Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices 12495 

In response to Vineyard Wind’s 

December 1, 2020, letter, BOEM 

published a Federal Register notice on 

December 16, 2020, informing the 

public that ‘‘preparation of an 

Environmental Impact Statement’’ for 

the COP was ‘‘no longer necessary’’ for 

the sole reason that ‘‘the COP ha[d] been 

withdrawn from review and 

decisionmaking.’’ See 85 FR 81486 (Dec. 

16, 2020). Accordingly, BOEM 

‘‘terminated’’ the ‘‘preparation and 

completion’’ of the EIS. Id. 

On January 22, 2021, Vineyard Wind 

notified BOEM via letter that it had 

completed its technical and logistical 

due diligence review and had 

concluded that inclusion of the HaliadeX turbines did not warrant any 

modifications to the COP. Vineyard 

Wind therefore informed BOEM that it 

was rescinding its temporary 

withdrawal and asked BOEM to resume 

its review of the COP. Because Vineyard 

Wind has indicated that its proposed 

COP is ‘‘a decision pending before 

BOEM,’’ BOEM is resuming its review of 

the COP under NEPA. Id. Vineyard 

Wind’s COP and BOEM’s draft and 

supplemental EISs can be found at: 

https://www.boem.gov/vineyard-wind. 

Authority: This notice was prepared under 

NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and is 

published in accordance with Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 

parts 1500–508). 

William Y. Brown, 

Chief Environmental Officer, Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management. 

[FR Doc. 2021–04392 Filed 3–2–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1203] 

Notice of a Commission Determination 

To Issue a Limited Exclusion Order 

Against the Defaulting Respondent; 

Termination of the Investigation; 

Certain Rolled-Edge Rigid Plastic Food 

Trays 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) has 

determined to issue a limited exclusion 

order against defaulted respondent 

Ningbo Linhua Plastic Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Ningbo’’), the last remaining 

respondent. The Commission has also 

determined to impose a bond equal to 

one hundred percent (100%) of the 

entered value of the infringing products 

imported during the period of 

Presidential review. The investigation is 

hereby terminated. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amanda Fisherow, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–2737. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help 

accessing EDIS, please email 

EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. 

Hearing-impaired persons are advised 

that information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal, telephone 

202–205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on June 23, 2020, based on a complaint 

filed by Clearly Clean Products, LLC of 

South Windsor, Connecticut and 

Converter Manufacturing, LLC of 

Orwigsburg, Pennsylvania 

(‘‘Complainants’’). 85 FR 37689–90 

(June 23, 2020). The complaint alleges a 

violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 

(‘‘section 337’’), by reason of 

infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 9,908,281 and 10,562,680. 

The notice of investigation named the 

following respondents: Eco Food Pak 

(USA), Inc. of Chino, California (‘‘Eco’’) 

and Ningbo Linhua Plastic Co., Ltd. of 

Fenghua, China (‘‘Ningbo’’). The 

Commission’s Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) also was named 

as a party. 

Eco was terminated from the 

investigation on October 20, 2020, on 

the basis of a consent order and consent 

order stipulation. Comm’n Notice (Oct. 

20, 2020). 

Also on October 20, 2020, the 

Commission determined not to review 

an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order 

No. 7) granting Complainants’ 

unopposed motion to find respondent 

Ningbo in default. Order No. 7 (Oct. 6, 

2020), unreviewed, Comm’n Notice (Oct. 

20, 2020). At that time, the Commission 

requested briefing on the issues of 

remedy, bonding, and the public 

interest with respect to Ningbo. 85 FR 

67566–67 (Oct. 23, 2020). 

On November 3, 2020, Complainants 

and OUII filed responses to the 

Commission’s request for briefing. Both 

parties also filed reply submissions on 

November 10, 2020. No other 

submissions were received. 

Upon review of the record, and in the 

absence of any response from Ningbo or 

from other interested persons or 

government agencies, and having 

concluded that it would not be contrary 

to the public interest to do so, the 

Commission has determined to issue a 

limited exclusion order against Ningbo 

pursuant to Section 337(g)(1), 19 U.S.C. 

1337(g)(1). However, the Commission 

declines to issue the requested cease 

and desist order against Ningbo because 

Complainants have not established that 

Ningbo maintains a commercially 

significant inventory in the U.S. or 

engages in significant commercial 

business operations in the United 

States, taking the allegations in the 

complaint as true, and as supported by 

the available circumstantial evidence. 

See Certain Arrowheads with Deploying 

Blades and Components Thereof and 

Packaging Therefor, Inv. 337–TA–997, 

Comm’n Op. at 16, 17–20 (Apr. 28, 

2017). Exhibits 19 and 20 to the 

Complaint reflect shipments of ‘‘trays’’ 

to terminated Respondent Eco, which 

has entered into a consent order in this 

investigation, and thus do not suggest 

ongoing commercial operations 

necessitating a CDO. Even assuming the 

shipments to non-parties reflected in 

Exhibit 19 included infringing products, 

the latest arrival of said shipments 

occurred in May 2018, and likewise do 

not support the inference that Ningbo or 

its agents maintain any, much less 

commercially significant, inventory in 

the U.S. See Compl., Ex. 19 at 9; cf. 

Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, 

Brushes and Chargers Therefor, and Kits 

Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337–TA– 

959, Comm’n Op. at 32 (Feb. 13, 2017) 

(evidence of ‘‘short lead times between 

order placement and delivery’’ and low 

shipping costs supported the inference 

that ‘‘U.S. purchases of the foreign 

respondents’ infringing products were 

made from U.S. inventories’’). The 

Commission has determined to set a 

bond in the amount of one hundred 

percent (100%) of the entered value of 

the covered products. 

Commissioner Karpel and 

Commissioner Schmidtlein would issue 

both an LEO and a CDO directed to 

defaulting respondent Ningbo pursuant 

to Section 337(g)(1) because all 

requirements of this provision are met. 

Ningbo was named in the complaint and 

was served with the complaint and 

notice of investigation. See Order No. 7 

(Oct. 6, 2020), unreviewed, Comm’n 

Notice (Oct. 20, 2020). The ALJ issued 

a show cause order ordering Ningbo to 

show cause why it should not be held 

in default for failing to respond to the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
12496 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Notices 

complaint and notice of investigation. 

See id. Ningbo did not file a response 

to the show cause order. Id. These 

findings satisfy subsections 

337(g)(1)(A)–(D). Complainants 

requested an LEO and a CDO limited to 

Ningbo thus satisfying subsection 

337(g)(1)(E). Given that subsections 

337(g)(1)(A)–(E) are satisfied and 

Complainants requested these remedies, 

the statute directs the Commission to 

issue the requested LEO and CDO, 

subject to consideration of the public 

interest. Commissioner Karpel and 

Commissioner Schmidtlein find that the 

public interest factors set forth in 

Section 337(g)(1) do not support a 

finding that these remedies would be 

contrary to the public interest. 

The investigation is hereby 

terminated. 

The Commission vote for this 

determination took place on February 

25, 2021. 

While temporary remote operating 

procedures are in place in response to 

COVID–19, the Office of the Secretary is 

not able to serve parties that have not 

retained counsel or otherwise provided 

a point of contact for electronic service. 

Accordingly, pursuant to Commission 

Rules 201.16(a) and 210.7(a)(1) (19 CFR 

201.16(a), 210.7(a)(1)), the Commission 

orders that the Complainants complete 

service for any party/parties without a 

method of electronic service noted on 

the attached Certificate of Service and 

shall file proof of service on the 

Electronic Document Information 

System (EDIS). 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in Section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 

210 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 

210). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 25, 2021. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2021–04312 Filed 3–2–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[OMB Number 1105–0104] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed eCollection 

eComments Requested; Extension 

With Change, of a Previously 

Approved Collection District/Aviation 

Security Officers (DSO/ASO) Personal 

Qualifications Statement 

AGENCY: U.S. Marshals Service, 

Department of Justice. 

ACTION: 60-Day notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice 

(DOJ), U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), 

will submit 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. 

DATES: Comments are encouraged and 

will be accepted for 60 days until May 

3, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have additional comments, 

particularly with respect to the 

estimated public burden or associated 

response time, have suggestions, need a 

copy of the proposed information 

collection instrument with instructions, 

or desire any additional information, 

please contact Nicole Timmons either 

by mail at CG–3, 10th Floor, 

Washington, DC 20530–0001, by email 

at Nicole.Timmons@usdoj.gov, or by 

telephone at 202–236–2646. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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: 

—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; 

—Evaluate whether and if so how the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected can be 

enhanced; 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, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

1. Type of Information Collection 

(check justification or form 83): 

Extension with change of a currently 

approved collection. 

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: 

District/Aviation Security Officers 

(DSO/ASO) Personal Qualifications 

Statement. 

3. The agency form number, if any, 

and the applicable component of the 

Department sponsoring the collection: 

Form number (if applicable): Form 

USM–234. 

Component: U.S. Marshals Service, 

U.S. Department of Justice. 

4. Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: 

Primary: District/Aviation Security 

Officers Job Applicants. 

Other (if applicable): [None]. 

Abstract: This form will primarily be 

used to collect applicant reference 

information. Reference checking is an 

objective evaluation of an applicant’s 

past job performance based on 

information collected from key 

individuals (e.g., supervisors, peers, 

subordinates) who have known and 

worked with the applicant. Reference 

checking is a necessary supplement to 

the evaluation of resumes and other 

descriptions of training and experience, 

and allows the selecting official to hire 

applicants with a strong history of 

performance. The questions on this form 

have been developed following the 

OPM, MSPB, and DOJ ‘‘Best Practice’’ 

guidelines for reference checking. 

5. An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: An estimated 1,000 

respondents will utilize the form, and it 

will take each respondent 

approximately 60 minutes to complete 

the form. 

6. An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: The estimated annual public 

burden associated with this collection is 

1,000 hours, which is equal to (1,000 

(total # of annual responses) * 1 (60 

mins). 

If additional information is required 

contact: Melody Braswell, Department 

Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division, Policy and 

Planning Staff, Two Constitution 

Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Dated: February 25, 2021. 

Melody Braswell, 

Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2021–04323 Filed 3–2–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–04–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES