the FTCA for damages against the United States; loss of property; personal injury; or death resulting from an SSA employee's wrongful act or omission. The various types of claims included under this information collection request require claimants to provide information SSA can use to determine whether to make an award, compromise, or settlement under the FTCA. The respondents are individuals or entities making a claim under the FTCA.
Pursuant to section 7041(f)(2) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2021 (Div. K, Pub. L. 116-260) (SFOAA) and Department of State Delegation of Authority 513, I hereby certify that all practicable steps have been taken to ensure that mechanisms are in place for monitoring, oversight, and control of funds made available by the SFOAA for assistance for Libya.
This certification shall be published in the
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “Private Lives: Home and Family in the Art of the Nabis, Paris, 1889-1900” at the Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, Ohio, at the Portland Art Museum, Portland, Oregon, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with their foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “Legacies of Exchange: Chinese Contemporary Art from the Yuz Foundation” at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles, California, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Chicago Rock Island & Pacific Railroad LLC (CRIP), a Class III carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2) to continue in control of Gulf & Ship Island Railroad LLC (GSIR), a noncarrier controlled by CRIP, upon GSIR's becoming a carrier.
This transaction is related to a verified notice of exemption filed concurrently in
The transaction may be consummated on or after July 1, 2021, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed).
According to the verified notice of exemption, CRIP currently owns and operates Mississippi Delta Railroad LLC (MSDR), a Class III rail carrier operating solely in the state of Mississippi.
CRIP represents that: (1) The rail line to be leased and operated by GSIR does not connect with the rail lines of any of the rail carriers controlled by CRIP; (2) the transaction is not part of a series of anticipated transactions that would connect GSIR with any railroad in the CRIP corporate family; and (3) the transaction does not involve a Class I rail carrier. The proposed transaction is therefore exempt from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323 pursuant to 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2).
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. However, 49 U.S.C. 11326(c) does not provide for labor protection for transactions under 49 U.S.C. 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Because this transaction involves Class III rail carriers only, the Board, under the statute, may not impose labor protective conditions for this transaction.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than June 24, 2021 (at
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36520, should be filed with the Surface Transportation Board via e-filing on the Board's website. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on CRIP's representative, Thomas F. McFarland, Thomas F. McFarland, P.C., 2230 Marston Lane, Flossmoor, IL 60422-1336.
According to CRIP, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from Miami University (WB21-40—6/1/21) for permission to use data from the Board's 1983-2019 Unmasked Carload Waybill Samples. A copy of this request may be obtained from the Board's website under docket no. WB21-40.
The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The collection involves regulations that prescribe the requirements governing air carrier operations. The information collected is necessary to determine air operators' compliance with the minimum safety standards and the applicants' eligibility for air operations certification.
Written comments should be submitted by August 9, 2021.
Please send written comments:
Sandra Ray by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of request to release airport land.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application for a release of approximately 1.79 acres of federally obligated airport property at Saratoga County Airport, Ballston Spa, Saratoga County, NY, from conditions, reservations, and restrictions contained in Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants that would restrict the use of said land to aeronautical purposes. This acreage is composed of a portion of a parcel that was acquired by Saratoga County though AIP Grant 3-36-0004-05-1987. It is requested that FAA approval be given to release the 1.79 acres for disposal to allow a currently existing non-aeronautical use on the parcel to continue. The land is not
Comments must be received on or before July 8, 2021.
Comments on this application may be submitted to Robert Costa, Federal Aviation Administration, New York Airports District Office via phone at (718) 995-5778 or at the email address
Mr. Robert Costa, Assistant Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, New York Airports District Office, 1 Aviation Plaza, Jamaica, New York 11434. Telephone: 718-995-5778.
In accordance with the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), Public Law 106-181 (Apr. 5, 2000; 114 Stat. 61), this notice must be published in the
The County of Saratoga has requested release from grant assurance obligations of approximately 1.79 acres of airport property at Saratoga County Airport to permit the disposal of the land at fair market value to allow an existing not-for-profit hospice facility to continue to operate on site. The airport has no plans to utilize the parcel for aviation use. The 1.79 acres sits on a larger 5.48-acre parcel currently owned by the airport. The 5.48-acre parcel will be split into two parcels; a 3.69-acre parcel that will be retained by the airport, as it includes a portion of the Runway 23 Runway Protection Zone, and the 1.79-acre parcel that is outside of the Runway Protection Zone and currently houses the not-for-profit hospice facility and associated parking area. As a condition of the release, the proposed use must not interfere with the airport or its operations. The Federal share of the proceeds of the disposal would be distributed towards approved AIP eligible efforts, with the remaining proceeds to be utilized to operate the airport. For these reasons, it is not anticipated that this acreage will be needed for aeronautical purposes in the future.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The information collection is for entities who voluntarily follow the guidance in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 120-119, Voluntary Safety Management System for Other Regulated Entities Transporting Dangerous Goods by Air, on how to use the SMS principles included in part 5, as a basis to develop and implement a voluntary SMS program and how to submit such a voluntary program to the FAA's Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (AXH) for acceptance. Information received from the first collection will be used to determine compliance with FAA SMS regulations. With the exception of a one-time submission of an implementation plan, the data will not be submitted to the FAA. The records for Safety Policy, Safety Risk Management, and Safety Assurance processes, training, and communications are kept under Safety Promotion and will be kept by the organization and used in its SMS.
Written comments should be submitted by August 9, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Andrea Giordani, Security and Hazardous Materials Safety, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (AXH-002), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; (202) 267-3770.
This AC addresses general SMS principles and explains certain regulatory requirements outlined in 14 CFR part 5. While part 5 does not apply to voluntary SMS programs, it describes the general SMS framework and serves as a non-binding basis for the development and implementation of voluntary SMS programs. This AC provides guidance to organizations on how to use the SMS principles included in part 5, as a basis to develop and implement a voluntary SMS program and how to submit such a voluntary program to the FAA's Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (AXH) for acceptance.
The organization collects and analyzes safety data and maintains training and communications records for its SMS. Data and records are essential for an SMS. Any organization that volunteers for this process is required to maintain records of SMS outputs, training records, and communications materials used to promote safety. An organization may create a gap analysis to identify what already exists within that organization and what needs to be created to complete the SMS implementation plan. The organization's implementation plan is submitted once to FAA for approval. As needed, other information may be requested or submitted as part of ongoing SMS evaluation.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of request for the renewal of a previously approved information collection and request for comments.
The FHWA has forwarded the information collection request described in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval of a new (periodic) information collection. We published a
Please submit comments by July 8, 2021.
You may submit comments within 30 days identified by DOT Docket ID Number (FHWA-2021-0008) by any of the following methods:
Susanna Hughes Reck, Office of Infrastructure, HISM-20, (202) 366-1548, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
State DOTs now must submit biennial performance reports (23 U.S.C. 150 (e) and 23 CFR 490.107). The information being requested in the TPM Biennial Reports has been provided to the DOT in an electronic format through an online data form called the Performance Management Form (PMF). State DOTs have successfully submitted the required biennial reports in October 2018 and 2020. Alternative formats will be made available where necessary. As part of the rulemaking
3rd National Performance Management Measures Rule (PM3): Assessing Performance of National Highway System, Freight Movement on Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (RIN 2125-AF54)
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
On April 22, 2021, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) published notice of its receipt of a petition dated March 9, 2021, from Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) requesting a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR parts 215 (Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards) and 232 (Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment; End-Of-Train Devices). FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2021-0031.
As noted in FRA's April 22, 2021, notice, UP requested relief from 49 CFR 215.13,
FRA's April 22, 2021, notice provided a 45-day public comment period (ending June 7, 2021) on UP's request for relief. Subsequent to publication of that notice, in a letter dated May 21, 2021, the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD) requested that FRA extend the comment period pending FRA's clarification of certain questions related to UP's request for relief. Specifically, TTD asked if UP's request affects end-of-train (EOT) device inspections and inspections related to positive train control. TTD asked if “there are any other pre-departure inspections/duties performed on a locomotive that will be included in this waiver, including 236.587 departure tests.” In response to TTD's request for clarification, FRA notes that UP's request for relief is limited to two FRA regulatory requirements—the inspection and test requirements of 49 CFR 215.13 (pre-departure freight car inspection) and § 232.205 (Class I brake test-initial terminal inspection) for trains that have been combined and then subsequently separated as outlined in UP's petition. UP has not requested relief from, and FRA is not considering granting relief from, any other regulatory requirements other than §§ 215.13 and 232.205 under the specific circumstances outlined in UP's March 9, 2021, petition.
A copy of UP's petition, as well as all written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
In response to TTD's request, FRA is extending the comment period in this waiver proceeding for an additional 30 days.
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Communications received by July 7, 2021, will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that on May 17, 2021, Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension of a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 236, Rules, Standards, and Instructions Governing the Installation, Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair of Signal and Train Control Systems, Devices, and Appliances. The relevant Docket Number is FRA-2010-0011.
Specifically, NS requests continued relief from 49 CFR 236.377,
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Communications received by July 23, 2021 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Office of the Secretary, DOT.
Notice.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a decision and order under the Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs excluding a service agent, Elizabeth “Betsy” Pope d/b/a Eastgate Laboratory Testing in Tennessee and all other places doing business, and all other individuals who are employees or all other individuals associated with Ms. Pope and Eastgate Laboratory Testing, from providing drug and alcohol testing services in any capacity to any DOT-regulated employer for a period of 5 years. Ms. Pope and her company provided Medical Review Officer services to DOT-regulated employers directly and through other service agents when Ms. Pope was not qualified to act as a Medical Review Officer. The 5-year period has ended and Ms. Pope, et al., have been removed from the list of excluded service agents.
This Notice is effective as of January 21, 2021.
Bohdan Baczara, Deputy Director, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-3784 (voice), (202) 366-3897 (fax), or
The Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a decision and order under the Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs excluding a service agent, Mounir R. Khouri d/b/a Mobile Testing Services, Inc., in Vermont and all other places it is incorporated, franchised, or otherwise doing business, and all other individuals who are officers, employees, directors, shareholders, partners, or other individuals associated with Mr. Khouri and Mobile Testing Services, Inc., from providing drug and alcohol testing services in any capacity to any DOT-regulated employer for a period of 5 years. Mr. Khouri and his company provided Medical Review Officer services to DOT-regulated employers directly and through other service agents when Mr. Khouri was not qualified to act as a Medical Review Officer. The 5-year period has ended and Mr. Khouri, et al., have been removed from the list of excluded service agents.
The Department published notice of the Public Interest Exclusion for Elizabeth Betsy Pope, et al., on August 24, 2015 (80 FR 51349) and for Mounir R. Khouri,
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See Supplementary Information section for effective date(s).
OFAC: Andrea Gacki, Director, tel.: 202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional
On June 2, 2021, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
The Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC) will hold a virtual public meeting on Wednesday, June 23, 2021.
Mr. Sean Parman, Office of National Public Liaison, at (202) 317-6247, or send an email to
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988), that a virtual public meeting of the ETAAC will be held on Wednesday, June 23, 2021 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. EDT. The purpose of the ETAAC is to provide continuing advice regarding the development and implementation of the IRS organizational strategy for electronic tax administration. ETAAC is an organized public forum for discussion of electronic tax administration issues such as prevention of identity theft and refund fraud. It supports the overriding goal that paperless filing should be the preferred and most convenient method of filing tax and information returns. ETAAC members convey the public's perceptions of IRS electronic tax administration activities, offer constructive observations about current or proposed policies, programs, and procedures, and suggest improvements. Please call or email Sean Parman to confirm your attendance. Mr. Parman can be reached at 202-317-6247 or
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to United States Code, Title 31, section 5135(b)(8)(C), the United States Mint announces the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) teleconference public meeting scheduled for June 15-16, 2021.
The CCAC advises the Secretary of the Treasury on any theme or design proposals relating to circulating coinage, bullion coinage, Congressional Gold Medals, and national and other medals; advises the Secretary of the Treasury with regard to the events, persons, or places to be commemorated by the issuance of commemorative coins in each of the five calendar years succeeding the year in which a commemorative coin designation is made; and makes recommendations with respect to the mintage level for any commemorative coin recommended.
For members of the public interested in listening in to the provided call number, this is a reminder that the public attendance is for listening purposes only. Any member of the public interested in submitting matters for the CCAC's consideration is invited to submit them by email to
Jennifer Warren, United States Mint Liaison to the CCAC; 801 9th Street NW; Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7208.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, the VA National Academic Affiliations Council (Council) will meet via conference call on July 15, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Council is to advise the Secretary on matters affecting partnerships between VA and its academic affiliates.
On July 15, 2021, the Council will receive a report on the recently held VA Minority Summit; discussion on research priorities and relationships; and status of VA's Electronic Health Record implementation. The Council will receive public comments from 2:50 p.m. to 2:55 p.m. EST.
Interested persons may attend and/or present oral statements to the Council. The dial in number to attend the conference call is: 669-254-5252. At the prompt, enter meeting ID 161 174 4403, then press #. The meeting passcode is 590228, then press #. Individuals seeking to present oral statements are invited to submit a 1-2 page summary