Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 169 / Friday, September 3, 2021 / Notices 49563 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Katherine Norman, 

Assistant Regional Director—Ecological 

Services, Pacific Region. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19136 Filed 9–2–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

[Docket No.: BOEM–2021–0052] 

Notice of Intent To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Proposed Sunrise Wind Farm 

Project on the Northeast Atlantic Outer 

Continental Shelf; Extension of 

Comment Period and Corrections 

AGENCY: Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment 

period and corrections. 

SUMMARY: On August 31, 2021, the 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

(BOEM) published the ‘‘Notice of Intent 

to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed Sunrise 

Wind Farm Project on the Northeast 

Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf’’ in the 

Federal Register (86 FR 48763). The 

NOI announced that BOEM will prepare 

an environmental impact statement 

(EIS) as part of its review of a 

construction and operations plan 

submitted by Sunrise Wind LLC and 

provided project information. The NOI 

stated that comments received by 

September 30, 2021, will be considered. 

This notice corrects two statements in 

the NOI regarding the agreement with 

the New York State Energy Research 

and Development Authority 

(NYSERDA) and the proposed 

foundation types. In addition, this 

notice extends the comment period. 

DATES: Comments received by October 

4, 2021, will be considered. 

ADDRESSES: Comments must be 

submitted in writing in any of the 

following ways: 

• Delivered by mail or delivery 

service, enclosed in an envelope labeled 

‘‘Sunrise Wind COP EIS,’’ and 

addressed to Program Manager, Office of 

Renewable Energy, Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management, 45600 Woodland 

Road, Sterling, Virginia 20166; or 

• Through the regulations.gov web 

portal: Navigate to http://

www.regulations.gov and search for 

Docket No. BOEM–2021–0052. Click on 

the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ button to the right 

of the document link. Enter your 

information and comment, then click 

‘‘Submit.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michelle Morin, BOEM Office of 

Renewable Energy Programs, 45600 

Woodland Road, Sterling, Virginia 

20166, (703) 787–1722 or 

michelle.morin@boem.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Technical Corrections 

In the Federal Register dated August 

31, 2021, on page 48764 in the first 

column, line 64, under the heading 

‘‘Purpose and Need for the Proposed 

Action,’’ BOEM originally included the 

following sentences: ‘‘This Project will 

help the State of New York achieve the 

aggressive clean energy goals set forth in 

the Clean Energy Standards Order and 

the Climate Leadership and Community 

Protection Act through a power 

purchase agreement (PPA) contract with 

the New York State Energy Research 

and Development Authority to deliver 

880 MW of offshore wind energy. 

Sunrise Wind may modify its PPA 

contract with NYSERDA to deliver up to 

924 MW of offshore wind energy.’’ 

BOEM is replacing that language with 

these corrected sentences: ‘‘This Project 

will help the State of New York achieve 

the aggressive clean energy goals set 

forth in the Clean Energy Standards 

Order and the Climate Leadership and 

Community Protection Act through an 

Offshore Wind Renewable Energy 

Certificate Purchase and Sale Agreement 

(OREC) with the New York State Energy 

Research and Development Authority to 

deliver 880 MW of offshore wind 

energy. Sunrise Wind has the ability 

under the OREC to deliver a maximum 

project capacity of 924 MW of offshore 

wind energy.’’ 

In the same edition of the Federal 

Register, on page 48765, first column, 

line 2, under the heading ‘‘Preliminary 

Proposed Action and Alternatives,’’ 

(which begins on previous page), BOEM 

included the sentence: ‘‘The wind 

turbine generator foundations may be 

monopiles or gravity base structures 

with associated support and access 

structures, in some combination or 

entirely of one kind.’’ 

BOEM is replacing that language with 

this corrected sentence: ‘‘The wind 

turbine generators will use monopile 

foundations and the OCS–DC will be on 

a piled jacket foundation.’’ 

William Yancey Brown, 

Chief Environmental Officer, Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19143 Filed 9–2–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

United States v. Zen-Noh Grain 

Corporation, et al.; Response to Public 

Comments 

Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures 

and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), 

the United States hereby publishes 

below the Response to Public Comments 

on the Proposed Final in United States 

v. Zen-Noh Grain Corporation, et al., 

Civil Action No. 1:21–cv–01482–RJL, 

which was filed in the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia on August 30, 2021, together 

with a copy of the two comments 

received by the United States. 

A copy of the comments and the 

United States’ response to the comments 

is available at https://www.justice.gov/ 

atr/case/us-v-zen-noh-grain-corp-andbunge-north-america-inc. Copies of the 

comments and the United States’ 

response are available for inspection at 

the Office of the Clerk of the United 

States District Court for the District of 

Columbia. Copies of these materials may 

also be obtained from the Antitrust 

Division upon request and payment of 

the copying fee set by Department of 

Justice regulations. 

Suzanne Morris, 

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, 

Antitrust Division. 

United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia 

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Zen– 

Noh Grain Corp., and Bunge North America, 

Inc., Defendants. 

Civil Action No.:1:21–cv–01482 (RJL) 

Response of Plaintiff United States to 

Public Comments on the Proposed Final 

Judgment 

Pursuant to the requirements of the 

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act 

(the ‘‘APPA’’ or ‘‘Tunney Act’’), 15 

U.S.C. 16, the United States hereby 

responds to the two public comments 

received regarding the proposed Final 

Judgment in this case. After careful 

consideration of the submitted 

comments, the United States continues 

to believe that the divestiture required 

by the proposed Final Judgment 

provides an effective and appropriate 

remedy for the antitrust violation 

alleged in the Complaint and is 

therefore in the public interest. The 

United States will move the Court for 

entry of the proposed Final Judgment 

after the public comments and this 

response have been published as 

required by 15 U.S.C. 16(d). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
49564 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 169 / Friday, September 3, 2021 / Notices 

I. Procedural History 

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’’) (‘‘collectively, 

‘‘Defendants’’) 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. See Dkt. No.1. 

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 and 

Order’’) in which the United States and 

Defendants consent to entry of the 

proposed Final Judgment after 

compliance with the requirements of the 

APPA. See Dkt. Nos. 2–2, 2–1. The 

proposed Final Judgment 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 and Order. 

Pursuant to the APPA’s requirements, 

on June 1, 2021, the United States also 

filed a Competitive Impact Statement 

describing the transaction and the 

proposed Final Judgment. See Dkt. No. 

3. On June 8, 2021, the United States 

published the Complaint, proposed 

Final Judgment, and Competitive Impact 

Statement in the Federal Register, see 

86 FR 30479 (June 8, 2021), and caused 

notice regarding the same, together with 

directions for the submission of written 

comments relating to the proposed Final 

Judgment, to be published in The 

Washington Post and St. Louis PostDispatch, from June 4, 2021, through 

June 10, 2021. On July 1, 2021, the 

Court entered the Stipulation and Order. 

See Dkt. No. 14. On July 7, 2021, 

Defendant ZGC effectuated the 

divestiture contemplated by the 

proposed Final Judgment by selling the 

prescribed assets to Viserion. The 60- 

day period for public comment ended 

on August, 9, 2021. The United States 

received two comments, attached as 

Exhibits A and B. 

II. The Complaint and the Amended 

Proposed Final Judgment 

The Complaint alleges that ZGC’s 

proposed acquisition of certain grain 

elevator assets from Bunge would likely 

eliminate competition between the 

Defendants to purchase grain from 

farmers in numerous markets along the 

Mississippi River and its tributaries. In 

particular, the Complaint alleges that in 

nine geographic areas, a Bunge river 

elevator and a nearby ZGC (or ZGC 

affiliate 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. Unless 

remedied, the Transaction will 

eliminate competition between ZGC and 

Bunge in those locations in violation of 

Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 

18. 

The proposed Final Judgment is 

designed to remedy the likely harm to 

competition alleged in the Complaint by 

requiring a divestiture that will 

establish an independent, economically 

viable competitor for the purchase of 

corn and soybeans in the nine affected 

geographic markets. The proposed Final 

Judgment requires the Defendants to 

divest nine elevators within 30 days 

after the entry of the Stipulation by the 

Court to Viserion or another acquirer or 

acquirers approved by the United States. 

In each of those nine geographic 

markets, a Bunge elevator competes 

head to head with one or more ZGC or 

CGB elevators. 

