Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 248 / Monday, December 28, 2020 / Notices 84465 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2019–0141] 

Pipeline Safety; Information Collection 

Activities 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice 

announces that the information 

collection request abstracted below is 

being forwarded to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and comment. PHMSA will 

request a revision to PHMSA F 7000–1 

Accident Report—Hazardous Liquid 

Pipeline Systems identified by OMB 

control number 2137–0047. A Federal 

Register notice soliciting comments on 

this information collection was 

published on March 9, 2020, (85 FR 

13700). PHMSA received comments 

which are summarized below. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before January 27, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. You can find this information 

collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under 

30-day Review—Open for Public 

Comments’’ or by using the search 

function. 

Confidential Business Information 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) is commercial or financial 

information that is both customarily and 

actually treated as private by its owner. 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt 

from public disclosure. If your 

comments responsive to this notice 

contain commercial or financial 

information that is customarily treated 

as private, that you actually treat as 

private, and that is relevant or 

responsive to this notice, it is important 

that you clearly designate the submitted 

comments as CBI. Pursuant to 49 CFR 

190.343, you may ask PHMSA to give 

confidential treatment to information 

you give to the agency by taking the 

following steps: (1) Mark each page of 

the original document submission 

containing CBI as ‘‘Confidential’’; (2) 

send PHMSA, along with the original 

document, a second copy of the original 

document with the CBI deleted; and (3) 

explain why the information you are 

submitting is CBI. Unless you are 

notified otherwise, PHMSA will treat 

such marked submissions as 

confidential under the FOIA, and they 

will not be placed in the public docket 

of this notice. Submissions containing 

CBI should be sent to Angela Hill, DOT, 

PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

PHP–30, Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

Any commentary PHMSA receives that 

is not specifically designated as CBI will 

be placed in the public docket for this 

matter. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information regarding this notice 

contact Angela Hill, Transportation 

Specialist, by telephone at 202–366– 

1246, or by email at Angela.Hill@

dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 1320.8(d), title 5, Code of 

Federal Regulations, requires PHMSA to 

provide interested members of the 

public and affected entities an 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection and recordkeeping requests. 

This notice identifies proposed changes 

to an information collection that 

PHMSA will submit to OMB for 

approval. To streamline and improve 

the data collection processes, PHMSA is 

revising the form and instructions for 

PHMSA F 7000–1 Accident Report— 

Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems for 

hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide 

pipeline operators. 

In response to the March 9, 2020, 

Federal Register notice and request for 

comment (85 FR 13700), PHMSA 

received comments from the Institute 

for Policy Integrity at New York 

University School of Law (Policy 

Integrity), from the American Petroleum 

Institute (API), and the Association of 

Oil Pipe Lines (AOPL). Comments 

recommending changes, organized by 

topic area, are summarized and 

addressed below: 

1. Change Form Name: PHMSA 

received no comments pertaining to this 

change. 

2. Time Zone and Daylight Savings: 

PHMSA received no comments 

pertaining to this change. 

3. Operational Status: API/AOPL 

requested clarification of the phrase 

‘‘operational status’’ and requested that 

PHMSA undertake a new rulemaking to 

correct an apparent discrepancy 

between PHMSA’s August 16, 2016, 

Advisory Bulletin titled, ‘‘Clarification 

of Terms Relating to Pipeline 

Operational Status’’ (81 FR 54512) and 

recently published frequently asked 

questions concerning PHMSA’s October 

1, 2019, Final Rule titled, ‘‘Safety of 

Hazardous Liquid Pipelines’’ (84 FR 

52260). As to ‘‘operational status’’, 

PHMSA has included a description of 

each choice for operational status in the 

instructions for PHMSA F 7000–1 to 

provide clarification. PHMSA routinely 

updates its data collection forms to align 

with the regulations. If there are any 

changes to the definitions related to 

operational status of pipelines in the 

future, PHMSA will revise the reports as 

necessary. 

4. Part A Reorganization and Detailed 

Questions About Accident Response: 

API/AOPL generally supported 

reorganizing Part A of the form, but 

recommended PHMSA clarify the term 

‘‘identified,’’ which is used in Part E. 

API/AOPL opined that responses to 

questions regarding the ‘‘identification’’ 

of a pipeline failure are not uniform due 

to a lack of guidance and definition of 

the term. API/AOPL requested that 

PHMSA align the term with ‘‘confirmed 

discovery,’’ as defined in the Code of 

Federal Regulations, which ‘‘means 

when it can be reasonably determined, 

based on information available to the 

operator at the time a reportable event 

has occurred, even if only based on a 

preliminary evaluation.’’ PHMSA notes 

that proposed question A13, ‘‘Local time 

operator identified failure’’, has been 

part of the report for many years and has 

not resulted in confusion. Further, the 

instructions provide guidance for 

properly determining the date and time 

identified in several scenarios. PHMSA 

will add date and time of ‘‘confirmed 

discovery’’ as a new question A20 since 

‘‘confirmed discovery’’ occurs either 

concurrent with identifying the failure 

or later. 

5. Multiple NRC Reports: API/AOPL 

proposed that PHMSA requires one 

master National Response Center (NRC) 

report that is linked to multiple NRC 

reports, arising from a single accident. 

Alternatively, API/AOPL proposed that 

PHMSA collect all the NRC report 

numbers for one accident in Part A6, 

allowing multiple numbers to be 

entered in one box, rather than create an 

additional question. API/AOPL also 

proposed that PHMSA provide 

instructions or guidance informing 

operators that this question includes the 

initial report and all subsequent reports. 

PHMSA has provided instructions 

making it clear that the initial NRC 

report is entered as a response to 

question A21b and all subsequent NRC 

reports are entered in response to 

question A21c. The response to question 

A21c is submitted via a text field so 

multiple NRC reports can be entered. 

PHMSA needs the initial NRC report 

number in a separate data field so it can 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
84466 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 248 / Monday, December 28, 2020 / Notices 

be stored as a number and used in 

analysis. 

6. Flow Control and Valve Closures: 

API/AOPL commented that the ‘‘current 

form provides adequate details on valve 

closures and shut-in response to an 

accident.’’ They opined that each 

accident is unique and response actions 

to address them may vary widely based 

on the pipeline system, the individual 

line affected, pipeline ROW versus 

facility release, etc. API/AOPL 

commented that the additional request 

for information regarding valve closures 

and shut-in responses on the form will 

likely result in several operators 

choosing ‘‘other’’ as a selection, which 

they say PHMSA is trying to avoid. 

Further, API/AOPL disagreed that 

adding more questions will allow 

stakeholders to understand the actions 

taken by the operator to control the flow 

of products while responding to an 

accident. They commented that 

additional questions may 

unintentionally cause confusion 

regarding which valve information to 

report. Finally, API/AOPL comment that 

PHMSA should distinguish between 

manual and remote-operated valves. 

PHMSA is proposing to collect data 

about the operator’s initial upstream 

and downstream actions to control the 

flow of product to the failure site. There 

are only two options—valve closure or 

a text field explaining the method of 

operation control implemented. There is 

no option for ‘‘other.’’ The form and 

instructions clearly indicate to report 

the initial method of flow control. When 

a valve closure is the initial method, the 

operator also identifies the type of 

valve. PHMSA recognizes that valve 

closure is not always the appropriate 

method of flow control, which is why 

‘‘operational control’’ was added. 

Finally, the terms ‘‘manual,’’ 

‘‘automatic,’’ and ‘‘remotely controlled’’ 

have been in the report for several years 

without raising any concerns or 

presenting issues in practice. These are 

commonly used terms familiar to the 

operators. PHMSA also offers a pipeline 

glossary including types of valves. 

7. Area of Accident: API/AOPL 

commented that clarity is needed 

regarding the term ‘‘underground.’’ 

They commented that PHMSA’s 

proposal may not accurately capture 

operators’ current processes. For 

instance, there may be locations on a 

pipeline that were originally buried but 

have become exposed over time, such as 

stream and ditch crossings, of which the 

operator is aware and manages as 

aboveground piping. API/AOPL 

commented that PHMSA should clarify 

the difference between underground 

and aboveground piping as it relates to 

an unforeseen loss of cover. They noted 

that the definition of underground 

should refer to the overall condition of 

the pipeline segment and not only the 

location where the accident occurred. 

PHMSA notes that the instructions 

provide definitions for both 

underground and aboveground pipe. 

The additional options under each 

provide more detail about the situations 

that should be reported for underground 

and aboveground pipe. PHMSA is 

collecting the data for the failure 

location, not for the overall pipeline 

segment. PHMSA also notes that this 

scenario, ‘‘pipelines that were originally 

buried but have become exposed over 

time—such as stream and ditch 

crossings—of which the operator is 

aware and manages as aboveground 

piping,’’ would be reported as 

aboveground and then specifying ‘‘in or 

spanning an open ditch.’’ Further, 

PHMSA notes that the form allows the 

selection of ‘‘other’’ after selecting either 

aboveground or underground to 

accommodate reporting in all possible 

scenarios. 

8. Date of Water Crossing Evaluation: 

API/AOPL commented that more 

clarification is needed regarding the 

term ‘‘evaluation.’’ PHMSA concurs that 

the term ‘‘engineering/risk evaluation’’ 

is not well defined and is removing it 

from the form. 

9. Outer Continental Shelf Regions: 

API/AOPL commented they are unclear 

as to what exactly will be required when 

reporting outer continental shelf (OCS) 

regions, as this information appears to 

currently be captured in Part B14 of the 

form. PHMSA currently captures OCS 

Area and Block Number as text fields. 

In the revision, PHMSA is also requiring 

one of the following to be reported: OCS 

Alaska, OCS Pacific, OCS Gulf of 

Mexico, or OCS Atlantic. In cases where 

OCS Area or Block Number are not 

recognized, PHMSA requires that the 

general area of the OCS accident be 

reported at a minimum. 

10. Item Involved and Age of Failed 

Item: API/AOPL suggested PHMSA 

retain the selection of ‘‘unknown’’ for 

items of which age cannot be 

ascertained. Regarding ‘‘other’’ as a 

selection for ‘‘item involved,’’ API/ 

AOPL suggested PHMSA change the 

option to ‘‘unknown’’ or ‘‘data not 

available.’’ PHMSA notes that the report 

has, and continues to, allow ‘‘unknown’’ 

as an option for both ‘‘date of 

manufacture’’ and ‘‘date of installation.’’ 

PHMSA sees no meaningful difference 

among ‘‘other,’’ ‘‘unknown,’’ and ‘‘data 

not available.’’ PHMSA plans to retain 

‘‘other’’ as the final option for ‘‘item 

involved.’’ 

11. Details About Consequences, 

Other injuries not requiring in-patient 

hospitalization: API/AOPL 

recommended that PHMSA provide the 

definition of injuries treated on-site or 

clarify whether operators should defer 

to the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration’s (OSHA) definition. 

Also, API/AOPL asked if the new 

categories of injuries will be classified 

as ‘‘Impacting People or the 

Environment’’ (IPE). PHMSA is 

requesting information in D10 for 

‘‘Estimated number of persons with 

injuries requiring treatment by EMTs at 

the site of accident.’’ This terminology 

is readily understood in the context of 

a pipeline failure. Operators should not 

use any OSHA definition as they apply 

to work-related injuries only. PHMSA 

does not plan to consider the two new 

categories of injuries when determining 

IPE. 

12. Details About Consequences, 

Volume of product consumed by fire: 

The Institute for Policy Integrity at New 

York University School of Law 

supported collecting ‘‘volume of 

product consumed by fire’’ to assess the 

social costs of accidents. API/AOPL 

argued that operators are unable to 

accurately determine or differentiate 

between the volume of product burned 

and the volume that evaporated. API/ 

AOPL recommended that PHMSA not 

duplicate oversight with the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and defer to the EPA’s jurisdiction 

under the Clean Air Act. PHMSA is 

requiring operators to estimate the 

volume of product consumed by fire. By 

gathering this data through accident 

reports, PHMSA enhances its regulatory 

cost and benefit estimates and improves 

its assessment of regulatory alternatives 

as required by the Executive Order 

12866. PHMSA is not duplicating 

oversight of EPA’s jurisdiction, rather 

PHMSA is complying with OMB’s 

Circular A–4, which advises agencies to 

‘‘monetize quantitative effects whenever 

possible’’ as required by Executive 

Order 12866. 

13. Details About Consequences, 

Number of building affected by the 

accident: API/AOPL requested that 

PHMSA use the same classification/ 

definition of building as prescribed in 

49 CFR 192.903. PHMSA notes that this 

code section does not include building 

classifications. PHMSA proposes two 

categories of buildings—commercial 

and residential. 

14. Establishing Maximum Pressure: 

API/AOPL asked that PHMSA rephrase 

the term ‘‘maximum pressure’’ to 

‘‘maximum operating pressure (MOP)’’ 

in accordance with 49 CFR 195.406. 

Also, API/AOPL requested the PHMSA 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 248 / Monday, December 28, 2020 / Notices 84467 

revise the form to ask whether the MOP 

was exceeded. Finally, API/AOPL 

opined that PHMSA should not seek 

MOP validity in the accident report and 

believes the information would be more 

appropriate in the National Pipeline 

Mapping System (NPMS) or the 

hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide 

annual report (Form F 7000.1–1). 

PHMSA has used MOP consistently 

throughout the accident report form and 

instructions. PHMSA’s data collection 

software will determine if MOP was 

exceeded and the degree of exceedance. 

PHMSA considers the ‘‘limiting factor 

establishing MOP’’ as a critical piece of 

data about the failure location. 

15. Length of Segment Isolated: API/ 

AOPL asked for clarification regarding 

the term ‘‘isolated.’’ PHMSA’s 

instructions clarify that this is only 

answered when the method of flow 

control is valve closure both upstream 

and downstream of the failure location. 

PHMSA will also add this clarification 

to the form. 

16. External Corrosion and Stray 

Current: API/AOPL do not object to 

additional details regarding stray 

current, however, they note this 

information is generally not available 

within the 30-day requirement for 

accident reports. PHMSA notes that 

operators can submit an original 

accident report without the information 

in 2a and 2b and submit a supplemental 

report once the information becomes 

available. 

17. Natural Force Damage Additional 

Sub-Cause: The API/AOPL do not 

believe that adding tree root damage to 

the form will significantly reduce the 

number of accidents reported as ‘‘Other 

Accident Cause.’’ PHMSA agrees that 

tree root damage to hazardous liquid 

pipelines may not significantly reduce 

the number of accidents reported as 

‘‘Other Accident Cause.’’ PHMSA seeks 

to collect consistent cause codes for all 

pipeline systems for ease of data 

analysis and realizes that some of the 

detailed cause codes may be more 

relevant to a specific pipeline system 

type. 

18. Excavation Details For All 

Excavation Damages: API/AOPL 

commented they are unclear as to what 

additional information will be collected 

for first- and second-party excavators. In 

the March 9, 2020 Notice, PHMSA 

incorrectly stated that data is collected 

only when the excavator is a third-party. 

In fact, the current accident report 

already collects data about all 

excavation damages. PHMSA now 

proposes to only collect data about the 

excavations in a structure matching the 

current Common Ground Alliance 

(CGA) Damage Information Reporting 

Tool (DIRT). PHMSA also proposes to 

add questions about exemptions from 

State damage prevention laws. 

19. State Damage Prevention Law 

Exemption: API/AOPL recommended 

that PHMSA keep the excavation 

questions consistent with the 

information collected on the DIRT form. 

PHMSA’s question on State Damage 

Prevention Law Exemption is not part of 

the CGA–DIRT and is applicable only to 

accidents where a third-party is 

identified as the cause of the accident. 

Data about exemptions is important to 

PHMSA and its State partners to assess 

instances where excavators have been 

exempted from notifying operators prior 

to excavating. 

20. Material Failure Cause Changes: 

API/AOPL objected to adding a question 

that collects post-construction pressure 

test values since original pressure test 

information is often missing or 

unavailable. Further, without more 

information, API/AOPL do not see the 

value in providing this data. PHMSA 

concurs and will remove the question. 

21. Additional Integrity Inspection 

Data: API/AOPL asked that PHMSA 

rephrase Part J ‘‘Integrity Inspection’’ to 

‘‘Successful Integrity Inspection’’ or 

‘‘Completed Integrity Inspection.’’ They 

noted this would ensure that operators 

only provide data on ILI tool runs that 

provided a consistent and complete data 

set. API/AOPL also asked PHMSA to 

add a list of direct assessment methods 

available to operators. 

PHMSA has renamed Part J from 

‘‘Integrity Inspections’’ to ‘‘Completed 

Integrity Inspections,’’ as suggested. 

PHMSA understands a ‘‘completed 

integrity inspection’’ to be when the tool 

has been successfully run and not when 

the remediation is completed. 

The form currently includes two 

options for the type of direct 

assessment—‘‘External Corrosion Direct 

Assessment’’ and ‘‘Other.’’ The selection 

for ‘‘Other’’ would include any ‘‘other 

technology’’ as determined by 

195.452(j)(5)(iv) or 195.452(c)(1)(i)(D). 

22. Contributing Factors: API/AOPL 

recommended that PHMSA modify Part 

K by adding an option for ‘‘no 

contributing factors’’ and emphasized 

that contributing factors are often not 

known until the completion of internal 

company analysis. PHMSA notes that 

making no selection in Part K is 

equivalent to ‘‘no contributing factors’’ 

and has not added the additional option 

recommended by API/AOPL. PHMSA 

will modify the form and instructions to 

emphasize that contributing factors are 

often not known until the completion of 

a root cause analysis. Supplemental 

reports are permitted as operators make 

determinations regarding contributing 

factors. 

The following information is provided 

for this information collection: (1) Title 

of the information collection; (2) OMB 

control number; (3) Current expiration 

date; (4) Type of request; (5) Abstract of 

the information collection activity; (6) 

Description of affected public; (7) 

Estimate of total annual reporting and 

recordkeeping burden; and (8) 

Frequency of collection. PHMSA will 

request a three-year term of approval for 

this information collection activity. 

PHMSA requests comments on the 

following information: 

1. Title: Transportation of Hazardous 

Liquids by Pipeline: Recordkeeping and 

Accident Reporting. 

OMB Control Number: 2137–0047. 

Current Expiration Date: 1/31/2023. 

Type of Request: Revision. 

Abstract: This information collection 

covers recordkeeping and accident 

reporting by hazardous liquid pipeline 

operators who are subject to 49 CFR part 

195. Section 195.50 specifies the 

definition of an ‘‘accident’’ and the 

reporting criteria for submitting a 

Hazardous Liquid Accident Report 

(form PHMSA F7000–1) is detailed in 

§ 195.54. PHMSA is proposing to revise 

the form and instructions for PHMSA 

F7000–1 for editorial and clarification 

purposes and to collect additional data. 

Currently, PHMSA estimates that 406 

Hazardous Liquid Accident Report 

forms are submitted each year with 

operators spending, on average, 10 

hours to complete each report. Due to 

the proposed changes, PHMSA expects 

the burden for completing each report to 

increase by 2 hours. This will result in 

an overall burden increase of 812 hours 

for this information collection. 

Affected Public: Hazardous liquid 

pipeline operators. 

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Burden: 

Annual Responses: 1,644. 

Annual Burden Hours: 53,504. 

Comments to Office of Management 

and Budget are invited on: 

(a) The need for the proposed 

information, including whether the 

information will have practical utility in 

helping the agency to achieve its 

pipeline safety goals; 

(b) The accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection; 

(c) Ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and 

(d) Ways to minimize the burden on 

those who are to respond, including the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
84468 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 248 / Monday, December 28, 2020 / Notices 

Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; 

and 49 CFR 1.48. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

16, 2020, under authority delegated in 49 

CFR 1.97. 

Alan K. Mayberry, 

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28481 Filed 12–23–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

Notice of OFAC Sanctions Action 

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the 

Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets 

Control (OFAC) is publishing the names 

of one or more individuals that have 

been placed on OFAC’s Specially 

Designated Nationals and Blocked 

Persons List (SDN List). OFAC has 

determined that one or more applicable 

legal criteria were satisfied to place the 

individuals on the SDN List. All 

property and interests in property 

subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these 

individuals are blocked, and U.S. 

persons are generally prohibited from 

engaging in transactions with them. 

DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section for applicable date(s). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

OFAC: Associate Director for Global 

Targeting, tel.: 202–622–2420; Assistant 

Director for Sanctions Compliance & 

Evaluation, tel.: 202–622–2490; 

Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 

202–622–2480; or Assistant Director for 

Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202–622–4855. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Availability 

The Specially Designated Nationals 

and Blocked Persons List and additional 

information concerning OFAC sanctions 

programs are available on OFAC’s 

website (www.treasury.gov/ofac). 

Notice of OFAC Action(s) 

On December 21, 2020, OFAC 

determined that the property and 

interests in property subject to U.S. 

jurisdiction of the following individuals 

are blocked under the relevant sanctions 

authorities listed below. 

Individuals: 

1. AGUILAR GARCIA, Marvin Ramiro, 

Altos de Motastepe Casa No 430, Managua, 

Nicaragua; DOB 10 Jan 1957; POB Chontales, 

Nicaragua; nationality Nicaragua; Gender 

Male; Passport A0008313 (Nicaragua) issued 

03 Jun 2009 expires 02 Jun 2014 (individual) 

[NICARAGUA]. 

Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of 

Executive Order 13851 of November 27, 

2018, ‘‘Blocking Property of Certain Persons 

Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua,’’ 

83 FR 61505, (‘‘E.O. 13851’’), for being an 

official of the Government of Nicaragua or 

having served as an official of the 

Government of Nicaragua at any time on or 

after January 10, 2007. 

2. GUTIERREZ MERCADO, Walmaro 

Antonio, KM. 43.5 South Road Panamerican, 

South Panamerican Highway, Diriamba, 

Carazo, Nicaragua; DOB 05 May 1968; POB 

Managua, Nicaragua; nationality Nicaragua; 

Gender Male; Passport A0007922 (Nicaragua) 

issued 25 Sep 2007 expires 24 Sep 2012 

(individual) [NICARAGUA]. 

Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of 

E.O. 13851 for being an official of the 

Government of Nicaragua or having served as 

an official of the Government of Nicaragua at 

any time on or after January 10, 2007. 

3. DOMINGUEZ ALVAREZ, Fidel De Jesus, 

Altos E San Isidro A15, Managua, Nicaragua; 

DOB 21 Mar 1963; POB Rivas, Nicaragua; 

nationality Nicaragua; Gender Male 

(individual) [NICARAGUA]. 

Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of 

E.O. 13851 for being an official of the 

Government of Nicaragua or having served as 

an official of the Government of Nicaragua at 

any time on or after January 10, 2007. 

Dated: December 21, 2020. 

Andrea Gacki, 

Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, 

U.S. Department of the Treasury. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28582 Filed 12–23–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AL–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

[Case IDs: CU–19766, CU–19767, CU–19699] 

Notice of OFAC Sanctions Action 

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the 

Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets 

Control (OFAC) is publishing the 

identifying information of three entities 

that were added to OFAC’s list of 

Specially Designated Nationals and 

Blocked Persons (SDN List). 

DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section for applicable date(s). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

OFAC: Andrea Gacki, Director, tel.: 

202–622–2490; Associate Director for 

Global Targeting, tel.: 202–622–2420; 

Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 

202–622–2480; Assistant Director for 

Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202–622–4855; 

or Assistant Director for Sanctions 

Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202–622– 

2490. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Availability 

The Specially Designated Nationals 

and Blocked Persons List and additional 

information concerning OFAC sanctions 

programs are available on OFAC’s 

website (www.treasury.gov/ofac). 

Notice of OFAC Action(s) 

On December 17, 2020, OFAC 

determined that the property and 

interests in property subject to U.S. 

jurisdiction of the following entities are 

blocked under the relevant sanctions 

authority listed below. 

Entities 

1. KAVE COFFEE S.A. (a.k.a. KAVE 

COFFEE S A), Panama; Calle A No. 310 entre 

3ra y 5ta, Municipio Playa, Havana, Cuba; 

RUC # 22044–123–197519 (Panama) [CUBA]. 

Identified pursuant to the Cuban Assets 

Control Regulations, 31 CFR part 515 

(CACR), as meeting the definition of a Cuban 

national, a person whose property and 

interests in property are blocked pursuant to 

CACR. 

2. FINANCIERA CIMEX S.A (a.k.a. 

FINCIMEX), Calle 8, Entre 3ra Y 5ta Ave, 319 

Playa, Havana, Cuba; Panama; RUC # 12555– 

91–124494 (Panama) [CUBA]. 

Identified pursuant to the CACR as meeting 

the definition of a Cuban national, a person 

whose property and interests in property are 

blocked pursuant to CACR. 

3. GRUPO DE ADMINISTRACION 

EMPRESARIAL S.A. (a.k.a. GAESA; a.k.a. 

‘‘GRUPO GAE’’), Edificio de la Marina, 

Avenida Del Puerto Y Brapia, Havana, Cuba; 

Organization Established Date 28 Feb 1999; 

Organization Type: Activities of holding 

companies [CUBA]. 

Identified pursuant to the CACR as meeting 

the definition of a Cuban national, a person 

whose property and interests in property are 

blocked pursuant to CACR. 

Dated: December 17, 2020. 

Andrea Gacki, 

Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, 

U.S. Department of the Treasury. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28584 Filed 12–23–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AL–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request; Multiple 

Internal Revenue Service Information 

Collection Requests 

AGENCY: Departmental Offices, 

Department of the Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Treasury will submit the following 

information collection requests to the 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES