37514 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Notices 

1A list of the current Primary Dealers in 

Government Securities is available at https://

www.newyorkfed.org/markets/primarydealers.html. 

2 12 U.S.C. 1828(c). The Board also has the 

authority to require reports from state member 

banks (12 U.S.C. 248(a) and 324). 

3 12 U.S.C. 225a. 

4 12 U.S.C. 263. 

5 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). 

6 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8). 

inventory of currently approved 

collections of information. The OMB 

inventory, as well as copies of the PRA 

Submission, supporting statements, and 

approved collection of information 

instrument(s) are available at https://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

These documents are also available on 

the Federal Reserve Board’s public 

website at https://www.federal

reserve.gov/apps/reportforms/ 

review.aspx or may be requested from 

the agency clearance officer, whose 

name appears above. 

Final Approval Under OMB Delegated 

Authority of the Extension for Three 

Years, Without Revision, of the 

Following Information Collection 

Collection title: Senior Credit Officer 

Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing 

Terms. 

Collection identifier: FR 2034. 

OMB control number: 7100–0325. 

Frequency: Quarterly. 

Respondents: The current reporting 

panel consists of U.S. banking 

institutions and U.S. branches and 

agencies of foreign banks, the majority 

of which are affiliated with a Primary 

Government Securities Dealer.1 Other 

types of respondents, such as other 

depository institutions, bank holding 

companies, or other financial entities, 

may be surveyed when appropriate. 

Respondents may also include 

institutions that, while not primary 

dealers, play a significant role in overthe-counter derivatives or securities 

financing activities. 

Estimated number of respondents: 25. 

Estimated average hours per response: 

5. 

Estimated annual burden hours: 500. 

General description of report: This 

survey collects qualitative and limited 

quantitative information from senior 

credit officers at responding financial 

institutions on (1) stringency of credit 

terms, (2) credit availability and 

demand across the entire range of 

securities financing and over-thecounter derivatives transactions, and (3) 

the evolution of market conditions and 

conventions applicable to such 

activities. The FR 2034 survey is 

conducted quarterly, along with the 

Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey on 

Bank Lending Practices (FR 2018; OMB 

No. 7100–0058). The survey contains 79 

core questions divided into three broad 

sections, as well as additional questions 

on topics of timely interest. 

Legal authorization and 

confidentiality: The FR 2034 is 

authorized by sections 2A and 12A of 

the Federal Reserve Act (FRA).2 Section 

2A of the FRA requires that the Board 

and the Federal Open Market 

Committee (FOMC) ‘‘maintain long run 

growth of the monetary and credit 

aggregates commensurate with the 

economy’s long run potential to increase 

production, so as to promote effectively 

the goals of maximum employment, 

stable prices, and moderate long-term 

interest rates.’’ 3 Section 12A of the FRA 

further requires the FOMC to implement 

‘‘regulations relating to the open-market 

transactions’’ conducted by Federal 

Reserve Banks ‘‘with a view to 

accommodating commerce and business 

and with regard to their bearing upon 

the general credit situation of the 

country.’’ 4 The Board and FOMC use 

the information obtained through the FR 

2034 to discharge these responsibilities. 

Responding to the FR 2034 is 

voluntary. To the extent the information 

contained in responses to the core 

questions of the FR 2034 is nonpublic 

commercial or financial information, 

which is both customarily and actually 

treated as private by the respondent, the 

Board may keep such information 

confidential pursuant to exemption 4 of 

the Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA).5 Supplemental questions asked 

on each survey may vary, and the 

Board’s ability to keep confidential 

responses to such questions must 

therefore be determined on a case-bycase basis. Responses to supplemental 

questions may contain nonpublic 

commercial information that may be 

kept confidential by the Board pursuant 

to exemption 4 of the FOIA. Some such 

responses may also contain information 

contained in or related to an 

examination of a financial institution, 

which may be kept confidential under 

exemption 8 of the FOIA.6

Current actions: On December 3, 

2021, the Board published a notice in 

the Federal Register (86 FR 68666) 

requesting public comment for 60 days 

on the extension, without revision, of 

the Senior Credit Officer Opinion 

Survey on Dealer Financing. The 

comment period for this notice expired 

on February 1, 2022. The Board did not 

receive any comments. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, June 16, 2022. 

Michele Taylor Fennell, 

Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13388 Filed 6–22–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

[File No. 211 0087] 

ARKO/GPM Investments; Analysis of 

Agreement Containing Consent Orders 

To Aid Public Comment 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this 

matter settles alleged violations of 

federal law prohibiting unfair methods 

of competition. The attached Analysis of 

Proposed Consent Orders to Aid Public 

Comment describes both the allegations 

in the complaint and the terms of the 

consent orders—embodied in the 

consent agreement—that would settle 

these allegations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 25, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file 

comments online or on paper, by 

following the instructions in the 

Request for Comment part of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Please write: ‘‘ARKO/GPM 

Investments; File No. 211 0087’’ on your 

comment and file your comment online 

at https://www.regulations.gov by 

following the instructions on the webbased form. If you prefer to file your 

comment on paper, please mail your 

comment to the following address: 

Federal Trade Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Suite CC–5610 (Annex D), 

Washington, DC 20580. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kurt 

Herrera-Heintz (202–326–3542), Bureau 

of Competition, Federal Trade 

Commission, 400 7th Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20024. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 

FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is 

hereby given that the above-captioned 

consent agreement containing a consent 

order to cease and desist, having been 

filed with and accepted, subject to final 

approval, by the Commission, has been 

placed on the public record for a period 

of thirty (30) days. The following 

Analysis of Agreement Containing 

Consent Orders to Aid Public Comment 

describes the terms of the consent 

agreement and the allegations in the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Notices 37515 

complaint. An electronic copy of the 

full text of the consent agreement 

package can be obtained from the FTC 

website at this web address: https://

www.ftc.gov/news-events/commissionactions. 

You can file a comment online or on 

paper. For the Commission to consider 

your comment, we must receive it on or 

before July 25, 2022. Write ‘‘ARKO/GPM 

Investments; File No. 211 0087’’ on your 

comment. Your comment—including 

your name and your state—will be 

placed on the public record of this 

proceeding, including, to the extent 

practicable, on the https://

www.regulations.gov website. 

Due to protective actions in response 

to the COVID–19 pandemic and the 

agency’s heightened security screening, 

postal mail addressed to the 

Commission will be delayed. We 

strongly encourage you to submit your 

comments online through the https://

www.regulations.gov website. 

If you prefer to file your comment on 

paper, write ‘‘ARKO/GPM Investments; 

File No. 211 0087’’ on your comment 

and on the envelope, and mail your 

comment to the following address: 

Federal Trade Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Suite CC–5610 (Annex D), 

Washington, DC 20580. 

Because your comment will be placed 

on the publicly accessible website at 

https://www.regulations.gov, you are 

solely responsible for making sure your 

comment does not include any sensitive 

or confidential information. In 

particular, your comment should not 

include sensitive personal information, 

such as your or anyone else’s Social 

Security number; date of birth; driver’s 

license number or other state 

identification number, or foreign 

country equivalent; passport number; 

financial account number; or credit or 

debit card number. You are also solely 

responsible for making sure your 

comment does not include sensitive 

health information, such as medical 

records or other individually 

identifiable health information. In 

addition, your comment should not 

include any ‘‘trade secret or any 

commercial or financial information 

which . . . is privileged or 

confidential’’—as provided by Section 

6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 

FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)— 

including competitively sensitive 

information such as costs, sales 

statistics, inventories, formulas, 

patterns, devices, manufacturing 

processes, or customer names. 

Comments containing material for 

which confidential treatment is 

requested must be filed in paper form, 

must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’ 

and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). 

In particular, the written request for 

confidential treatment that accompanies 

the comment must include the factual 

and legal basis for the request and must 

identify the specific portions of the 

comment to be withheld from the public 

record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your 

comment will be kept confidential only 

if the General Counsel grants your 

request in accordance with the law and 

the public interest. Once your comment 

has been posted on https://

www.regulations.gov—as legally 

required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot 

redact or remove your comment from 

that website, unless you submit a 

confidentiality request that meets the 

requirements for such treatment under 

FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General 

Counsel grants that request. 

Visit the FTC website at https://

www.ftc.gov to read this document and 

the news release describing this matter. 

The FTC Act and other laws the 

Commission administers permit the 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding, as 

appropriate. The Commission will 

consider all timely and responsive 

public comments it receives on or before 

July 25, 2022. For information on the 

Commission’s privacy policy, including 

routine uses permitted by the Privacy 

Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/siteinformation/privacy-policy. 

Analysis of Agreement Containing 

Consent Orders To Aid Public Comment 

I. Introduction 

The Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) has accepted an 

Agreement Containing Consent Order 

(‘‘Consent Agreement’’) from ARKO 

Corp., GPM Investments, LLC, GPM 

Southeast, LLC, and GPM Petroleum, 

LLC (collectively ‘‘Respondents’’). The 

Consent Agreement is designed to 

remedy the anticompetitive effects that 

resulted from GPM’s acquisition of retail 

fuel assets from Corrigan Oil Company 

(‘‘Corrigan’’). 

Pursuant to an Asset Purchase 

Agreement dated March 8, 2021, GPM 

Petroleum, LLC, and GPM Southeast, 

LLC, which are directly controlled by 

GPM Investments, LLC (collectively 

‘‘GPM’’) and indirectly controlled by 

ARKO Corp., acquired 60 branded 

Express Stop retail fuel locations in 

Michigan and Ohio from Corrigan (the 

‘‘Acquisition’’). GPM consummated the 

Acquisition in May 2021 for total 

consideration of approximately $94 

million. As part of the Asset Purchase 

Agreement, Corrigan agreed not to 

compete for a period of time and within 

a specified radius around approximately 

190 GPM owned, operated, and leased 

locations, in addition to the Express 

Stop locations purchased by GPM. 

The Commission’s Complaint alleges 

that the Acquisition violated Section 7 

of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 

U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal 

Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 

U.S.C. 45, by substantially lessening 

competition for the retail sale of 

gasoline in five local markets in 

Michigan, and for the retail sale of 

diesel fuel in one of those same local 

markets. The Commission’s Complaint 

also alleges that the noncompete 

agreements violated Section 7 of the 

Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, 

and Section 5 of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 

45, by unreasonably lessening potential 

competition for the retail sale of 

gasoline and diesel fuel within the 

noncompete territories. 

Under the terms of the Decision and 

Order (‘‘Order’’) contained in the 

Consent Agreement, Respondents are 

required to rescind parts of an Asset 

Purchase Agreement with Corrigan and 

release back to Corrigan retail fuel assets 

in the five local markets in Michigan. 

Respondents must transfer these assets 

back to Corrigan no later than the 

Closing Date listed in the Reacquisition 

Agreement of June 28, 2022. In addition, 

the Order resolves concerns raised by 

the noncompete agreements in the 

parties’ Asset Purchase Agreement. 

The Consent Agreement has been 

placed on the public record for thirty 

days to solicit comments from interested 

persons. The Commission issued the 

accompanying Order as final prior to 

seeking public comment, as provided in 

Section 2.34(c) of the Commission’s 

Rules. This will allow the Commission 

to enforce the Order if there are any 

violations of its provisions during the 

public comment period. Comments 

received during this period will become 

part of the public record. After thirty 

days, the Commission will again review 

the Consent Agreement and comments 

received and decide whether it should 

withdraw from the Consent Agreement 

or modify the accompanying Order as 

provided in Section 2.34(e) of the 

Commission’s Rules. 

II. The Respondents 

Respondent ARKO Corp., through its 

wholly owned subsidiary GPM, operates 

or supplies stores in thirty-three states 

and Washington, D.C. GPM is the sixth 

largest convenience store chain in the 

country, with approximately 3,000 

locations comprising approximately 

1,400 company-operated stores and 

1,625 independent dealer locations. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
37516 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Notices 

GPM sells fuel to retail and wholesale 

customers. GPM earned 2021 revenue 

over $4.7 billion, with fuel sales 

accounting for $3 billion. 

GPM derives most of its revenue from 

the retail sale of fuel and products sold 

in its convenience stores. GPM retains 

control over the fuel operation at its 

company-operated stores and sets 

wholesale fuel prices on a delivered 

basis to its dealer-operated network. 

III. Retail Sale of Gasoline and Diesel 

Fuel 

Relevant product markets in which to 

analyze the Acquisition are the retail 

sale of gasoline and the retail sale of 

diesel fuel. Consumers require gasoline 

for their gasoline-powered vehicles and 

can purchase gasoline only at retail fuel 

outlets. Likewise, consumers require 

diesel fuel for their diesel-powered 

vehicles and can purchase diesel fuel 

only at retail fuel outlets. The retail sale 

of gasoline and the retail sale of diesel 

fuel constitute separate relevant markets 

because the two are not interchangeable. 

Vehicles that run on gasoline cannot run 

on diesel fuel, and vehicles that run on 

diesel fuel cannot run on gasoline. 

The Commission alleges that the 

relevant geographic markets in which to 

assess the competitive effects of the 

Acquisition with respect to the retail 

sale of gasoline are five local markets in 

and around the following cities: 

Saginaw, Chesaning, Mt. Morris, and 

Mason, Michigan. The relevant 

geographic market in which to analyze 

the effects of the Acquisition on the 

retail sale of diesel fuel include one 

local market in and around one of the 

Saginaw, Michigan retail gasoline 

markets. 

The geographic markets for retail 

gasoline and retail diesel fuel are highly 

localized, depending on the unique 

circumstances of each area. Each 

relevant market is distinct and factdependent, reflecting many 

considerations, including commuting 

patterns, traffic flows, and outlet 

characteristics. Consumers typically 

choose between nearby retail fuel 

outlets with similar characteristics along 

their planned routes. The geographic 

markets for the retail sale of diesel fuel 

are similar to the corresponding 

geographic markets for retail gasoline, as 

many diesel fuel consumers exhibit 

preferences and behaviors similar to 

those of gasoline consumers. 

The Acquisition substantially 

lessened competition in each of these 

local markets, resulting in five highly 

concentrated markets for the retail sale 

of gasoline and one highly concentrated 

market for the retail sale of diesel fuel. 

Retail fuel outlets compete on price, 

store format, product offerings, and 

location, and pay close attention to 

competitors in close proximity, on 

similar traffic flows, and with similar 

store characteristics. 

In each of the local gasoline and 

diesel fuel retail markets where the 

Commission alleges harm, the 

Acquisition reduced the number of 

competitively constraining independent 

market participants around the locations 

GPM is returning to Corrigan to two or 

fewer. Absent the Acquisition, 

Respondents and Corrigan would have 

continued to compete directly in these 

local markets. Because of the 

Acquisition, GPM is likely able to raise 

prices unilaterally in markets where 

GPM and Corrigan were close 

competitors. 

Moreover, the Acquisition would 

enhance the incentives for 

interdependent behavior in local 

markets where only two competitively 

constraining, independent market 

participants would remain. Two aspects 

of the retail fuel industry make it 

vulnerable to such coordination. First, 

retail fuel outlets post their fuel prices 

on price signs that are visible from the 

street, allowing competitors to easily 

observe each other’s fuel prices. Second, 

retail fuel outlets regularly track their 

competitors’ fuel prices and change 

their own prices in response. These 

repeated interactions give retail fuel 

outlets familiarity with how their 

competitors price and how changing 

prices affect fuel sales. 

The Commission’s Complaint also 

alleges that, absent the Consent 

Agreement, the agreement not to 

compete harms customers in local retail 

gasoline and retail diesel fuel markets 

throughout Michigan and Ohio. By 

prohibiting Corrigan from competing 

with (1) each acquired retail fuel outlet 

and (2) a list of specified GPM locations, 

whether those GPM locations are 

anywhere near an acquired Corrigan 

location, the noncompete provision 

unreasonably restricts potential 

competition between Corrigan and GPM 

that would otherwise benefit 

consumers. 

A general desire to be free from 

competition following a transaction is 

not a legitimate business interest. First, 

Corrigan’s agreement not to compete 

with the 190 GPM-identified retail fuel 

outlets goes well beyond what is 

reasonably necessary to protect GPM’s 

investment in the 60 acquired retail 

Express Stop locations. Second, the 

Corrigan noncompete agreements 

around the 60 acquired Express Stop 

stations, based on the unique facts and 

conditions present in those markets, is 

unreasonably overbroad in geographic 

scope and longer than reasonably 

necessary to protect a legitimate 

business interest. 

Entry into each relevant market would 

not be timely, likely, or sufficient to 

deter or counteract the anticompetitive 

effects arising from the Acquisition. 

Significant entry barriers include the 

availability of attractive real estate, the 

time and cost associated with 

constructing a new retail fuel outlet, and 

the time and uncertainty associated 

with obtaining necessary permits and 

approvals. 

IV. The Consent Agreement 

The Order remedies the Acquisition’s 

likely anticompetitive effects by 

requiring Respondents to return to 

Corrigan the retail fuel outlets included 

in the Acquisition in each of the five 

local markets. Corrigan is an 

experienced operator of retail fuel sites 

and remains an active market 

participant by continuing to operate a 

retail fuel business and a wholesale fuel 

supply business in Michigan. 

The transfer of assets must be 

completed no later than the Closing 

Date listed in the Reacquisition 

Agreement of June 28, 2022. The Order 

further requires Respondents to 

maintain the economic viability, 

marketability, and competitiveness of 

each retail fuel business until Corrigan 

reacquires the five retail fuel locations. 

The Order also requires Respondents 

to obtain prior approval from the 

Commission before acquiring retail fuel 

assets within a 3-mile driving distance 

of any of the returned locations for 10 

years. The prior approval provision is 

necessary because the purchase of a 

retail fuel business near any of the five 

retail fuel locations would likely raise 

the same competitive concerns as the 

Acquisition and may not be reportable 

under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act. 

The Order also resolves the 

competitive concerns raised by the 

agreements not to compete. The Order 

requires that Respondents amend the 

noncompete obligation in the Asset 

Purchase Agreement to (i) only apply to 

retail fuel businesses acquired by GPM 

in this Acquisition, excluding the five 

locations to be returned to Corrigan, and 

(ii) limit the noncompete terms relating 

to each acquired retail fuel business to 

no broader than 3 years in duration and 

no more than 3 miles from each Express 

Stop location. The Order further (1) 

requires Respondents not enter into or 

enforce any noncompete agreement 

related to acquisitions of a retail fuel 

business that restrict competition 

around a retail fuel business that GPM 

already owns or operates, as opposed to 

the acquired retail fuel business, and (2) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Notices 37517 

to notify third parties subject to similar 

noncompete agreements of GPM’s 

obligations under the Order. 

Retail fuel competition varies based 

on many factors, including driving 

patterns, population density, and 

consumer demand. The reasonableness 

of agreements not to compete will 

necessarily differ with local retail fuel 

competition. A 3-year and 3-mile radius 

around each acquired location in this 

transaction resembles a reasonable 

duration and geographic scope given the 

local competitive conditions around 

each Express Stop location. 

Noncompete agreements affecting areas 

geographically distinct from acquired 

retail fuel outlets, and noncompete 

agreements untethered to protecting 

goodwill acquired in the acquisition, are 

highly suspect and warrant Commission 

scrutiny. 

The purpose of this analysis is to 

facilitate public comment on the 

Consent Agreement. The Commission 

does not intend this analysis to 

constitute an official interpretation of 

the Consent Agreement or to modify its 

terms in any way. 

By direction of the Commission. 

April J. Tabor, 

Secretary. 

Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan Joined 

by Commissioner Rebecca Kelly 

Slaughter and Commissioner Alvaro M. 

Bedoya 

Last year, in an unreportable 

transaction valued at approximately $94 

million, GPM Petroleum, LLC, GPM 

Southeast, LLC, GPM Investments, LLC, 

and ARKO Corp. (collectively ‘‘GPM’’) 

acquired 60 retail gasoline, diesel, and 

convenience stores from Corrigan Oil 

Company (‘‘Corrigan’’). Today, after a 

thorough investigation of this deal, the 

Commission announced an enforcement 

action alleging that GPM illegally 

acquired five of those retail fuel stations 

from Corrigan, and imposed illegitimate, 

overbroad agreements not to compete in 

connection with that acquisition. This 

action marks an important step forward 

in protecting the public from harm 

when rivals agree not to compete. Firms 

proposing mergers should take note that 

the Commission will scrutinize contract 

terms in merger agreements that impede 

fair competition. 

Noncompete agreements affect 

millions of Americans every day, but 

they come in a variety of forms. Much 

of the discussion surrounding 

noncompete clauses in recent years has 

focused on their inclusion in 

employment contracts and the resulting 

harm to workers. Noncompete 

covenants, however, can also govern 

businesses that are direct or potential 

competitors, and sometimes are 

included in merger agreements. Today’s 

Commission action highlights that 

noncompete clauses in a merger 

agreement may unduly and 

illegitimately restrain competition when 

both of the parties remain competitors 

in other markets. 

By its very nature, an agreement not 

to compete between two businesses 

reduces competition if it restrains the 

activities of actual and potential rivals 

during the term of the agreement. 

Indeed, noncompete agreements 

between competing businesses are 

suspect: for instance, an agreement not 

to compete may constitute a thinly 

veiled market allocation scheme, a per 

se violation of the antitrust laws. 

In the context of mergers, parties 

sometimes assert that noncompete 

clauses are necessary to protect a 

legitimate business interest in 

connection with the sale of a business, 

such as the goodwill acquired in a 

transaction. When the seller is exiting 

the business or selling off assets needed 

to compete with the buyer, a 

noncompete that limits prospects for 

reentry may in certain instances reflect 

that goodwill, if appropriately limited in 

geographic scope and duration. 

In this matter, as alleged in the 

Commission’s complaint, GPM’s 

agreement to purchase Corrigan’s retail 

fuel stations contained noncompete 

terms that were overbroad and facially 

unrelated to protecting any goodwill 

GPM might hope to acquire with the 

Corrigan stations. According to the 

complaint, these noncompete provisions 

are illegal because they were designed 

to ensure that GPM would not face 

direct or indirect competition from 

Corrigan—not only in the competitively 

overlapping areas, but even in 

geographic areas far from the acquired 

stations. 

As today’s consent agreement makes 

clear, firms may not use a merger as an 

excuse to impose overbroad restrictions 

on competition or competitors. The 

Commission will evaluate agreements 

not to compete in merger agreements 

with a critical eye. 

We look forward to reviewing input 

and comments from the public about the 

approach this settlement has taken with 

respect to the noncompetes at issue 

here. The Commission is committed to 

acting in the public interest, and 

comments from the public are vital to 

ensuring that we are successful in doing 

so. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13415 Filed 6–22–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) 

Disease, Disability, and Injury 

Prevention and Control Special 

Emphasis Panel (SEP)—CE22–007: 

Reduce Health Disparities and Improve 

Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Related 

Outcomes Through the Implementation 

of CDC’s Pediatric Mild TBI Guideline; 

Amended Notice of Meeting 

Notice is hereby given of a change in 

the meeting of the Disease, Disability, 

and Injury Prevention and Control 

Special Emphasis Panel (SEP)—CE22– 

007: Reduce Health Disparities and 

Improve Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) 

Related Outcomes Through the 

Implementation of CDC’s Pediatric Mild 

TBI Guideline, June 7–8, 2022, 8:30 

a.m.–5:30 p.m., EDT, Videoconference. 

The meeting was published in the 

Federal Register on February 1, 2022, 

Volume 87, Number 21, page 5483. 

The meeting notice is being amended 

in the first column (FR Doc 2022–01950) 

to change the meeting date and should 

read as follows: 

CE22–007: Reduce Health Disparities 

and Improve Traumatic Brain Injury 

(TBI) Related Outcomes Through the 

Implementation of CDC’s Pediatric Mild 

TBI Guideline, June 7, 2022. 

The meeting is closed to the public. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mikel Walters, Ph.D., Scientific Review 

Officer, National Center for Injury 

Prevention and Control, CDC, 4770 

Buford Highway NE, Mailstop F–63, 

Atlanta, Georgia 30341; Telephone: 

(404) 639–0913; Email: MWalters@

cdc.gov. 

The Director, Strategic Business 

Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief 

Operating Officer, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, has been 

delegated the authority to sign Federal 

Register notices pertaining to 

announcements of meetings and other 

committee management activities, for 

both the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention and the Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry. 

Kalwant Smagh, 

Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, 

Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13450 Filed 6–22–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–18–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1