The Divestiture Assets include the 

real property, buildings, facilities, and 

other structures associated with the nine 

grain elevators. The Divestiture Assets 

also encompass all existing grain 

inventories at the elevators, and all 

contracts and other agreements 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 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. 

The Defendants proposed Viserion as 

the acquirer, and, after rigorous 

evaluation, the United States approved 

Viserion as the divestiture buyer. 

The proposed Final Judgment allows 

the acquirer, at its option, to enter into 

a transition services agreement with 

Defendants for a period of up to six 

months. As explained in the 

Competitive Impact Statement, 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. See Dkt. No. 3 

at 10 at 12. 

III. Standard of Judicial Review 

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 

modification, duration of relief sought, 

anticipated effects of alternative remedies 

actually considered, whether its terms are 

ambiguous, and any other competitive 

considerations bearing upon the adequacy of 

such judgment that the court deems 

necessary to a determination of whether the 

consent judgment is in the public interest; 

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. 

15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1)(A) & (B). In 

considering these statutory factors, the 

Court’s inquiry is necessarily a limited 

one as the government is entitled to 

‘‘broad discretion to settle with the 

defendant within the reaches of the 

public interest.’’ United States v. 

Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1461 

(D.C. Cir. 1995); United States v. U.S. 

Airways Grp., Inc., 38 F. Supp. 3d 69, 

75 (D.D.C. 2014) (explaining that the 

‘‘court’s inquiry is limited’’ in APPA 

settlements); United States v. InBev 

N.V./S.A., No. 08–1965 (JR), 2009 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *3 (D.D.C. Aug. 

11, 2009) (noting that a court’s review 

of a consent judgment is limited and 

only inquires ‘‘into whether the 

government’s determination that the 

proposed remedies will cure the 

antitrust violations alleged in the 

complaint was reasonable, and whether 

the mechanisms to enforce the final 

judgment are clear and manageable’’). 

Under the APPA, a court considers, 

among other things, the relationship 

between the remedy secured and the 

specific allegations in the government’s 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 169 / Friday, September 3, 2021 / Notices 49565 

complaint, whether the proposed Final 

Judgment is sufficiently clear, whether 

its enforcement mechanisms are 

sufficient, and whether it may positively 

harm third parties. See Microsoft, 56 

F.3d at 1458–62. With respect to the 

adequacy of the relief secured by the 

proposed Final Judgment, a court may 

not ‘‘make de novo determination of 

facts and issues.’’ United States v. W. 

Elec. Co., 993 F.2d 1572, 1577 (D.C. Cir. 

1993) (quotation marks omitted); see 

also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460–62; 

United States v. Alcoa, Inc., 152 F. 

Supp. 2d 37, 40 (D.D.C. 2001); United 

States v. Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp. 2d 

10, 16 (D.D.C. 2000); InBev, 2009 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *3. Instead, ‘‘[t]he 

balancing of competing social and 

political interests affected by a proposed 

antitrust consent decree must be left, in 

the first instance, to the discretion of the 

Attorney General.’’ W. Elec. Co., 993 

F.2d at 1577 (quotation marks omitted). 

‘‘The court should bear in mind the 

flexibility of the public interest inquiry: 

the court’s function is not to determine 

whether the resulting array of rights and 

liabilities is one that will best serve 

society, but only to confirm that the 

resulting settlement is within the 

reaches of the public interest.’’ 

Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460 (quotation 

marks omitted); see also United States v. 

Deutsche Telekom AG, No. 19–2232 

(TJK), 2020 WL 1873555, at *7 (D.D.C. 

Apr. 14, 2020). More demanding 

requirements would ‘‘have enormous 

practical consequences for the 

government’s ability to negotiate future 

settlements,’’ contrary to congressional 

intent. Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1456. ‘‘The 

Tunney Act was not intended to create 

a disincentive to the use of the consent 

decree.’’ Id. 

The United States’ predictions about 

the efficacy of the remedy are to be 

afforded deference by the Court. See, 

e.g., Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 

(recognizing courts should give ‘‘due 

respect to the Justice Department’s . . . 

view of the nature of its case’’); United 

States v. Iron Mountain, Inc., 217 F. 

Supp. 3d 146, 152–53 (D.D.C. 2016) (‘‘In 

evaluating objections to settlement 

agreements under the Tunney Act, a 

court must be mindful that [t]he 

government need not prove that the 

settlements will perfectly remedy the 

alleged antitrust harms[;] it need only 

provide a factual basis for concluding 

that the settlements are reasonably 

adequate remedies for the alleged 

harms.’’) (internal citations omitted); 

United States v. Republic Servs., Inc., 

723 F. Supp. 2d 157, 160 (D.D.C. 2010) 

(noting ‘‘the deferential review to which 

the government’s proposed remedy is 

accorded’’); United States v. ArcherDaniels-Midland Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1, 

6 (D.D.C. 2003) (‘‘A district court must 

accord due respect to the government’s 

prediction as to the effect of proposed 

remedies, its perception of the market 

structure, and its view of the nature of 

the case.’’). The ultimate question is 

whether ‘‘the remedies [obtained by the 

Final Judgment are] so inconsonant with 

the allegations charged as to fall outside 

of the ‘reaches of the public interest.’’’ 

Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (quoting W. 

Elec. Co., 900 F.2d at 309). 

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.’’ Microsoft, 56 

F.3d at 1459; see also U.S. Airways, 38 

F. Supp. 3d at 75 (noting that the court 

must simply determine whether there is 

a factual foundation for the 

government’s decisions such that its 

conclusions regarding the proposed 

settlements are reasonable); InBev, 2009 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *20 (‘‘[T]he 

‘public interest’ is not to be measured by 

comparing the violations alleged in the 

complaint against those the court 

believes could have, or even should 

have, been alleged.’’). Because the 

‘‘court’s authority to review the decree 

depends entirely on the government’s 

exercising its prosecutorial discretion by 

bringing a case in the first place,’’ it 

follows that ‘‘the court is only 

authorized to review the decree itself,’’ 

and not to ‘‘effectively redraft the 

complaint’’ to inquire into other matters 

that the United States did not pursue. 

Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459–60. 

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); see also U.S. Airways, 

38 F. Supp. 3d at 76 (indicating that a 

court is not required to hold an 

evidentiary hearing or to permit 

intervenors as part of its review under 

the APPA). This language explicitly 

wrote into the statute what Congress 

intended when it first enacted the APPA 

in 1974. As Senator Tunney explained: 

‘‘[t]he court is nowhere compelled to go 

to trial or to engage in extended 

proceedings which might have the effect 

of vitiating the benefits of prompt and 

less costly settlement through the 

consent decree process.’’ 119 Cong. Rec. 

24,598 (1973) (statement of Sen. 

Tunney). ‘‘A court can make its public 

interest determination based on the 

competitive impact statement and 

response to public comments alone.’’ 

U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76 

(citing Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp. 2d at 

17). 

IV. Summary of the Comments and the 

United States’ Response 

The United States received two public 

comments in response to the proposed 

Final Judgment: One from Missouri 

Attorney General Eric Schmitt and 

another from Mr. Mark Calmer, an Iowa 

farmer and small agricultural business 

owner. Consistent with the allegations 

in the United States’ Complaint, both 

comments express concern that ZGC’s 

proposed acquisition of certain Bunge 

elevators will reduce competition for 

the purchase of soybeans and corn along 

the Mississippi River. Missouri Attorney 

General Schmitt’s comment expresses 

support for the divestiture outlined in 

the proposed Final Judgment. Mr. 

Calmer’s comment does not express 

concerns about the adequacy of the 

divestiture outlined in the proposed 

Final Judgment nor concerns with 

Viserion as the proposed acquirer. 

In his comment, Missouri Attorney 

General Schmitt emphasizes that, as 

highlighted in the Complaint, the 

Transaction would ‘‘eliminat[e] crucial 

competition’’ for the purchase of grain 

from farmers in Southeast Missouri. 

Attorney General Schmitt further states 

his support for the proposed Final 

Judgement, noting that ‘‘[i]f entered, the 

proposed judgment would replace the 

competition between Zen-Noh and 

Bunge by establishing an independent 

player in the market that will compete 

for the purchase of grain. This 

competition will help ensure that 

Missouri’s farmers receive a fair price 

for the crops that they sell.’’ See Exhibit 

A. 

Mr. Calmer, a farmer located in 

Manson, Iowa, expresses concern about 

increasing concentration in a number of 

agricultural markets, including the grain 

export, beef packing, fertilizer and 

chemical, and seed industries. With 

respect to grain elevator operations 

along the Mississippi River, Mr. Calmer 

states that if the Transaction goes 

through, it will greatly reduce 

competition for grain purchases. Mr. 

Calmer does not discuss the terms of the 

proposed Final Judgment. See Exhibit B. 

The proposed Final Judgment will 

preserve competition for the purchase of 

grain: Where ZGC and Bunge elevators 

have overlapping draw areas with few 

competitors, one of their facilities will 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
49566 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 169 / Friday, September 3, 2021 / Notices 

be divested. In Iowa, for example, the 

parties are selling Bunge’s elevator in 

McGregor to an independent competitor 

to maintain competition for farmers in 

that area. 

Nothing in either comment warrants a 

change to the proposed Final Judgment 

or supports a conclusion that the 

proposed Final Judgment is not in the 

public interest. As required by the 

APPA, the comments, with the authors’ 

contact information removed, and this 

response will be published in the 

Federal Register. 

V. Conclusion 

After careful consideration of the 

public comments, the United States 

continues to believe that the proposed 

Final Judgment provides an effective 

and appropriate remedy for the antitrust 

violation alleged in the Complaint and 

is therefore in the public interest. The 

United States will move this Court to 

enter the Final Judgment after the 

comments and this response are 

published as required by 15 U.S.C. 

16(d). 

Dated: August 30, 2021. 

Respectfully submitted, 

For Plaintiff United States of America 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Jill Ptacek, 

Attorney for the United States, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 450 

Fifth Street NW, Suite 8000, Washington, DC 

20530, Tel: (202) 307–6607, Email: 

jill.ptacek@usdoj.gov. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI 

ERIC SCHMITT 

July 15, 2021 

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL 

Robert Lepore, Esq., 

Chief, Transportation, Energy, and 

Agriculture Section, Antitrust Division, 

Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street NW, 

Suite 8000, Washington, DC 20530, 

Robert.Lepore@usdoj.gov. 

Re: United States v. Zen-Noh Grain 

Corporation and Bunge North America, 

Inc., No. 1:21–cv–01482, Comments of 

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt 

Dear Mr. Lepore: 

The farmers of Missouri rely on robust 

competition among purchasers of grain to 

obtain fair compensation for their crops. 

Without robust competition, the farmers’ 

livelihood and their ability to continue 

supplying vital crops to our country are 

threatened. 

The proposed acquisition by Zen-Noh 

Grain Corporation (‘‘Zen-Noh’’) of grain 

elevators from Bunge North America, Inc. 

(‘‘Bunge’’) poses an existential threat to the 

farmers of Missouri by eliminating crucial 

competition between Zen-Noh and Bunge for 

the purchase of corn and soybeans. Missouri 

farmers have expressed concern that, postacquisition, Zen-Noh would control seven 

consecutive grain terminals along the lower 

Mississippi River. Indeed, as the Antitrust 

Division notes in its Complaint, the 

acquisition would concentrate 95% (in 2019) 

of Pemiscot County’s corn and soybean 

output within one buyer. In short, by 

eliminating one of the few buyers of grain in 

the Missouri Bootheel, the acquisition will 

lead to lower prices paid to Missouri farmers. 

In light of the unacceptable threat to 

competition posed by the acquisition, I write 

on behalf of my constituents in Southeast 

Missouri to express my support for the 

proposed divestiture of grain elevators to a 

suitable buyer. If entered, the proposed 

judgment would replace the competition 

between Zen-Noh and Bunge by establishing 

an independent player in the market that will 

compete for the purchase of grain. This 

competition will help ensure that Missouri’s 

farmers receive a fair price for the crops that 

they sell. 

I respectfully request that the Court enter 

the proposed judgment to restore competition 

for the purchase of grain in Southeast 

Missouri. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Eric Schmitt, 

Attorney General, State of Missouri, Supreme 

Court Building, 207 W. High Street, P.O. Box 

899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, Phone: (573) 

751–3321, Fax: (573) 751–0774, 

www.ago.mo.gov. 

Robert Lepore, Chief, Transportation, Energy 

and Agriculture Section, Anti-Trust Division, 

United States Department of Justice, Suite 

8000, Liberty Square Building, 450 Fifth 

Street NW, Washington, DC 20530 

Dear Sir, 

Thank you for inviting me as a farmer and 

Ag business owner to submit my concerts 

and comments to your department as invited 

in an article in the High Plains Journal dated 

June 7, 2021 regarding the Department of 

Justice and Zen-Noh. I appreciate your time 

and attention to this critical matter. 

I started farming in 1972. We are an Iowa 

farming operation. Our background includes 

approximately 5000 acres of farmland, an Ag 

retail operation, an Ag drainage business and 

our son has a 500 head cattle feedlot 

operation. 

We are part of the small businesses that 

made this country. We employ 12 full-time 

employees divided between the different 

entities. We also employ part-time help 

seasonally. For years, we have felt that AntiTrust laws were not protecting our family 

operated Ag businesses. 

Export Houses 

When foreign companies align themselves 

with grain export houses, they don’t have to 

offer competitive prices for our products. We 

need competition to keep prices competitive 

and allow for the average farm operation to 

have a profit. More grain dealers, more export 

houses, more packers, more fertilizer and 

chemical import companies are needed to 

keep the American farm engine running. We 

need free trade to keep our costs sustainable. 

If export houses are monopolized along the 

Mississippi and other waterways, I can no 

longer bid multiple locations and discern 

competitive pricing. If the 48 Bunge elevator 

sales go through it greatly reduces our 

competition for bids. By Zen-Noh purchasing 

those elevators, they no longer have to bid 

competitively from other export houses 

controlling a large market share. From where 

we sit on the farm, it appears they are 

exploiting grain merchandisers by limiting 

competition. 

This isn’t the only industry that we see 

Anti-Trust laws not being honored. 

Cattle Industry 

As we look at the cattle industry. There are 

basically 3 packers left. JBS, the Brazilianowned and controlled packer is profiting 

$1000 per head right now while the producer 

is losing $200–$400/head because our 

government has let the packers monopolize 

this industry. They don’t have to bid up on 

cattle because they know they are the only 

game in town. 

Fertilizer and Chemical Industries 

Another instance is the fertilizer and 

chemical industry. The same thing has been 

allowed to happen, being controlled by 3 

major companies. Last season we did have 

some relief because of foreign imports of 

fertilizer. However the MOSAIC company 

complained, filed a law-suit to lessen import 

by implementing strong tariffs. Our 

government officials went along with it 

without regard to the family farmer’s struggle 

with prices. In less than a year, phosphorus 

fertilizer prices went from $285/ton FOB 

Dubuque, Iowa on the Mississippi to $645/ 

ton. That is a 227% increase in less than 12 

months. 

Seed and Grain Industries 

Another Ag sector being controlled is the 

seed industry. Foreign countries are buying 

up small and large seed companies. Look at 

Bayer (German owned), Syngenta (China 

owned), all monopolizing this critical 

industry while our government allows 

foreign ownership and control. 

Non–Profit Organizations 

Another thing happening in our area and 

across the United States is the activity of 

allowing Non-profit organizations to buy 

farmland. Non-profit organizations do not 

pay the state or federal taxes the average farm 

operation has to pay. Locally we are seeing 

the Latter Day Saints Church (Mormon) 

buying tillable and production farmland 

under the operating name of Deseret Trust 

Company. Other Non-profit entity names the 

Mormon church controls include Farm 

Reserve Incorporated. We have several young 

farmers in central Iowa trying to either get 

into farming or buy enough land to grow 

their operation large enough to sustain the 

business. They can not bid and win against 

these large Non-profits and their seemingly 

unlimited funds. 

As you are probably aware, Bill Gates 

controls another Non-profit owning and 

controlling exorbitant amounts of farmland. 

These groups buy the land, raising the cash 

rent so high the young and local farmer can 

not get a foothold. It is a rare bank that is 

going to go along with the risk associated 

with a young farmer paying higher cash rent 

than is profitable. We, as local farmers, have 

to compete with these Non-profits and it is 

not a level playing field. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 169 / Friday, September 3, 2021 / Notices 49567 

Non-profits are milking our state and 

federal governments out of approximately 

$100-$150/acre per year of state and local 

taxes. By our accounts, because these Nonprofits do not pay the local and state taxes, 

their burden is passed along to the local 

farmer, smaller communities and rural areas. 

It is time for an investigation into these 

Non-profit organizations 

Steel Industry 

Previous administrations have stopped 

foreign imports which caused Us steel prices 

to skyrocket as major suppliers were only in 

our country. This lack of competition has 

doubled the steel price—leading to increased 

burden on farming operations. We need both. 

We support competition. 

Finally, please stop allowing our country 

to be sold piece by piece to foreign entities. 

It seems of national interest that foreign 

ownership of our resources is unwise for 

economic and security reasons. Familyowned, hard-working Ag business are giving 

up the fight and giving in to the pressure of 

foreign ownership and the dollars it 

represents. We support legislation that would 

limit foreign investors ownership and control 

of American farmland and the inputs to 

support the industry around it. 

From where we sit, it would be easy to 

believe that large corporations are allowed to 

merge with other conglomerates to the 

benefit of the individuals, governments and 

share-holders while Americans are 

unprotected even though Anti-Trust laws 

have been established but seemingly 

unenforced and ignored. 

Please understand the need to open up 

imports and free trade! We as farmers have 

to compete with our products being exported 

to foreign markets, while our side has 

controlled input prices by tariffs being 

leveled by our government siding with big 

business. We see the economic impact of our 

government allowing monopolies without 

regard to Anti-Trust laws. 

I invite more discussion on these matters. 

Feel free to call my cell [redacted]. I also 

want to personally invite you to be on the 

grounds of our small business and 

operations. I would welcome the 

conversation. 

Thank you, 

Mark Calmer 

[Redacted] 

[FR Doc. 2021–19097 Filed 9–2–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—R Consortium, Inc. 

Notice is hereby given that, on August 

13, 2021, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the 

National Cooperative Research and 

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 

et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), R Consortium, Inc. 

(‘‘R Consortium’’) has filed written 

notifications simultaneously with the 

Attorney General and the Federal Trade 

Commission disclosing changes in its 

membership. The notifications were 

filed for the purpose of extending the 

Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of 

antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages 

under specified circumstances. 

Specifically, TIBCO Software Inc., Palo 

Alto, CA; and Moore Foundation, Palo 

Alto, CA, have withdrawn as parties to 

this venture. 

No other changes have been made in 

either the membership or planned 

activity of the group research project. 

Membership in this group research 

project remains open, and R Consortium 

intends to file additional written 

notifications disclosing all changes in 

membership. 

On September 15, 2015, R Consortium 

filed its original notification pursuant to 

Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department 

of Justice published a notice in the 

Federal Register pursuant to Section 

6(b) of the Act on October 2, 2015 (80 

FR 59815). 

The last notification was filed with 

the Department on March 22, 2021. A 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on April 8, 2021 (86 FR 18323). 

Suzanne Morris, 

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, 

Antitrust Division. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19038 Filed 9–2–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

[OMB Number: 1110–NEW] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed eCollection, 

eComments Requested; Law 

Enforcement Suicide Data Collection 

AGENCY: Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, Department of Justice. 

ACTION: 60-Day notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice, 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

Criminal Justice Information Services 

Division, will be submitting the 

following information collection request 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

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 

November 2, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have additional 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 

Mrs. Amy C. Blasher, Unit Chief, 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

Criminal Justice Information Services 

Division, Module D–1, 1000 Custer 

Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 

26306; acblasher@fbi.gov. 

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 Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, 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 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: 

Establishment of a New Collection. 

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: 

Law Enforcement Suicide Data 

Collection. 

3. The agency form number, if any, 

and the applicable component of the 

Department sponsoring the collection: 

There is no form number for this 

collection. The applicable component 

within the Department of Justice is the 

Criminal Justice Information Services 

Division, in the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation. 

4. Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: 

Primary: Law enforcement agencies. 

Abstract: This collection is needed to 

collect data on incidents of law 

enforcement officer suicides and 

attempted suicides from law 

enforcement agencies, as defined by the 

Law Enforcement Suicide Data 

Collection Act. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1