[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27395-27399]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12313]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA-2016-0065]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Request for comment on the renewal of collection of
information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections. This
document describes a renewal of a collection of information for which
NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 12, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments using any of the following methods.
All comments must have the applicable DOT docket number (i.e., NHTSA-
2016-0065) noted conspicuously on them.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Telephone: 1-800-647-5527.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this proposed collection of information. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street address listed above. Follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, or for
background documents, contact Stephen Hench, Office of Chief Counsel
(NCC-0100), Room W41-229, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be
included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation, see 5 CFR
1320.8(d), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) 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;
    (ii) 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;
    (iii) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (iv) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including 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.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following collection of information:
    Title: Defect and Noncompliance Reporting and Notification.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a currently approved information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0004.

    Affected Public: Businesses or individuals.
    Abstract: This notice requests comment on NHTSA's proposed renewal
of an approved collection of information, designated as OMB No. 2127-
0004. This collection covers the information collection requirements
found within various statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety
Act of 1966 (Act), 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., that address and require
manufacturer notifications to NHTSA of safety-related defects and
failures to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)
in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, as well as the provision
of particular information related to the ensuing owner and dealer
notifications and free remedy campaigns that follow those
notifications. The sections of the Act imposing these requirements
include 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30119, 30120, and 30166. Many of these
requirements are implemented through, and addressed with more
specificity in, 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports (Part 573) and 49 CFR 577, Defect and
Noncompliance Notification (Part 577).
    Pursuant to the Act, motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment
manufacturers are obligated to notify, and then provide various
information and documents to, NHTSA in the event a safety defect or
noncompliance with FMVSS is identified in products they manufactured.
See 49 U.S.C. 30118(b) and 49 CFR 573.6. Manufacturers are further
required to notify owners, purchasers, dealers, and distributors about
the safety defect or noncompliance. See 49 U.S.C. 30118(b), 30120(a);
49 CFR 577.7, 577.13. Manufacturers are required to provide to NHTSA
copies of communications pertaining to recall campaigns that they issue
to owners, purchasers, dealers, and distributors. See 49 U.S.C.
30166(f); 49 CFR 573.6(c)(10).
    Manufacturers are also required to file with NHTSA a plan
explaining how they intend to reimburse owners and purchasers who paid
to have their products remedied before being notified of the safety
defect or noncompliance, and explain that plan in the notifications
they issue to owners and purchasers about the safety defect or
noncompliance. See 49 U.S.C. 30120(d) and 49 CFR 573.13. Manufacturers
are further required to keep lists of the respective owners,
purchasers, dealers, distributors, lessors, and lessees of the products
determined to be defective or noncompliant and involved in a recall
campaign, and are required to provide NHTSA with a minimum of six
quarterly reports reporting on the progress of their recall campaigns.
See 49 CFR 573.8 and 573.7, respectively.
    The Act and Part 573 also contain numerous information collection
requirements specific to tire recall and remedy campaigns. These
requirements relate to the proper disposal of recalled tires, including
a requirement that the manufacturer conducting the tire recall submit a
plan and provide specific instructions to certain persons (such as
dealers and distributors) addressing that disposal, and a requirement
that those persons report back to the manufacturer certain deviations
from the plan. See 49 U.S.C. 30120(d) and 49 CFR 573.6(c)(9). The
regulations also require that manufacturers report to NHTSA intentional
and knowing sales or leases of defective or noncompliant tires.
    49 U.S.C. 30166(n) and its implementing regulation found at 49 CFR
573.10 mandate that anyone who knowingly and willfully sells or leases
for use on a motor vehicle a defective tire or a tire that is not
compliant with FMVSS, and with actual knowledge that the tire
manufacturer has notified its dealers of the defect or noncompliance as
required under the Act, is required to report that sale or lease to
NHTSA no more than five working days after the person to whom the tire
was sold or leased takes possession of it.
    Pursuant to its safety authorities, NHTSA is continuing its
oversight of recalls of unprecedented complexity involving Takata air
bag inflators.\1\ Under the Coordinated Remedy Program established to
address this major issue, and the associated Coordinated Remedy Order
as amended on December 9, 2016 (the ``ACRO''), manufacturers issue
supplemental owner communications utilizing non-traditional means.\2\
In this notice, NHTSA both addresses comments,\3\ and seeks further
comment, on its estimates of the supplemental recall communications
associated with the Takata recalls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See generally ``Takata Recall Spotlight,'' https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/takata-recall-spotlight.
    \2\ See generally ``Notice of Coordinated Remedy Program
Proceeding for the Replacement of Certain Takata Air Bag Inflator,''
available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NHTSA-2015-0055.
    \3\ NHTSA previously published a 30-day notice for this
collection on December 22, 2017 (82 FR 60789) on which OMB received
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Burden: NHTSA previously estimated an annual burden of
36,070 hours associated with this collection (of which 456 hours was
contemplated for conducting supplemental recall communications under
administrative order to achieve completion of the Takata recalls),
$155,450,329 (of which $27,836,329 is contemplated for conducting
supplemental recall communications under administrative order to
achieve completion of the Takata recalls), and 274 respondents per year
(19 vehicle manufacturers conducting supplemental recall communications
under administrative order to achieve completion of the Takata
recalls).\4\ Our prior estimates of the burden hours and cost
associated with the requirements currently covered by this information
collection require adjustment as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 82 FR 60789, 60790 (December 22, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on current information, we estimate 249 distinct
manufacturers filing an average of 988 Part 573 Safety Recall Reports
each year. This is a change from our previous estimate of 963 Part 573
Safety Recall Reports filed by 274 manufacturers each year. In
addition, with reference to the metric associated with NHTSA's Vehicle
Identification Number (VIN) Look-up Tool regulation, see 49 CFR 573.15,
we continue to estimate it takes the 17 major passenger-vehicle
manufacturers (those that produce more than 25,000 vehicles annually)
additional burden hours to complete these Reports to NHTSA, as explored
in more detail below. See 82 FR 60789 (December 22, 2017). Between 2015
and 2018, the major passenger-vehicle manufacturers conducted an
average of 316 recalls annually.
    We continue to estimate that maintenance of the required owner,
purchaser, dealer, and distributors lists requires 8 hours a year per
manufacturer. We also continue to estimate it takes a major passenger-
vehicle manufacturer 40 hours to complete each notification report to
NHTSA, and it takes all other manufacturers 4 hours. Accordingly, we
estimate the annual burden hours related to the reporting to NHTSA of a
safety defect or noncompliance for the 17 major passenger vehicle-
manufacturers to be 12,640 hours annually (316 notices x 40 hours/
report), and that all other manufacturers require a total of 2,688
hours annually (672 notices x 4 hours/report) to file their notices.
Thus, the estimated annual burden hours related to the reporting to
NHTSA of a safety defect or noncompliance is 17,320 hours (12,640 hours
+ 2,688 hours) + (249 MFRs x 8 hours to maintain purchaser lists).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For more information about how we derived these and certain
other estimates, please see 81 FR 70269 (October 11, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We continue to estimate that an additional 40 hours will be needed
to account for major passenger-vehicle manufacturers adding details to
Part 573

Safety Recall Reports relating to the intended schedule for notifying
its dealers and distributors, and tailoring its notifications to
dealers and distributors in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR
577.13. An additional 2 hours will be needed to account for this
obligation in other manufacturers' Safety Recall Reports. This burden
is estimated at 13,984 hours annually (672 notices x 2 hours/
notification) + (316 notices x 40 hours/notification).
    49 U.S.C. 30166(f) requires manufacturers to provide to the Agency
copies of all communications regarding defects and noncompliances sent
to owners, purchasers, and dealerships. Manufacturers must index these
communications by the year, make, and model of the vehicle as well as
provide a concise summary of the subject of the communication. We
continue to estimate this burden requires 3 hours for each vehicle
recall for the 17 major passenger-vehicle manufacturers, and 30 minutes
for all other manufacturers for each vehicle recall. This totals an
estimated 1,284 hours annually (316 recalls x 3 hours for the 17 major
passenger-vehicle manufacturers) + (672 recalls x .5 for all other
manufacturers).
    In the event a manufacturer supplied the defective or noncompliant
product to independent dealers through independent distributors, that
manufacturer is required to include in its notifications to those
distributors an instruction that the distributors are then to provide
copies of the manufacturer's notification of the defect or
noncompliance to all known distributors or retail outlets further down
the distribution chain within five working days. See 49 CFR
577.7(c)(2)(iv). As a practical matter, this requirement would only
apply to equipment manufacturers, since vehicle manufacturers generally
sell and lease vehicles through a dealer network, and not through
independent distributors. We believe our previous estimate of 87
equipment recalls per year needs to be adjusted to 91 equipment recalls
per year to better reflect recent data. We have estimated the burden
associated with these notifications (identifying retail outlets, making
copies of the manufacturer's notice, and mailing) to be 5 hours per
recall campaign. Assuming an average of 3 distributors per equipment
item, which is a liberal estimate given that many equipment
manufacturers do not use independent distributors, the total number of
burden hours associated with this third-party notification requirement
is approximately 1,365 hours per year (91 recalls x 3 distributors x 5
hours).
    As for the burden linked with a manufacturer's preparation of and
notification concerning its reimbursement for pre-notification
remedies, we continue to estimate that the preparation of a
reimbursement plan takes approximately 4 hours annually. We also
continue to estimate that an additional 1.5 hours per year is spent by
the 17 major passenger-vehicle manufacturers adapting the plan to
particular defect and noncompliance notifications to NHTSA and adding
tailored language about the plan to a particular safety recall's owner
notification letters, while an additional .5 hours per year is spent on
this task by all other manufacturers. And we continue to estimate that
an additional 12 hours annually is spent disseminating plan
information, for a total of 4,794 annual burden hours ((249 MFRs x 4
hours to prepare plan) + (316 recalls x 1.5 hours tailoring plan for
each recall) + (672 recalls x .5 hours) + (249 MFRs x 12 hours to
disseminate plan information)).
    The Safety Act and 49 CFR part 573 also contain numerous
information collection requirements specific to tire recall and remedy
campaigns, as well as a statutory and regulatory reporting requirement
that anyone who knowingly and intentionally sells or leases a defective
or noncompliant tire notify NHTSA of that activity.
    Manufacturers are required to include specific information related
to tire disposal in the notifications they provide NHTSA concerning
identification of a safety defect or noncompliance with FMVSS in their
tires, as well as in the notifications they issue to their dealers or
other tire outlets participating in the recall campaign. See 49 CFR
573.6(c)(9). We believe our previous estimate of 12 tire recalls per
year needs to be adjusted to 11 tire recalls per year to better reflect
recent data. We continue to estimate that the inclusion of this
additional information will require an additional two hours of effort
beyond the subtotal above associated with non-tire recall campaigns.
This additional effort consists of one hour for the NHTSA notification
and one hour for the dealer notification for a total of 22 burden hours
(11 tire recalls a year x 2 hours per recall).
    Manufacturer-owned or controlled dealers are required to notify the
manufacturer and provide certain information should they deviate from
the manufacturer's disposal plan. Consistent with our previous
analysis, we continue to ascribe zero burden hours to this requirement
since to date no such reports have been provided, and our original
expectation that dealers would comply with manufacturers' plans has
proven accurate.
    Accordingly, we estimate 22 burden hours a year will be spent
complying with the tire recall campaign requirements found in 49 CFR
573.6(c)(9).
    The agency continues to estimate 1 burden hour annually will be
spent preparing and submitting reports of a defective or noncompliant
tire being intentionally sold or leased under 49 U.S.C. 30166(n) and
its implementing regulation at 49 CFR 573.10.
    We continue to expect that nine vehicle manufacturers, who did not
operate VIN-based recalls lookup systems prior to August 2013, incur
certain recurring burdens on an annual basis. We continue to estimate
that 100 burden hours will be spent on system and database
administrator support. These 100 burden hours include: Backup data
management and monitoring; database management, updates, and log
management; and data transfer, archiving, quality assurance, and
cleanup procedures. We continue to estimate another 100 burden hours
will be incurred on web/application developer support. These burdens
include: Operating system and security patch management; application/
web server management; and application server system and log files
management. We continue to estimate these burdens will total 1,800
hours each year (9 MFRs x 200 hours). We also continue to estimate the
recurring costs of these burden hours will be $30,000 per
manufacturer.\6\ Furthermore, we continue to estimate that the total
cost to the industry from these recurring expenses will total $270,000,
on an annual basis (9 MFRs x $30,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ $8,000 (for data center hosting for the physical server) +
$12,000 (for system and database administrator support) + $10,000
(for web/application developer support) = $30,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes to 49 CFR part 573 in 2013 required 27 manufacturers to
update each recalled vehicle's repair status no less than every 7 days,
for 15 years from the date the VIN is known to be included in the
recall. This ongoing requirement to update the status of a VIN for 15
years continues to add a recurring burden on top of the one-time burden
to implement and operate these online search tools. We continue to
estimate that 8 affected motorcycle manufacturers will make recalled
VINs available for an average of 2 recalls each year and 19 affected
passenger-vehicle manufacturers will make recalled VINs available for
an average of 8 recalls each year. We believe it will take no more

than 1 hour, and potentially less with automated systems, to update the
VIN status of vehicles that have been remedied under the manufacturer's
remedy program. We continue to estimate this will require 8,736 burden
hours per year (1 hour x 2 recalls x 52 weeks x 8 MFRs + 1 hour x 8
recalls x 52 weeks x 19 MFRs) to support the requirement to update the
recalls completion status of each VIN in a recall at least weekly for
15 years.
    As the number of Part 573 Recall Reports has increased in recent
years, so has the number of quarterly reports that track the completion
of safety recalls. Our previous estimate of 4,498 quarterly reports
received annually is now revised upwards to 5,512 quarter reports
received annually. We continue to estimate it takes manufacturers 1
hour to gather the pertinent information for each quarterly report, and
10 additional hours for the 17 major passenger-vehicle manufacturers to
submit electronic reports. We therefore now estimate that the quarterly
reporting burden pursuant to Part 573 totals 5,682 hours ((5,512
quarterly reports x 1 hour/report) + (17 MFRs x 10 hours for electronic
submission)).
    We continue to estimate a small burden of 2 hours annually in order
to set up a manufacturer's online recalls portal account with the
pertinent contact information and maintaining/updating their account
information as needed. We estimate this will require a total of 498
hours annually (2 hours x 249 MFRs).
    We continue to estimate that 20 percent of Part 573 reports will
involve a change or addition regarding recall components, and that at
two hours per amended report, this totals 396 burden hours per year
(988 recalls x .20 = 193 recalls; 198 x 2 = 396 hours).
    As to the requirement that manufacturers notify NHTSA in the event
of a bankruptcy, we expect this notification to take an estimated 2
hours to draft and submit to NHTSA. We continue to estimate that only
10 manufacturers might submit such a notice to NHTSA each year, so we
calculate the total burden at 20 hours (10 MFRs x 2 hours).
    We continue to estimate that it takes the 17 major passenger-
vehicle manufacturers an average of 11 hours to draft their
notification letters, submit them to NHTSA for review, and then
finalize them for mailing to their affected owners and purchasers. We
also continue to estimate it takes 8 hours for all other manufacturers
to perform this task. Accordingly, we estimate that the 49 CFR part 577
requirements result in 8,852 burden hours annually (11 hours per recall
x 316 recalls per year) + (8 hours per recall x 672 recalls per year).
    The burden estimate associated with the regulation that requires
interim owner notifications within 60 days of filing a Part 573 Safety
Recall Report must be revised upward. We previously calculated that
about 12 percent of past recalls require an interim notification
mailing, but recent trends show that 13 percent of recalls require an
interim owner notification mailing. We continue to estimate the
preparation of an interim notification can take up to 10 hours. We
therefore estimate that 1,250 burden hours are associated with the 60-
day interim notification requirement (963 recalls x .13 = 125 recalls;
125 recalls times 10 hours per recall = 1,250 hours).
    As for costs associated with notifying owners and purchasers of
recalls, to reflect an increase in postage rates, we are revising our
estimate of the cost of first-class mail notification to $1.53 per
notification, on average. This cost estimate includes the costs of
printing and mailing, as well as the costs vehicle manufacturers may
pay to third-party vendors to acquire the names and addresses of the
current registered owners from state and territory departments of motor
vehicles. In reviewing recent recall figures, we determined that an
estimated 51.4 million letters are mailed yearly totaling $78,642,000
($1.53 per letter x 51,400,000 letters). The requirement in 49 CFR part
577 for a manufacturer to notify their affected customers within 60
days would add an additional $10,223,460 (51,400,000 letters x .13
requiring interim owner notifications = 6,682,000 letters; 6,682,000 x
$1.53 = $10,023,000). In total, we estimate that the current 49 CFR
part 577 requirements cost manufacturers a total of $88,865,460
annually ($78,642,000 for owner notification letters + $10,223,460 for
interim notification letters = $88,865,460).
    As discussed above, to address the scope and complexity of the
Takata recalls, NHTSA issued the ACRO, which requires affected vehicle
manufacturers to conduct supplemental owner notification efforts in
coordination with NHTSA and the Independent Monitor of Takata. On
December 23, 2016, the Monitor, in consultation with NHTSA, issued
Coordinated Communications Recommendations for vehicle owner outreach
(``CCRs''), which includes a recommendation that vehicle manufacturers
provide at least one form of consumer outreach per month for vehicles
in a launched recall campaign (i.e., a recall where parts are
available) until the vehicle is remedied (unless otherwise accounted
for as scrapped, stolen, exported, or otherwise unreachable under
certain procedures in the ACRO). See CCRs ] 1(b); ACRO ]] 45-46. The
Monitor also recommended that manufacturers utilize at least three non-
traditional means of communication (e.g., postcards; email; telephone
calls; text message; social media) as part of their overall outreach
strategy. See CCRs ] 1(a). And the Monitor recommended including
certain content in these communications, including certain safety-risk
information. See id. ] 2. If a vehicle manufacturer does not wish to
follow the Monitor's recommendations, the ACRO permits the manufacturer
to propose an alternative communication strategy to NHTSA and the
Monitor.
    Two comments were submitted after the previous publication of the
30-day notice and request for comment on the renewal of this
information collection. See NHTSA Docket 2016-0065. One commenter
submitted only a general comment with no reference to the substance of
the notice. The other comment, filed by the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers (hereinafter
``A&G''), responded to several facets of the notice.
    In brief summary, A&G commented that it believes the investigatory
exception to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) does not apply to the
Takata Coordinated Remedy Order--characterizing any relevant
investigation as one against Takata, not the affected automakers--and
that NHTSA should therefore account for additional cost burdens under
the ACRO beyond the monthly outreach recommended under the CCRs. See
Comments at 3-4. A&G further commented that it believes NHTSA should
supplement the record with the following: additional cost-burden
analysis, because NHTSA's estimate ``underappreciates'' what the ACRO
contemplates; a Part B submission to account for Independent Monitor-
conducted surveys and other activities; and additional data on the
``practical utility'' of supplemental non-traditional outreach. See
Comments at 4-6. A&G also commented that it disagrees with NHTSA's
discounting of its cost estimates based on recent vehicle manufacturer
settlement agreements in multi-district litigation proceedings because
the ACRO predates MDL settlement obligations ``and would have existed
in the absence of the litigation settlements.'' Comments at 7.
    NHTSA has carefully considered these comments and recognizes the
challenges involved in the Takata recalls, particularly with respect to

estimating per-VIN outreach costs-- populations change and, with those
changes, the methods necessary and appropriate to engage those
populations also change. See Comments at 4. Before modifying the
approach to its estimates, NHTSA would benefit of from the
consideration of any additional information that may be available, and
would invite further public comment on such estimates. The Agency also
recognizes and appreciates A&G's additional comments and concerns as
described above, and similarly invites further public comment on the
issues A&G identifies.
    To account for the progression of the recalls since its last
notice, NHTSA is revising its previous estimates associated with this
part of the collection. NHTSA continues to estimate a yearly average of
19 manufacturers will be issuing monthly supplemental communications
over the next three years pursuant to the ACRO and the CCRs.
Manufacturers may satisfy the CCRs through third-party vendors (which
have been utilized by many manufacturers), in-house strategies, or some
combination thereof. NHTSA estimates the cost for supplemental
communications at $2.00 per VIN per month.
    The volume of outreach required by the ACRO and the CCRs (and the
costs associated with that outreach) is a function of the number of
unrepaired vehicles that are in a launched campaign and are not
otherwise accounted for as scrapped, stolen, exported, or otherwise
unreachable. The schedule in Paragraph 35 of the ACRO delineates the
expected remedy completion rate, by quarter, of vehicles in a launched
remedy campaign.
    Utilizing these variables, we now estimate an initial annualized
cost over the next three years of $203,776,494 per year, with an
annualized discount of $86,724,071 to account for outreach conducted
pursuant to the MDL settlement agreements by six vehicle manufacturers,
for a net annualized cost of $117,052,423. NHTSA continues to estimate
that manufacturers will take an average of 2 hours each month drafting
or customizing supplemental recall communications utilizing non-
traditional means, submitting them to NHTSA for review, and finalizing
them to send to affected owners and purchasers. NHTSA therefore
estimates that 456 burden hours annually are associated with issuing
these supplemental recall communications: 12 months x 2 hours per month
x 19 manufacturers = 456 hours.
    Because of the forgoing burden estimates, we are revising the
burden estimate associated with this collection. The 49 CFR part 573
and 49 CFR part 577 requirements found in today's notice will require
64,510 hours each year. Additionally, manufacturers impacted by 49 CFR
part 573 and 49 CFR part 577 requirements will incur a recurring annual
cost estimated at $89,135,460 total. The burden estimate in this
collection contemplated for conducting supplemental recall
communications under administrative order to achieve completion of the
Takata recalls is 456 hours each year. Additionally, that
administrative order contemplates impacted manufacturers incurring an
annual cost estimated at $117,052,423. Therefore, in total, we estimate
the burden associated with this collection to be 64,966 hours each
year, with a recurring annual cost estimated at $204,175,423. NHTSA
welcomes further comment and data on these estimates.

Estimated Number of Respondents--

    NHTSA estimates that there will be approximately 249 manufacturers
per year filing defect or noncompliance reports and completing the
other information collection responsibilities associated with those
filings. NHTSA estimates there will be an average of 19 manufacturers
each year conducting supplemental nontraditional monthly outreach
pursuant to administrative order in an enforcement action associated
with the Takata recall.

Jeffrey Mark Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2019-12313 Filed 6-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 22 (Friday, February 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 1260]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00590]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84992; SR-CboeEDGX-2018-049]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Complex Reserve Order
Functionality

 January 28, 2019.
    On November 8, 2018, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to adopt Complex
Reserve Order functionality. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on November 27, 2018.\3\ On December
19, 2018, the Commission extended the time period within which to
approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove
the proposed rule change to February 25, 2019.\4\ The Commission
received no comment letters regarding the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84642 (November 21,
2018), 83 FR 60911.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84868, 83 FR 66800
(December 27, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 9, 2019, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change
(SR-CboeEDGX-2018-049).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-00590 Filed 1-31-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22689-22690]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09934]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 32634; File No. 812-14467]

Aspiriant Trust, et al.

May 11, 2017.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notice of an application for an order under section 12(d)(1)(J) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from
sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act; under sections 6(c) and
17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (2) of the
Act; and under section 6(c) of the Act for an exemption from rule 12d1-
2(a) under the Act. The requested order would: (a) Permit certain
registered open-end investment companies to acquire shares of certain
registered open-end investment companies, registered closed-end
investment companies, business development companies, as defined in
section 2(a)(48) of the Act, and unit investment trusts (collectively,
``Underlying Funds'') that are within and outside the same group of
investment companies as the acquiring investment companies, in excess
of the limits in section 12(d)(1) of the Act; and (b) permit certain
registered open-end management investment companies relying on rule
12d1-2 under the Act to invest in certain financial instruments.
    Applicants: Aspiriant Trust, a Delaware statutory trust that is
registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company
with multiple series; Aspiriant, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company that is registered as an investment adviser under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940; and UMB Distribution Services, LLC, a
Wisconsin limited liability company that is registered as a broker-
dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is a member of the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on May 20, 2015, and
amended on September 3, 2015, March 16, 2016, September 26, 2016,
September 27, 2016, and March 13, 2017.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission

by 5:30 p.m. on June 5, 2017 and should be accompanied by proof of
service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for
lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act,
hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any
facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the
reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to
be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Benjamin D. Schmidt,
Aspiriant, LLC, 1111 East Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 1700, Milwaukee, WI
53202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kieran G. Brown, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6773, or David Marcinkus, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Summary of the Application

    1. Applicants request an order to permit (a) each Fund \1\ (each a
``Fund of Funds'') to acquire shares of Underlying Funds \2\ in excess
of the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (C) of the Act and (b) each
Underlying Fund, any principal underwriter for the Underlying Fund, and
any broker or dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 to sell shares of the Underlying Fund to a Fund of Funds, in
excess of the limits in section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act.\3\ Applicants
also request an order of exemption under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the
Act from the prohibition on certain affiliated transactions in section
17(a) of the Act to the extent necessary to permit the Underlying Funds
to sell their shares to, and redeem their shares from, the Funds of
Funds.\4\ Applicants state that such transactions will be consistent
with the policies of each Fund of Funds and each Underlying Fund and
with the general purposes of the Act and will be based on the net asset
values of the Underlying Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request that the order apply to each existing and
future series of Aspiriant Trust and to each existing and future
registered open-end investment company or series thereof that is
advised by Aspiriant, LLC or its successor or by any entity
controlling, controlled by or under common control with Aspiriant,
LLC or its successor and is part of the same ``group of investment
companies'' as Aspiriant Trust (each, a ``Fund''). Applicants
further request that the order also apply to any future principal
underwriter and distributor for a Fund. For purposes of the
requested order, ``successor'' is limited to an entity that results
from a reorganization into another jurisdiction or a change in the
type of business organization. For purposes of the request for
relief, the term ``group of investment companies'' means any two or
more registered investment companies, including closed-end
investment companies, and business development companies, that hold
themselves out to investors as related companies for purposes of
investment and investor services.
    \2\ Certain of the Underlying Funds have obtained exemptions
from the Commission necessary to permit their shares to be listed
and traded on a national securities exchange at negotiated prices
and, accordingly, to operate as an exchange-traded fund (``ETF'').
    \3\ Applicants are not requesting relief for a Fund of Funds to
invest in business development companies and registered closed-end
investment companies that are not listed on a national securities
exchange.
    \4\ Applicants note that a Fund of Funds generally would
purchase and sell shares of an Underlying Fund that operates as an
ETF, closed-end fund, or business development company through
secondary market transactions rather than through principal
transactions with the Underlying Fund. Applicants nevertheless
request relief from sections 17(a)(1) and (2) to permit each Fund of
Funds that is an affiliated person, or an affiliated person of an
affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of an
ETF, closed-end fund, or business development company to purchase or
redeem shares from the ETF or to acquire shares from the closed-end
fund or business development company in connection with an
underwritten initial or follow-on offering made by such closed-end
fund or business development company as described in the
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Applicants further request an exemption under section 6(c) from
rule 12d1-2 under the Act to permit any Fund that relies on section
12(d)(1)(G) of the Act (``Section 12(d)(1)(G) Fund'') and that
otherwise complies with rule 12d1-2 under the Act, to also invest, to
the extent consistent with its investment objective, policies,
strategies and limitations, in financial instruments that may not be
securities within the meaning of section 2(a)(36) of the Act (``Other
Investments'').
    3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief
will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application.
Such terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help
prevent any potential (i) undue influence over an Underlying Fund that
is not in the same ``group of investment companies'' as the Fund of
Funds through control or voting power, or in connection with certain
services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of
fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns
underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act.
Applicants assert that permitting a Section 12(d)(1)(G) Fund to invest
in Other Investments as described in the application would not raise
any of the concerns that section 12(d)(1) of the Act was intended to
address.
    3. Section 12(d)(1)(J) 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 provision of section
12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and
the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the
Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise
prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the
proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve
overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed
transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered
investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is
consistent with the general purposes of the Act. Section 6(c) of the
Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from
any provision of the Act 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.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09934 Filed 5-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13865-13866]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06562]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0253]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lake Washington Ship Canal,
Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Fremont Bridge, mile 2.6, and the
University Bridge, mile 4.3, both crossing the Lake Washington Ship
Canal at Seattle, WA. The deviation is necessary to accommodate the
Tenacious Ten run event. This deviation allows the bridges to remain in
the closed-to-navigation position to allow for the safe movement of
event participants.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. on April
21, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0253 is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge
Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Seattle Department of Transportation,
bridge owner, requested a temporary deviation from the operating
schedule for the Fremont Bridge, mile 2.6, and the University Bridge,
mile 4.3, both crossing the Lake Washington Ship Canal at Seattle, WA,
to facilitate safe passage of participants in the Tenacious Ten run
event. The Fremont Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 14 feet (31
feet of vertical clearance for the center 36 horizontal feet) in the
closed-to-navigation position. The University Bridge provides a
vertical clearance of 30 feet in the closed-to-navigation position.
Both bridge clearances are referenced to the mean water elevation of
Lake Washington. The normal operating schedule for both the Fremont
Bridge and the University Bridge is in 33 CFR 117.1051. During this
deviation period, the Fremont Bridge need not open to marine vessels
from 8:15 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. on April 21, 2018, and the University
Bridge need not open to marine vessel from 8 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. on April
21, 2018. Waterway usage on the Lake Washington Ship Canal ranges from
commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridges in the closed-to-
navigation positions may do so at any time. Both bridges will be able
to open for emergencies, and there is no immediate alternate route for
vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the
waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the
change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange
their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary
deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), both drawbridges must return
to their regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the
designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations
is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: March 21, 2018.
Steven M. Fischer,
Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-06562 Filed 3-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81708-81709]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32578]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Decision To Issue Buy American Waivers for Foreign
Object Debris (FOD) Detection Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On August 5, 2010, the FAA published a notice in the Federal
Register advising manufacturers of Foreign Object Debris (FOD)
detection equipment that it was considering issuing waivers to Buy
American requirements of 49 USC 50101 to foreign manufacturers of FOD
detection equipment (Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 150/Thursday, August
5, 2010/Notices, page 47344) The FAA has determined that two
manufacturers with products containing 60% or more U.S. content and
U.S. final assembly are able to produce sufficient and reasonable
amounts of FOD detection equipment meeting the requirements of FAA
Advisory Circular 150/5220-24. Subsequently, the FAA will issue Buy
American Waivers based on the 60% U.S. content and U.S. final assembly.
The FAA will not issue any Buy American Waivers based on insufficient
quantity to foreign manufacturers.

DATES: This notice becomes effective December 28, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Frank San Martin, Manager,
Airports Financial Assistance, APP 500, Room 620, FAA, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 30, 2009 the FAA published
Advisory Circular 150/5220-24, Airport Foreign Object Debris (FOD)
detection equipment, detailing system requirements at airports.
However, while developing this Advisory Circular the FAA tested
equipment from a variety of FOD detection equipment manufacturers,
including some manufacturers from outside of the United States.
Compliance with the Buy American requirements (49 U.S.C. 50101) is
required for projects funded under the Airport Improvement Program
(AIP). To determine if there were any U.S. manufacturers that can
produce sufficient and reasonable amounts of stationary FOD detection
systems; the FAA issued a notice in the Federal Register on August 5,
2010 requesting information from both domestic and foreign
manufacturers producing FOD detection equipment (75 FR 47344).
    Following the Federal Register notice the FAA received information
from five companies indicating that they manufacturer stationary FOD
detection equipment meeting the requirements of Advisory Circular 150/
5220-24. The five companies were: Trex Aviation Systems, which is based
in San Diego, CA; QinetiQ Ltd., which is based in the United Kingdom
but has a manufacturing facility in Massachusetts; Stratech Systems
Limited, which is based in Singapore; Magna BSP Ltd., which is based in
Israel; Rheinmetall Italia S.P.A., which is based in Italy; and X-Sight
Systems Inc., which is based in Israel.
    Based on the information received the FAA identified two companies
manufacturing stationary FOD detection systems in the United States:
Trex Aviation Systems and QinetiQ. Although both Trex Aviation Systems
and QinetiQ produce their FOD

detection systems in the United States their systems do not fully meet
the Buy American content requirements, which require that the product
be manufactured with one hundred percent U.S. components and
subcomponents (49 U.S.C. 50101). As a result the FAA will issue a
Nationwide Buy American Waiver for the Trex Aviation Systems' FOD
Finder XF and QinetiQ's Tarsier FOD System based on the 60% U.S.
content and U.S. final assembly waiver permitted in 49 U.S.C.
50101(b)(3). With the presence of these two manufacturers in the United
States the FAA has determined there is sufficient quantity and
consequently there is no justification for issuing any Buy American
Waivers to foreign manufacturers based on insufficient quantity at this
time. In the past the FAA has concluded that when there are two or more
manufacturers in a particular market sufficient quantity may exist; as
concluded in the Buy American Waiver determinations related to
Automated Weather Observing Systems (AWOS) and airfield lighting
equipment.
    While the FAA is not at this time issuing any Buy American Waivers
to foreign manufacturers, if in the future these foreign companies
begin assembly in the United States and can meet the 60% U.S. content
and U.S. final assembly waiver requirement under 49 U.S.C. 0101(b)(3)
the FAA will reevaluate their status.
    This ``Nationwide Waiver'' will allow Trex Aviation Systems' FOD
Finder XF and QinetiQ's Tarsier FOD System to be used on AIP funded
projects without having to receive separate waivers for each project.
Having a nationwide waiver enables projects to start quickly without
having to wait for the Buy American analysis to be completed for every
project, while still assuring the funds used for airport projects under
the statute are being directed to manufacturers that meet the Buy
American requirements. A complete list of items that have been granted
a Nationwide Buy American Waiver can be found on the FAA Web site at
http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/procurement/federal_contract_provisions/ at the tab entitled, Equipment Meeting Buy American
Requirements.

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 17, 2010.
Frank San Martin,
Manager, Airports Financial Assistance Branch.
[FR Doc. 2010-32578 Filed 12-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 67 (Friday, April 9, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18447-18449]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07300]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0307]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Christiansted Harbor, St. Croix, USVI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a permanent safety zone for
certain waters of the Christiansted Harbor, St. Croix, United States
Virgin Islands when liquefied gas carriers are in transit to, moored,
or are departing from the Virgin Island Water and Power Authority
(WAPA) dock. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life
on these navigable waters near the WAPA dock. This rule prohibits
persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port San Juan or a designated representative. This
action is necessary to better meet the safety and security needs of the
Port of San Juan.

DATES: This rule is effective May 10, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2020-0307 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Randy Johnston, Sector San Juan Prevention Department,
Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 787-729-
2380, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
LG Liquefied Gas
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
USVI United States Virgin Islands

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On May 28, 2020, Small Boat Station San Juan recommended Sector San
Juan establish a permanent safety zone in Christiansted Harbor, St.
Croix, United States Virgin Islands (USVI), where they routinely
perform escorts of liquefied gas (LG) carriers. In response, on
November 2, 2020, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Safety Zones; Christiansted Harbor, St.
Croix, USVI'' (85 FR 69301). There we stated why we issued the NPRM,
and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to the
safety zone. During the comment period that ended December 2, 2020, we
received no comments.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port San Juan
(COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the
transit and cargo operation of LG carriers would be a safety concern
for anyone within a one-half mile of LG carriers during transit and
within a 50-yard radius while LG carriers are moored at the Virgin
Island Water and Power Authority (WAPA) dock. The purpose of this
rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters
during the escort and cargo operation of LG carriers.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published on
November 2, 2020. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this
rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
    This rule establishes a permanent moving safety zone in
Christiansted Harbor, St. Croix, USVI, where Coast Guard assets
routinely perform escorts of LG carriers. This rule establishes a
moving safety zone of one-half mile around any transiting LG carrier,
beginning at Christiansted Harbor Lighted Buoy #1 and ending when the
LG Carrier moors at the WAPA dock. Once moored there will be a 50-yard
radius safety zone around the LG carrier. Additionally, a moving safety
zone is established on the waters around LG carriers departing
Christiansted Harbor in an area one-half mile around each vessel
beginning at the Virgin Island Water and Power Authority (WAPA) dock
when the vessel gets underway, and continuing until the stern passes
the Christiansted Harbor Lighted Buoy #1. No vessel or person is
permitted to enter the safety zones without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
available exceptions to the enforcement of the safety zone, and notice
to mariners. The regulated area will impact small designated areas of
navigable channels within Christiansted Harbor, St. Croix, USVI. The
rule will allow vessels to seek permission to enter, transit through,
anchor in, or remain within the safety zone. Additionally,
notifications to the marine community will be made through Local Notice
to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16,
and on-scene representatives. The notifications will allow the public
to plan operations around the affected areas.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone covering the transit and mooring of liquefied gas carriers
that would prohibit entry within one-half mile. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A,
Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.789 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.789  Safety Zone; Christiansted Harbor, St. Croix, USVI.

    (a) Regulated area. (1) A moving safety zone is established on the
waters around liquefied gas carriers entering Christiansted Harbor in
an area one-half mile around each vessel, beginning one mile north of
the Christiansted Harbor Lighted Buoy #1, in approximate position
17[deg]46'48'' N, 064[deg]41'48'' W, and continuing until the vessel is
moored at the Virgin Island Water and Power Authority (WAPA) dock in
approximate position 17[deg]45'06'' N, 064[deg]42'50'' W. All
coordinates are North American Datum 1983.
    (2) The waters around liquefied gas carriers in a 50-yard radius
around each vessel when moored at the WAPA dock.
    (3) A moving safety zone is established on the waters around
liquefied gas carriers departing Christiansted Harbor in an area one-
half mile around each vessel beginning at the WAPA dock in approximate
position 17[deg]45'06'' N, 064[deg]42'50'' W when the vessel gets
underway, and continuing until the stern passes the Christiansted
Harbor Lighted Buoy #1, in approximate position 17[deg]45'48'' N,
064[deg]41'48'' W.
    (b) Regulations. (1) No person or vessel may enter, transit, or
remain in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
San Juan, Puerto Rico, or a designated Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer. Those operating in the safety zone with the
Captain of the Port's authorization must comply with all lawful orders
or directions given to them by the Captain of the Port or a designated
representative.
    (2) Vessels encountering emergencies, which require transit through
the safety zones, should contact the Coast Guard patrol craft or Duty
Officer on VHF Channel 16. In the event of an emergency, the Coast
Guard patrol craft may authorize a vessel to transit through the safety
zones with a Coast Guard designated escort.
    (3) The Captain of the Port and the Duty Officer at Sector San
Juan, Puerto Rico, can be contacted at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Coast Guard Patrol Commander enforcing the safety zones can be
contacted on VHF-FM channels 16 and 22A.
    (4) Coast Guard Sector San Juan will, when necessary and
practicable, notify the maritime community of periods during which the
safety zone will be in effect by providing advance notice of scheduled
arrivals and departure of cruise ships via a Marine Broadcast Notice to
Mariners.
    (5) All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of
on-scene patrol personnel. On-scene patrol personnel include
commissioned, warrant, or petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. Coast
Guard Auxiliary and local or state officials may be present to inform
vessel operators of the requirements of this section, and other
applicable laws.

    Dated: April 6, 2021.
Gregory H. Magee,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Juan.
[FR Doc. 2021-07300 Filed 4-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 31, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48488-48490]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18703]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0128; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01406-T;
Amendment 39-21687; AD 2021-17-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus SAS Model A321-211, -231, and -232 airplanes. This AD
was prompted by a report of false drill starts found around the latch
hook mounting holes of certain door frames of the fuselage due to
erroneous manufacturing processes. This AD requires a one-time
inspection of the area around the latch hook mounting holes of the
forward and aft door frames to detect damage from false drill starts,
and repair if necessary, as specified in a European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 5, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 5,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material 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<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in
the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0128.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0128; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0222, dated October 14, 2020
(EASA AD 2020-0222) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for certain Airbus SAS Model A321-211, -231, and -232 airplanes.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS
Model A321-211, -231, and -232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on March 8, 2021 (86 FR 13229). The NPRM was prompted
by a report of false drill starts found around the latch hook mounting
holes of certain door frames of the fuselage due to erroneous
manufacturing processes. The NPRM proposed to require a one-time
inspection of the area around the latch hook mounting holes of the
forward and aft door frames to detect damage from false drill starts,
and repair if necessary, as specified in EASA AD 2020-0222.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address damage from false drill
starts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comment received
on the NPRM and the FAA's response.

Request To Add Exceptions

    Delta Air Lines (DAL) asked that the FAA add an exception to
paragraph (h) of the proposed AD as follows: (1) Require inspections
and corrective action, if applicable, on all airplanes having
manufacturer serial numbers (MSN's) identified in the applicability,
regardless of ``affected'' part numbers referenced in EASA AD 2020-
0222; or (2) Add a clarification that if ``affected parts'' are not
found, no inspection is required where a frame replacement has occurred
on an affected frame location, and the potential manufacturing defect
has been removed because there would be a new part number designation
for the spliced area and the airplane could be considered as no longer
be affected.
    The FAA does not agree with the commenter's request. EASA AD 2020-
0222 is applicable to specific airplane MSNs, with an assertion that
the current configuration continues to be installed with the part
numbers that are described in EASA AD 2020-0222 as ``affected part
numbers.'' The FAA does not have any information provided by EASA that
there are potential configurations that have EASA-approved
modifications that are exempt from the unsafe condition. If the MSN
configuration DAL referred to does not include those ``affected part
numbers,'' then there is no corresponding action for those airplanes,
in accordance with the requirements in this AD. The FAA has not changed
this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    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.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0222 describes procedures for a one-time detailed
inspection of the area around the latch hook mounting holes of the
forward and aft door frames to detect damage from false drill starts,
and repair of any damage found. 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 ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 21 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                     Estimated Costs for Required Actions *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 work-hours x $85 per hour = $1,190........................              $0           $1,190          $24,990
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table does not include estimated costs for reporting.

    The FAA estimates that it takes about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the reporting requirement in this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the
cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S. operators to be
$1,785, or $85 per product.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition repairs that are required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these on-condition repairs:

                                     Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Labor cost                     Parts cost                     Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 42 work-hours x $85 per hour = Up to              $0 *  Up to $3,570 (per door).
 $3,570 (per door).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the parts cost estimates for the on-condition repairs
  specified in this AD.

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for
affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs
in the cost estimate.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in
the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for
reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with
this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden
and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation
Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    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.

Regulatory Findings

    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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2021-17-04 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-21687; Docket No. FAA-2021-0128;
Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01406-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective October 5, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A321-211, -231, and -232
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0222, dated October 14,
2020 (EASA AD 2020-0222).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of false drill starts found
around the latch hook mounting holes of certain door frames of the
fuselage due to erroneous manufacturing processes. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address damage from false drill starts, which
could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2020-0222.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0222

    (1) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0222 specifies to report
inspection results to Airbus within a certain compliance time. For
this AD, report inspection results at the applicable time specified
in paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (ii) of this AD.
    (i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the inspection.
    (ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the effective date
of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0222 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, 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 responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this
AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.
    (4) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement: A federal agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond
to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1
hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
All responses to this collection of information are mandatory as
required by this AD. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or
any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (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) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0222,
dated October 14, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2020-0222, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material 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<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0128.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on August 7, 2021.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-18703 Filed 8-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P