40604 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

[Docket No. USCG–2014–0713] 

Information Collection Request to 

Office of Management and Budget; 

OMB Control Number: 1625–NEW 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an 

Information Collection Request (ICR) to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting 

approval for the following collection of 

information: 1625–NEW, State 

Registration Data. Our ICR describes the 

information we seek to collect from the 

public. Before submitting this ICR to 

OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting 

comments as described below. 

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast 

Guard on or before September 27, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Coast Guard docket 

number [USCG–2014–0713] to the Coast 

Guard using the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. 

See the ‘‘Public participation and 

request for comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

A copy of the ICR is available through 

the docket on the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov. Additionally, 

copies are available from: Commandant 

(CG–6P), Attn: Paperwork Reduction 

Act Manager, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 

Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, STOP 

7710, Washington, DC 20593–7710. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. 

Craig, Office of Privacy Management, 

telephone 202–475–3528, or fax 202– 

372–8405, for questions on these 

documents. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

This notice relies on the authority of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 

44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An 

ICR is an application to OIRA seeking 

the approval, extension, or renewal of a 

Coast Guard collection of information 

(Collection). The ICR contains 

information describing the Collection’s 

purpose, the Collection’s likely burden 

on the affected public, an explanation of 

the necessity of the Collection, and 

other important information describing 

the Collection. There is one ICR for each 

Collection. 

The Coast Guard invites comments on 

whether this ICR should be granted 

based on the Collection being necessary 

for the proper performance of 

Departmental functions. In particular, 

the Coast Guard would appreciate 

comments addressing: (1) The practical 

utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy 

of the estimated burden of the 

Collection; (3) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of 

information subject to the Collection; 

and (4) ways to minimize the burden of 

the Collection on respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. 

In response to your comments, we 

may revise this ICR or decide not to seek 

an extension of approval for the 

Collection. We will consider all 

comments and material received during 

the comment period. 

We encourage you to respond to this 

request by submitting comments and 

related materials. Comments must 

contain the OMB Control Number of the 

ICR and the docket number of this 

request, [USCG–2014–0713], and must 

be received by September 27, 2021. 

Submitting Comments 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. If your material 

cannot be submitted using https://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. Documents 

mentioned in this notice, and all public 

comments, are in our online docket at 

https://www.regulations.gov and can be 

viewed by following that website’s 

instructions. Additionally, if you go to 

the online docket and sign up for email 

alerts, you will be notified when 

comments are posted. 

We accept anonymous comments. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

submissions in response to this 

document, see DHS’s eRulemaking 

System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, 

March 11, 2020). 

The Coast Guard previously 

published two, 60-day notices (79 FR 

60483, October 7, 2014, and 81 FR 

85987, November 29, 2016) and one, 30- 

day notice (83 FR 54128, October 26, 

2018) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). 

Those three notices elicited ten public 

comment submissions. Following this 

paragraph, we list the specific concerns 

or questions raised in those ten 

submissions. We also list the comments 

and questions we received from Coast 

Guard staff that may be helpful to clarify 

for the public. Following the comment 

description, we provide our updated 

responses, including descriptions of any 

changes we made to the ICR and forms. 

The Coast Guard is publishing an 

additional 60-day notice for public 

commenting due to the significant time 

that has elapsed since the previous 

notices were published. 

Comment (1): A requestor asks the 

Coast Guard to consider mandating to 

states that personal watercraft (PWC) 

data collection is separately maintained. 

This will ensure accuracy in the entirety 

of boat classification data collection and 

significantly aid PWC manufacturers in 

market assessment. 

Answer: The Coast Guard is 

maintaining the personal watercraft 

category in our proposed data collection 

(see 33 CFR 174.19(a)(11)); we proposed 

to collect statistics on personal 

watercraft by length category. 

Comment (2): A commenter stated 

that the Coast Guard’s tabulation of 

State numbered vessels as a result of 

this Information Collection Request 

(ICR) cannot be used to measure risk as 

stated in the supplemental Paperwork 

Reduction Act submission that 

accompanies this ICR, especially since 

there are numerous recreational boating 

accidents and fatalities that occur in 

vessels not required to be numbered and 

not reflected in this collection of 

information. 

Answer: Information in the proposed 

collection will be used to measure risk; 

Registration data frequently serves as 

the denominator of fatality rates 

(usually expressed in number of deaths 

per 100,000 registered vessels). The 

existence of registration data allows the 

Coast Guard to normalize data and 

provide meaningful statistics and 

recommendations for the National 

Recreational Boating Safety (RBS) 

Program. The revised collection 

proposed to break down registration by 

motorization so that an additional 

measure, motorized vessel fatality rate, 

could be used (number of deaths on 

motorized vessels per 100,000 

motorized registered vessels). This 

measure would provide a much sounder 

denominator since all States do not 

collect registration data on nonmotorized vessels. 

Comment (3): A commenter noted that 

in accordance with 33 CFR 174.123, 

each State that has an approved 

numbering system must prepare and 

submit Coast Guard form CGHQ–3923, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Notices 40605 

Report of Certificates of Number Issued 

to Boats, to the Coast Guard. Although 

OMB No. 1625–NEW reflects the revised 

vessel type terminology resulting from 

the Coast Guard’s 2012 issuance of the 

Final Rule on Canges to Standard 

Numbering System, Vessel 

Identification System, and Boating 

Accident Report Database (Docket No. 

USCG–2003–14963), it does not 

accurately reflect the CFR’s terminology 

in its title or instructions (i.e., all 

references to the approved numbering 

system, state numbered boats and 

certificates of number have been 

replaced with registrations and 

registered). 

Answer: This is true. The proposed 

form focuses on registered vessels, 

which allows the Coast Guard to 

examine a larger scope of vessels that 

fall under the National Recreational 

Boating Safety Program. The Coast 

Guard will consider changes to the form 

title in 33 CFR 174.123 to more 

accurately reflect the data collection 

under this Information Collection 

Request. 

Comment (4): A commenter noted that 

OMB No. 1625–NEW is dated June 

2014, inferring that is already in use (or 

may be required for use). Because States 

are currently in various stages of 

implementation of the Final Rule (with 

final implementation required by 

January 1, 2017), States cannot be 

compelled to begin using OMB No. 

1625–NEW prior to January 1, 2017. 

Any required deviation from the use of 

CGHQ–3923 prior to January 1, 2017 

will result in additional (and in some 

cases, significant) burden and cost to the 

States. 

Answer: The June 2014 date was filled 

in as a placeholder. The form was 

drafted and sent for comment early so 

that the public could comment on the 

proposed content, and the States could 

prepare for changes after the data 

collection is finalized. The Coast Guard 

has accepted but not required a State’s 

use of this form. 

Comment (5): At this time, the state of 

Ohio is still in the process of 

transitioning to the new requirements 

cited in 33 CFR 174.19 (which we are 

required to implement by January 1, 

2017). That being the case, what are the 

Coast Guard’s intentions with regard to 

the version of the reporting form we will 

need to use to make our annual 

reporting in 2015 and beyond? Will we 

have the option to use the ‘‘older’’ 

version of the reporting form until such 

time that we have transitioned to the 

new requirements? And, if required to 

use the new form prior to that 

transition, how will the Coast Guard 

view any incomplete data that might not 

be able to be generated in the new 

format prior to completion of the 

transition? 

Answer: The Coast Guard has 

accepted but not required a State’s use 

of this form. 

Comment (6): Knowing that hull type, 

and more importantly engine drive 

information can be important details in 

better identifying and understanding the 

boating demographics within a state, 

what is the rationale for omitting this 

information in this revised collection 

form? 

Answer: The Coast Guard has not 

used the hull material or engine 

information collected in prior 

registration collections. Because we 

have not used the data, we removed it 

from the form so as to reduce the burden 

of data reporting on the States. 

Comment (7): Do the estimates of the 

form completion burden account for any 

initial burden in transitioning to this 

revised reporting scheme? What is the 

basis for estimates of burden in items 12 

and 13 of the Supporting Statement for 

the collection? 

Answer: No. The burden estimate took 

into account the collection of 

information, which is based on the 

number of respondents, frequency of 

form submission and an estimate of the 

time taken to fill out the form. 

Comment (8) is: Is there any 

relationship between this revision and 

anticipated efforts to bring CFR into 

agreement with the Uniform Certificate 

of Titling Act for Vessels (UCOTA–V)? 

Answer: There is not a relationship 

between this revision and the UCOTA– 

V efforts. 

Comment (9): Under Puerto Rico law, 

a Ship or vessel means any system of 

transportation on water that has a motor 

installed, including, but without been 

limited to jet skis, motorized rafts, 

power sailboats, motor boats, or 

powered driven boats of any sort, 

including homemade vessels powered 

by motor, but excluding hydroplanes. A 

watercraft means a mode of 

transportation which does not have a 

motor installed, such as rowboats, 

canoes, kayaks, sailboats with or 

without oars, water skis, surfboards 

with or without sail, rafts, inflatable 

systems, and any device that moves on 

the surface of the water without being 

propelled by a motor, although it could 

be fit for installation or adaptation of 

some type of motor. Therefore, the 

proposed change creates an overburden 

of conflicting definitions or wording to 

deal with in this case. Also, the removal 

of the proposed definitions leaves the 

accident investigation protocol without 

proper wording to aid in the 

determination of felonies, infractions, or 

misdemeanors committed. 

Answer: This comment is outside the 

scope of the Notice requesting 

comments on this information 

collection. Please use the definitions in 

33 CFR 173.3 for this information 

collection. 

Comment (10): SS173.57: Same 

comment as in the previous paragraph. 

Mainly, when evaluating marine events 

involving either vessels, watercrafts, or 

both. It may also affect the terms and 

conditions of the memorandum of 

Agreement between the Government of 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and 

the USCG under 14 U.S.C. SS2,89,141; 

46 CFR SS13109 and 33 CFR SS100.01 

as to comply with 46 U.S.C. 13103(c)(2) 

on the matter of marine events and boat 

accident reports procedures. 

Answer: This collection of 

information does not relate to marine 

events or boat accident report 

procedures. Therefore, this comment is 

outside the scope of the Notice 

requesting comments on the collection. 

Comment (11): The definitions in 33 

CFR 181.3 do not include the 

manufacturing of handmade vessels and 

is inconsistent with SS181.23(b). It 

should include person engaged in the 

manufacture of a boat for his or her own 

use (operation) and not for sale. 

Answer: This collection of 

information is for all registered vessels. 

If a homemade vessel is registered, it 

should be included in the statistics. 

Comment (12): If a state has already 

transitioned—or will soon transition— 

its numbering system and the content of 

the certificates of number over to the 

requirements cited in 33 CFR 174.19 

(i.e., before the Jan. 1, 2017 

implementation deadline), what version 

of the form is it suppose to use? If, as 

a result of the ICR, the OMB formally 

approves the collection and issues an 

OMB Control Number to this revised 

form 3923 before the Jan. 1, 2017 

deadline for states to implement the 

new requirements, will a state that does 

not make the transition until the 

deadline be able to submit its data on 

the ‘‘old’’ version of the form? 

Answer: States would be asked to 

submit information on the historic form. 

If a State has already transitioned to the 

new terms ahead of the January 1, 2017 

deadline, the Coast Guard will accept 

registration data on either form. 

Comment (13): If there are variations 

in the version of the forms employed by 

the states and submitted to the Coast 

Guard, how will the Coast Guard 

reconcile those differences in the 

computation and report-out of 

registration data? 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
40606 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Notices 

Answer: The Coast Guard will merge 

datasets if both the historic and 

proposed forms are used. 

In addition to the above comments 

submitted to the docket, the following 

comments and questions were received 

by Coast Guard program staff members: 

Comment (14): Is this just the periodic 

request to approve the continuation of 

the collection of registration data? 

Answer: Yes. 

Comment (15): Has the Notice been 

issued primarily (at this time) as part of 

the process to get OMB to issue a 

control number? 

Answer: Yes. 

Comment (16): Is this in preparation 

for collection of registration data under 

the ‘‘new’’ vessel terms authorized by 

the Final Rule on State Numbering 

System (SNS), Vessel Identification 

System (VIS), and Boating Accident 

Report Database (BARD) (eff. Jan 2017)? 

Answer: Yes. This form makes use of 

the ‘‘primary operation’’ and ‘‘vessel 

type’’ in 33 Code of Federal Regulation 

174.19. 

Comment (17): Is there a revised 

collection form that will accompany it? 

Answer: Yes. There is a revised 

collection form that is greatly 

simplified. The proposed revision 

provides instructions, a breakdown of 

recreational vessel types by 

motorization and length category, a 

breakdown of commercial vessel types, 

and an administration section. 

Comment (18): Will there be any other 

supporting documentation posted to 

regulations.gov for this Notice? 

Answer: Yes. The Coast Guard posted 

additional files to docket USCG–2014– 

0173, including the proposed 

registration form and supporting 

statement. 

Comment (19): A commenter 

questioned the Coast Guard’s response 

to previously submitted comment (6) in 

which the Coast Guard noted a reduced 

reporting burden with the revised form. 

The commenter noted that the burden is 

not reduced since collecting aspects of 

vessels such as hull material and engine 

type are already required under 33 CFR 

174 even if statistics regarding these 

aspects are not required on form CGHQ– 

3923. 

Answer: The burden of filling out the 

revised form is reduced. On the 

previous version of CGHQ–3923, the 

Coast Guard required statistics on over 

150 data points whereas the proposed 

version of the form requires only 69. 

The previous version requested 

information on five variables (vessel 

type, hull material, length, engine type, 

and use) whereas the proposed version 

requires only three variables (vessel 

type, length, primary operation). The 

Coast Guard expects a reduced burden 

as the proposed form will require fewer 

queries and fewer data point checks to 

complete it. 

Comment (20): A commenter 

questioned why aspects of vessels such 

as hull material and engine type are 

necessary in 33 CFR 174 since they are 

not required elements to be reported on 

form CGHQ–3923. 

Answer: Various aspects of vessels are 

required to be collected for law 

enforcement purposes. Even though 

various vessel aspects such as hull 

material and engine type are not on the 

proposed form CGHQ–3923, they are 

used in accident, theft, and fraud 

investigations. Using common 

terminology facilitates common 

understanding. 

Comment (21): A commenter noted 

that hull material and engine type are of 

interest to sectors and should be on 

form CGHQ–3923 since information on 

them cannot be obtained outside of 

CGHQ–3923. 

Answer: The Coast Guard works with 

various sectors including government, 

industry, non-profits, and researchers. If 

a party requested information other than 

what is available on CGHQ–3923, the 

Coast Guard would direct the user to a 

more appropriate contact. 

Comment (22): A commenter 

provided a recommended version of 

CGHQ–3923 that is a modification of the 

previous CGHQ–3923. It includes 

additional hull material entries, an 

additional engine type, and changes the 

names of some categories. 

Answer: The Coast Guard thanks the 

commenter for the suggested form but 

maintains a desire to have a simplified 

form for use by the States. The Coast 

Guard has not used the hull material or 

engine information collected previously. 

Because we have not used the data, we 

removed it from the form so as to reduce 

the burden of data reporting on the 

States. 

Information Collection Request 

Title: State Registration Data. 

OMB Control Number: 1625–NEW. 

Summary: This Notice provides 

information on the collection of 

registration data from the State reporting 

authorities. 

Need: Title 46 U.S.C. 12302 and 33 

CFR 174.123 authorizes the collection of 

this information. 

Forms: CG–3923, State Registration 

Data. 

Respondents: 56 State reporting 

authorities respond. 

Frequency: Annually. 

Hour Burden Estimate: This is a new 

information collection request. The 

estimated burden is 42 hours a year. 

Authority: The Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as 

amended. 

Dated: July 22, 2021. 

Kathleen Claffie, 

Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. 

Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15987 Filed 7–27–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

[Docket No. CISA–2021–0010] 

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure 

Security Agency; Notice of President’s 

National Security Telecommunications 

Advisory Committee Meeting 

AGENCY: Cybersecurity and 

Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), 

Department of Homeland Security. 

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA) meeting; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: CISA is publishing this notice 

to announce the following President’s 

National Security Telecommunications 

Advisory Committee (NSTAC) meeting. 

This meeting will be open to the public. 

DATES:

Meeting Registration: Registration to 

attend the meeting is required and must 

be received no later than 5:00 p.m. 

Eastern Time (ET) on August 10, 2021. 

For more information on how to 

participate, please contact NSTAC@

cisa.dhs.gov. 

Speaker Registration: Registration to 

speak during the meeting’s public 

comment period must be received no 

later than 5:00 p.m. ET on August 10, 

2021. 

Written Comments: Written comments 

must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. 

ET on August 10, 2021. 

Meeting Date: The NSTAC will meet 

on August 17, 2021, from 2:00 p.m. to 

3:00 p.m. ET. The meeting may close 

early if the committee has completed its 

business. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held 

via conference call. For access to the 

conference call bridge, information on 

services for individuals with 

disabilities, or to request special 

assistance, please email NSTAC@

cisa.dhs.gov by 5:00 p.m. ET on August 

10, 2021. 

Comments: Members of the public are 

invited to provide comment on the 

issues that will be considered by the 

committee as listed in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Associated materials that may be 

discussed during the meeting will be 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES