23020 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2022 / Notices 

complaint of inconvenience, not a 

complaint of substance. Furthermore, to 

the extent that CVSA states that 

certification labels are removed during 

repair and not replaced, such practice 

may violate 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), which 

prohibits manufacturers, distributors, 

dealers, or motor vehicle repair 

businesses from knowingly making 

inoperative any part of a device or 

element of design installed on motor 

vehicle equipment in compliance with 

an applicable motor vehicle safety 

standard. NHTSA has stated that 

removal of markings and information 

required by an applicable FMVSS 

would take such item out of 

compliance, and therefore would be a 

violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). 

The removal of these labels may 

further endanger the motoring public in 

a rear end collision with a trailer that 

has had a substandard repair, or cannot 

be properly inspected for safety and 

compliance. For example, once a trailer 

is in-service, the owner of the trailer 

may choose to replace or repair the RIG 

at any time and may source a 

replacement RIG from any number of 

places, over which the original 

certifying entity has no control. If a RIG 

were to be involved in a crash or if it 

were to fail an inspection, it may be 

difficult to know who the certifying 

entity for a RIG was if there were no 

permanent labeling on it. This would 

inhibit the ability of the investigators to 

determine if there was a potential safety 

trend involved with the subject 

equipment item. This example 

demonstrates the need for critical safety 

equipment, such as the rear impact 

guard, to be labeled permanently with 

the required information. 

NHTSA does not agree with Great 

Dane’s argument that the RIG 

certification plate is redundant to the 

trailer certification plate, nor does it 

agree that the lack of date of 

manufacture is inconsequential. 

Further, Great Dane argues that all the 

trailers in question were fitted with 

Great Dane RIGs and no third-party RIGs 

were used, therefore the trailer 

certification plate is sufficient to 

symbolize certification for the RIG. 

However, in the event of a rear-end 

crash, the RIG would likely be replaced, 

while the trailer may remain unaffected. 

In this instance, a replacement RIG 

would no longer share the certification 

or date of manufacture stated on the 

trailer certification plate. 

Furthermore, while NHTSA regulates 

new motor vehicles and equipment, the 

importance of the requirements does not 

end when the vehicles or equipment are 

sold. A purchaser of such vehicles 

would likely need to know if the 

manufacturer certified the RIG when the 

vehicle was new. This is one reason 

why the requirement is for the label to 

be permanent. Therefore, lack of a 

certification plate could have a safety 

implication throughout the life of the 

product. 

A RIG certification plate is required 

by FMVSS No. 223 as the Rear Impact 

Guard is a part of trailer, much in the 

same way an independent DOT 

certification, as indicated by the symbol 

DOT, is required on regulated vehicle 

lamps, wheels, tires, and various other 

regulated parts of a vehicle. In the same 

way, the presence of a passenger vehicle 

certification label does not obviate the 

marking requirements of the 

aforementioned vehicle equipment. 

Similarly, a trailer certification plate 

does not obviate the requirement for a 

RIG certification plate. 

After reviewing the petition of 

inconsequentiality from Great Dane, 

NHTSA has determined that this 

particular noncompliance is not 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, 

therefore this petition is denied. 

VII. NHTSA’s Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA has decided that Great Dane has 

not met its burden of persuasion that the 

subject FMVSS No. 223 and FMVSS No. 

224 noncompliance is inconsequential 

to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, 

Great Dane’s petition is hereby denied 

and Great Dane is consequently 

obligated to provide notification of and 

free remedy for that noncompliance 

under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120. 

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 

501.8) 

Anne L. Collins, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08226 Filed 4–15–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2020–0117; Notice 2] 

Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd., and 

Sumitomo Rubber North America, Inc., 

Denial of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Denial of petition. 

SUMMARY: Sumitomo Rubber Industries, 

Ltd. and Sumitomo Rubber North 

America, Inc. (collectively, 

‘‘Sumitomo’’) have determined that 

certain Sumitomo and Falken truck tires 

do not fully comply with Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor 

Vehicles with a GVWR of More Than 

4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) and 

Motorcycles. Sumitomo filed a 

noncompliance report dated November 

12, 2020. Sumitomo subsequently 

petitioned NHTSA on December 4, 

2020, and later amended its petition on 

April 8, 2021, and July 9, 2021, for a 

decision that the subject noncompliance 

is inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. This notice announces 

the denial of Sumitomo’s petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jayton Lindley, General Engineer, 

NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, (325) 655–0547. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

Sumitomo has determined that certain 

Sumitomo and Falken truck tires do not 

fully comply with the requirements of 

paragraph S6.1.2(a) of FMVSS No. 119, 

New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles 

with a GVWR of More Than 4,536 

Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) and 

Motorcycles (49 CFR 571.119). 

Sumitomo filed a noncompliance report 

dated November 12, 2020, pursuant to 

49 CFR part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports. Sumitomo subsequently 

petitioned NHTSA on December 4, 

2020, and later amended its petition on 

April 8, 2021, and July 9, 2021, for an 

exemption from the notification and 

remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301 on the basis that this 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant 

to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 

49 CFR part 556, Exemption for 

Inconsequential Defect or 

Noncompliance. 

Notice of receipt of Sumitomo’s 

petition was published with a 30-day 

public comment period, on October 12, 

2021, in the Federal Register (86 FR 

56750). No comments were received. To 

view the petition and all supporting 

documents log onto the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) website at 

https://www.regulations.gov/. Then 

follow the online search instructions to 

locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2020– 

0117.’’ 

II. Tires Involved 

Approximately 8,275 of the following 

Sumitomo and Falken truck and bus 

radial tires, manufactured between 

January 26, 2020, and June 2, 2020, are 

potentially involved: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2022 / Notices 23021 

1See General Motors, LLC, Denial of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 85 FR 

71713 (Nov. 10, 2020); see also General Motors 

Corp.; Ruling on Petition for Determination of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897 (Apr. 

14, 2004). 

2See BMW of North America, LLC; Jaguar Land 

Rover North America, LLC; and Autoliv, Inc.; 

Decisions of Petitions for Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 84 FR 19994 (May 7, 2019) (citing 

General Motors, LLC., Grant of Petition for Decision 

of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 92963 

(Dec. 20, 2016)). 

3See Cosco Inc.; Denial of Application of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408 (Jun. 

1, 1999). 

4See Initial Final Rule for FMVSS No. 109, 32 FR 

15792 (Nov. 16, 1967). 

5See SAE Recommended Practice J918b, 

‘‘Passenger Car Tire Performance Requirements and 

Test Procedures,’’ December 1966. 32 FR 10812 (Jul. 

22, 1967) (the 1967 Amended NPRM for FMVSS 

No. 109). 

6See 37 FR 19381 (Sep. 20, 1972) (1972 NPRM 

Amending FMVSS No. 109). 

7 Id. 

8See https://www.regulations.gov/document/ 

NHTSA-2020-0117-0001. 

• Sumitomo ST900 11R24.5 16PR 

• Sumitomo ST528 11R24.5 16PR 

• Sumitomo ST528 11R22.5 16PR 

• Sumitomo ST710SE 11R22.5 144/ 

142L 

• Sumitomo ST710SE 285/75R24.5 144/ 

141L 

• Sumitomo ST710SE 11R24.5 146/ 

143L 

• Sumitomo ST788+SE 285/75R24.5 

144/141L 

• Sumitomo ST709SE 285/75R24.5 144/ 

141L 

• Sumitomo ST709SE 11R24.5 149/ 

146L 

• Sumitomo ST778+SE 11R24.5 149/ 

146L 

• Sumitomo ST788SE 285/75R24.5 147/ 

144L 

• Sumitomo ST948SE 11R24.5 149/ 

146L 

• Sumitomo ST908N 11R22.5 146/144L 

• Sumitomo ST788SE 11R22.5 146/ 

143L 

• Sumitomo ST788SE 11R24.5 149/ 

146L 

• Sumitomo ST719SE 11R22.5 146/ 

142L 

• Sumitomo ST719SE 11R24.5 149/ 

146L 

• Sumitomo ST719SE 285/75R24.5 147/ 

144L 

• Sumitomo ST948SE 285/75R24.5 144/ 

141L 

• Sumitomo ST938 11R24.5 149/146L 

• Falken RI130EC 11R22.5 146/143L 

• Falken RI130EC 11R24.5 149/146L 

• Falken GI388 11R24.5 149/146K 

• Falken RI150EC 11R22.5 146/143L 

• Falken RI130EC 285/75R24.5 147/ 

144L 

• Falken RI151S 315/80R22.5 156/150L 

III. Noncompliance 

Sumitomo explains that the 

noncompliance is that the subject tires 

may show visual evidence of bead 

separation near the edge of the rim 

flange when tested in accordance with 

paragraph S7.2 of FMVSS No. 119, and 

therefore, do not fully meet the 

requirements specified in paragraph 

S6.1.2(a) of FMVSS No. 119. 

Specifically, the bead separation is due 

to the heat-induced expansion caused 

by the misplacement of the joint tape 

and a change in the tape’s composition. 

IV. Rule Requirements 

Paragraph S6.1.2(a) of FMVSS No. 119 

includes the requirements relevant to 

this petition. When tested in accordance 

with the procedures of S7.2, a tire shall 

exhibit no visual evidence of tread, 

sidewall, ply, cord, innerliner, or bead 

separation, chunking, broken cords, 

cracking, or open splices. 

V. Summary of Sumitomo’s Petition 

The following views and arguments 

presented in this section, ‘‘V. Summary 

of Sumitomo’s Petition,’’ are the views 

and arguments provided by Sumitomo 

and do not reflect the views of the 

Agency. Sumitomo describes the subject 

noncompliance and contends that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety. 

In support of its petition, Sumitomo 

begins by citing several decisions 

NHTSA has published regarding its 

considerations in evaluating 

inconsequential noncompliance 

petitions. Sumitomo quotes NHTSA as 

saying that ‘‘the issue to consider is the 

consequence to an occupant who is 

exposed to the consequence of that 

noncompliance’’ 1 and that NHTSA also 

considers the ‘‘specific facts before it in 

a particular petition’’ 2 and ‘‘whether an 

occupant who is affected by the 

noncompliance is likely to be exposed to 

a significantly greater risk than an 

occupant in a compliant vehicle 

[emphasis added by Sumitomo].’’ 3

Sumitomo continues by explaining 

the definition of ‘‘bead separation’’ 4 and 

describing the history of FMVSS No. 

119 S6.1.2 and the visual inspection 

criteria. Sumitomo states that the 

criteria NHTSA uses were based on 

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 

recommended practices 5 and in an 

amendment 6 to FMVSS No. 109, 

NHTSA clarified that it considers visual 

evidence of tread, sidewall, ply, cord, 

innerliner, or bead separation, 

chunking, broken cords, cracking or 

open splices ‘‘to be evidence of 

structural weakness which may cause 

tire failure.’’ 7 According to Sumitomo, 

NHTSA ‘‘did not present any further 

explanation or evidence to support the 

notion that these characteristics, 

standing alone, are evidence of 

structural weakness that could lead to a 

tire failure’’ and that the evidence does 

not alone prove that the tire has ‘‘a 

structural weakness that will cause it to 

fail’’ or be consequential to motor 

vehicle safety. 

Sumitomo then asserts that the 

structural integrity of the subject tires is 

unaffected by the deformation. 

Sumitomo specifies that the misplaced 

joint tape and ‘‘a change in the tape’s 

composition’’ altered the adhesiveness 

of the rubber which results in the 

subject noncompliance. Therefore, 

Sumitomo claims that since ‘‘joint tape 

is not a structural component of the 

tire’’ the subject noncompliance does 

not indicate ‘‘structural weakness’’ nor 

does it impact ‘‘the integrity of the 

adjacent components. 

Sumitomo then outlines the 

manufacturing of the subject tires, 

explaining that the joint tape is an 

adhesive that joins the inner liner ends 

and then the other components are 

added and the tire ‘‘undergoes 

vulcanization (applying heat and 

pressure for a set period) to fully adhere 

the components and complete the tire 

forming process.’’ Sumitomo explains 

that the ‘‘lack of adhesion between the 

joint tape and components’’ can cause 

the ‘‘percentage of butyl rubber content’’ 

to be increased in the bead area which 

can result in the material becoming 

more vulnerable to heat expansion. This 

condition, combined with the lack of 

adhesion in the joint tape, could lead to 

the small area becoming more 

‘‘susceptible to separations.’’ According 

to Sumitomo, although this condition 

exists ‘‘[t]he steel filler cords next to this 

area contain the deformation and 

prevents it from propagating.’’ 

Sumitomo provides photographs and 

illustrations in its petition to show that 

‘‘the deformation occurs outside the 

structural components of the tire.’’ 

To further support its claims, 

Sumitomo submits data from several 

endurance tests, the details of which 

can be found in Sumitomo’s petition 

and the supplements to its petition.8

Sumitomo states that these tests resulted 

in the tires developing the subject 

noncompliance ‘‘as expected’’ and that 

when tested under the most ‘‘extreme’’ 

circumstances the subject tires 

‘‘developed a surface crack’’ in the same 

area. Sumitomo claims that ‘‘even in 

these unrealistically severe conditions, 

the tire did not develop air leaks or 

otherwise structurally fail,’’ leading 

Sumitomo to conclude that the ‘‘testing 

demonstrates that the deformations that 

may form due to the misplaced joint 

tape are not indicative of a structural 

weakness and will not cause air loss.’’ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
23022 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2022 / Notices 

9Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition 

for Determination of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899 (Apr. 14, 

2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was 

expected to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to 

vehicle occupants or approaching drivers). 

10See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 

35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding noncompliance had 

no effect on occupant safety because it had no effect 

on the proper operation of the occupant 

classification system and the correct deployment of 

an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods. Inc.; Grant of 

Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) 

(finding occupant using noncompliant light source 

would not be exposed to significantly greater risk 

than occupant using similar compliant light 

source). 

11 Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition 

for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 

FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016). 

12United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 

754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an 

unreasonable risk when it ‘‘results in hazards as 

potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire, and 

where there is no dispute that at least some such 

hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be 

expected to occur in the future’’). 

Sumitomo adds that it is not aware of 

any tire failures, air loss, crashes, or 

injuries related to this issue. 

Sumitomo concludes that the subject 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety, and that 

its petition to be exempted from 

providing notification of the 

noncompliance, as required by 49 

U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the 

noncompliance, as required by 49 

U.S.C. 30120, should be granted. 

VI. NHTSA’s Analysis 

A. General Principles 

The burden of establishing the 

inconsequentiality of a failure to comply 

with a performance requirement in an 

FMVSS—as opposed to a labeling 

requirement with no performance 

implications—is more substantial and 

difficult to meet. Accordingly, the 

Agency has not found many such 

noncompliances inconsequential.9

An important issue to consider in 

determining inconsequentiality is the 

safety risk to individuals who 

experience the type of event against 

which the recall would otherwise 

protect.10 In general, NHTSA does not 

consider the absence of complaints or 

injuries when determining if a 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

safety. ‘‘Most importantly, the absence 

of a complaint does not mean there have 

not been any safety issues, nor does it 

mean that there will not be safety issues 

in the future.’’ 11 ‘‘[T]he fact that in past 

reported cases good luck and swift 

reaction have prevented many serious 

injuries does not mean that good luck 

will continue to work.’’ 12

NHTSA has evaluated the merits of 

the inconsequential noncompliance 

petition submitted by Sumitomo; 

however, the Agency does not agree that 

the subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

B. NHTSA’s Response to Sumitomo’s 

Petition 

The visual inspection requirements of 

the tire safety standards exist to identify 

defects or structural weaknesses that 

can result in immediate or premature 

tire failure. NHTSA considered several 

factors specific to this petition and 

disagrees that the visible separation 

described is inconsequential to motor 

vehicle safety. 

Structural Integrity of the Tire 

Sumitomo states that the visible 

separation is caused by both ‘‘a 

misplacement of joint tape’’ and ‘‘a 

change in the tape’s composition’’ that 

‘‘altered the rubber’s adhesiveness.’’ The 

visible separation near the bead area 

appears after endurance testing, or when 

the tire is put into service. The visible 

separation appears as a small bulge near 

the bead area on the tire, and the 

separation is apparent once the tire is 

cut for inspection. 

NHTSA reviewed the tests performed 

by the petitioner to assess the effects of 

the noncompliance on the structural 

integrity of the tire, and on which they 

based their belief that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

safety. These tests placed the tires under 

various loading and inflation conditions 

for long durations, and the tires 

maintained both inflation and structural 

integrity in each of the scenarios tested. 

While meaningful, these results have 

limitations in assessing the safety 

related consequences of the 

noncompliant tires. The limitations 

identified by the Agency are: 

(a) Sample Size and Selection: Of the 10 

tires tested by Sumitomo, only one tire was 

from the affected population. The remaining 

nine tires were produced for the testing with 

replicated noncompliances based on the 

manufacturer’s determination of the root 

cause of the noncompliance. Further, a total 

of 11 different tire size, speed rating, and 

load capacity/ply rating combinations are 

represented in the affected population. The 

tires that were tested represented only 6 

different combinations of tire size, speed 

rating, and load capacity/ply rating. Overall, 

the tested population did not sufficiently 

represent the affected population in either 

the quantity of tires tested or the tire size, 

speed, and load ratings. 

(b) Tire Aging: As tires age, they can 

become more brittle. As the rubber becomes 

more brittle the subject defect may grow and 

cause tire failure or air loss. None of the 

testing performed by Sumitomo addressed 

this failure mode. 

(c) Environmental Conditions & External 

Damage: During real world use, the tires will 

experience harsh environmental conditions 

beyond what was simulated during testing. 

Additionally, these tires will be subjected to 

damage in routine service such as curb 

impacts or scrubbing. Damage of this type 

may tear the bulge and create additional 

structural problems that would not occur in 

a tire without this defect. 

(d) Sufficiency of Test Conditions: The 

Agency appreciates the attempts made by 

Sumitomo to determine if the subject defect 

in the tires and resulting noncompliance is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, 

however it is not possible for the petitioner 

or the Agency to know with certainty if the 

testing performed is sufficient without 

conducting a much more thorough research 

project. The Agency believes that the results 

of these limited testing scenarios are not 

sufficient to determine that the 

noncompliance does not increase risk to 

either the vehicle operators or the public at 

large. 

The FMVSS sets the minimum 

performance standards that are intended 

to ensure a minimum level of safety and 

the Agency does not agree the testing 

completed by Sumitomo is sufficient to 

ensure that the noncompliance is 

inconsequential to safety. 

Other Safety Concerns 

NHTSA has also identified other 

potential safety concerns. If the 

noncompliant tires containing this 

separation were to be put into service, 

there is an increased risk for the 

separation to expand beyond what has 

been demonstrated by the petitioner, 

potentially resulting in tire failure. Tire 

failures not only impact the vehicle 

operator but may also impact other 

vehicles who share the road. 

Additionally, commercial tire debris is 

a common cause of both accidents and 

damage that will affect other vehicles 

and highway safety overall. 

Furthermore, downstream entities 

involved in tire repair and retreading 

operations may be unable to safely use 

these tires. Commercial vehicle tires are 

commonly re-treaded, and the long-term 

effects of this noncompliance are 

unknown. This defect may potentially 

result in a weakened tire carcass that 

will prematurely fail. Sumitomo did not 

perform any testing that might address 

this concern, nor did they make any 

statements about potential effects on the 

re-tread process. 

NHTSA’s Decision: In consideration 

of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided 

that Sumitomo has not met its burden 

of proof that the subject FMVSS No. 119 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, 

Sumitomo’s petition is hereby denied 

and Sumitomo is consequently 

obligated to provide notification of and 

free remedy for that noncompliance 

under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2022 / Notices 23023 

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 

501.8) 

Anne L. Collins 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08227 Filed 4–15–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions 

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 persons that have been 

placed on OFAC’s Specially Designated 

Nationals and Blocked Persons List 

(SDN List) based on OFAC’s 

determination that one or more 

applicable legal criteria were satisfied. 

All property and interests in property 

subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these 

persons are blocked, and U.S. persons 

are generally prohibited from engaging 

in transactions with them. Additionally, 

OFAC is publishing updates to the 

identifying information of one person 

currently included on the SDN List. All 

property and interests in property 

subject to U.S. jurisdiction of this 

person remain blocked, and U.S. 

persons are generally prohibited from 

engaging in transactions with them. 

DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section for effective 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 the Assistant Director for Sanctions 

Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202–622– 

2490. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Availability 

The SDN List and additional 

information concerning OFAC sanctions 

programs are available on OFAC’s 

website (https://www.treasury.gov/ofac). 

Notice of OFAC Actions 

A. On April 6, 2022, OFAC 

determined that the property and 

interests in property subject to U.S. 

jurisdiction of the following persons are 

blocked and also identified the 

following property as blocked under the 

relevant sanctions authority listed 

below. 

BILLING CODE 4810–AL–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES