Supporting Statement

for

Various International Agreement Certificates and Documents

OMB No.: 1625-0118

COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS: CG-16450, CG-16450A,

CG-16450B & CG-16450C

A.  Justification.

1.  Circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.

The 94th (Maritime) session of the International Labour Conference (ILC)
adopted the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC), an important
international agreement that consolidates almost all of the 70 existing
International Labour Organization (ILO) maritime labour instruments in a
single modern globally applicable legal instrument.  The MLC establishes
comprehensive minimum requirements for working conditions of seafarers
including, among other things, conditions of employment, hours of work
and rest, accommodation, recreational facilities, food and catering,
health protection, medical care, welfare and social security protection.
 It combines rights and principles with specific standards and detailed
guidance as to how to implement these standards at the national level.

The MLC entered into force on August 20, 2013.  It requires all ships
500 Gross Tons or more that engage on international voyages be issued a
valid Maritime Labour Convention certificate issued by its flag
administration.  To date, the U.S. has not ratified the MLC.  Until such
time that the U.S. ratifies the MLC, the Coast Guard cannot mandate
enforcement of its requirements on U.S. vessels or upon foreign vessels
while in the Navigable Waters of the United States.  However, Article V,
paragraph 7 of the Convention contains a “no more favorable treatment
clause” which requires ratifying governments to impose Convention
requirements on vessels from a non-ratifying government when calling on
their ports irrespective of their status of ratification.  As a result,
U.S. vessels not in compliance with the MLC may be at risk for Port
State Control actions including detention when operating in a port of a
ratifying nation.  Fishing vessels, vessels of novel design, warships,
and naval auxiliary vessels are exempt from the MLC.

The Coast Guard has established a voluntary inspection program for
vessels who wish document compliance with the requirements of the MLC.
All U.S. commercial vessels that operate on international routes are
eligible to participate.  The Coast Guard will issue voluntary
compliance certificates to those vessels meeting the requirements of the
MLC.  The Coast Guard also allows Recognized Classification Societies
listed under 46 CFR Part 8 to issue voluntary compliance certificates.
Guidance is provided in Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC)
No. 02-13.

The format of the voluntary compliance certificate (Statement of
Voluntary Compliance) is in keeping with the format provided in the MLC.
 It consists of the MLC certificate and is supplemented with a
Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance (DMLC).

The DMLC is a unique two part form, Part I is prepared by the Coast
Guard and references current U.S. laws/regulations to the relevant
mandatory areas of compliance in the convention.  Part II is prepared by
the vessel’s owner.  It documents the measures they have put in place
to ensure continuous improvement and ongoing compliance and involves
collections of information required to issue the voluntary compliance
certificate in the format of the MLC.  Once prepared, the Coast Guard
reviews the measures drawn up by the vessel’s owner and following a
successful voluntary inspection, endorses Part II of the DMLC for
inclusion with the full voluntary compliance certificate.

With the issuance of a voluntary compliance certificate, a vessel has
proof they have voluntarily met the requirements of the MLC and
undergone a verification inspection by the U.S. Coast Guard.  By doing
so, they should avoid unnecessary delays or monetary penalties imposed
by officials in the ports of MLC ratifying nations.

This information collection supports the following strategic goals:

Department of Homeland Security

Prevention

Protection

Coast Guard

Marine Safety

Marine Environmental Protection

Prevention Policy & Response Policy Directorates (CG-5P & CG-5R)

Safety:  Eliminate deaths, injuries, and property damage associated with
commercial maritime operations.

Human and Natural Environment: Eliminate environmental damage associated
with maritime transportation and operations on and around the nation’s
waterways.

2.  Purpose of the information collection.

The MLC requires ship-owners identify the measures they have put in
place to ensure ongoing compliance with the MLC.  This information is to
be documented on Part II of the DMLC.

The primary need for information is to provide Coast Guard Officer in
Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) the necessary information required to
issue a voluntary compliance certificate in the format prescribed by the
MLC.  The information is also used to show MLC ratifying nation how the
vessel is maintaining compliance with the requirements of the MLC.

3.  Consideration of the use of improved technology.

The DMLC Part II may be submitted to the appropriate OCMI by mail, fax
or electronically submitted via e-mail.  A comprehensive list of contact
info for CG units can be found at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.uscg.mil/top/units/"  http://www.uscg.mil/top/units/ .  We
estimate that 90% of the reporting are done electronically.

4.  Efforts to identify duplication.

The Coast Guard monitors State, local, and international regulatory
activity in this field.  To date, no other equivalent State, local, or
international programs have been identified that require similar
information.

5.  Methods to minimize the burden to small entities if involved.

Because of the nature of the information collection requirements, the
level of effort to prepare a DMLC Part II is estimated to vary directly
with the size and complexity of the entity.  As a result, this
information collection does not have an impact on small businesses or
small entities.

6.  Consequences to the Federal program if collection were conducted
less frequently.

Vessel not in compliance with the MLC may be at risk for additional Port
State Control inspection actions including detention when operating in a
port of a MLC ratifying nation.  When a U.S. vessel is detained by a
foreign government, additional targeting for inspection takes place for
all U.S. vessels operating internationally.  This results in additional
delays in port and incurs added operating cost to the U.S. ship-owner.

7.  Special collection circumstances.

This information collection is conducted in manner consistent with the
guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2).

8.  Consultation.

A 60-day Notice will be published in the Federal Register to obtain
public comment on this collection.

9.  Provide any payment or gift to respondents.

There is no offer of monetary or material value for this information
collection.

10.  Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents.

There are no assurances of confidentiality provided to the respondents
for this information collection.

11.  Additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature.

There are no questions of sensitive language.

12.  Estimate of annual hour and cost burdens to respondents.

The annual number of respondents is 248.

The annual number of responses is 248.

The estimated annual hour burden is 625.

The estimated annual cost burden is $45,611.

The burden to respondents is provided in Appendix A.  This collection of
information is comprised of a reporting element and a recordkeeping
element.  The reporting burden relates to the preparation (i.e.,
planning, developing and writing) of DMLC Part II.  The recordkeeping
burden relates to the posting/filing of the CG-issued to Statement of
Voluntary Compliance.  When issued, an MLC document is valid for a
5 year period.  We estimate that about 5% of the U.S. vessels that want
an MLC document are new each year.  For new vessels, we estimate that it
takes 4 hours to complete a DCML Part II and .1 hours (i.e.,
6 minutes) to post/file the document for 4.1 hours total.  For existing
vessels that renew a DCML Part II, we estimate that it takes 2 hours to
complete a DCML Part II and .1 hours to post/file the document for 2.1
hours total.  We expect that a crewmember would be responsible to
prepare/post/file this document.  The position of crewmember is
analogous to a GS-12.  The wage rate used is in accordance with the
current edition of COMDTINST 7310.1(series) for “Out-Government”
personnel.

13.  Total of annualized capital and start-up costs.

There are no capital, start-up or maintenance costs associated with this
collection.

14.  Estimates of annualized Federal Government costs.

The estimated annual Federal Government cost is $20,088 (see Appendix
B).  We estimate that it will take 1 hour by a Lieutenant (O-3) to
review and process each submission.  The wage rate shown is in
accordance with the current edition of COMDTINST 7310.1(series) for
“In-Government” personnel.

15.  Explain the reasons for change in burden.

The change in burden is an ADJUSTMENT due to a change (i.e., decrease)
in the estimated annual number of responses.  There is no proposed
change to the reporting or recordkeeping requirements of this
collection.  The reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and the
methodology for calculating burden, remain unchanged.

16.  Plans for tabulation, statistical analysis and publication.

This information collection will not be published for statistical
purposes.

17.  Approval to not display expiration date.

The certificate/documents associated with this collection are prescribed
by an international treaty.  These certificates/documents all have
specific five year expiration dates related to requirements set out in
MLC.  The addition of a second expiration date to these
certificates/documents—that for OMB approval—may cause several
problems.  First, it may cause U.S.-flag vessel owner/operators to
interact with the Coast Guard more frequently than required to reconcile
the existence of 2 expirations dates on their ships’
certificates/documents.  Second, it may cause confusion with foreign
Port Sate Control boarding officers, resulting in U.S.-flag ships being
delayed or detained in foreign ports due to 2 differing expiration
dates.  It is for these reasons that expiration dates for OMB approval
are not displayed on the certificates/documents associated with this
collection.  However, the OMB expiration date will be displayed on the
Instruction sheet related to the information collection request.

18.  Exception to the certification statement.

The Coast Guard does not request an exception to the certification of
this information collection.

B.  Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods

This information collection does not employ statistical methods.

  For ships of less than 500 gross tons, the Coast Guard is providing a
template for ship owner/operators to use to demonstrate MLC
compliance—but will not issue voluntary compliance certificates.
Thus, we expect no interaction with this category of vessels.

  The authority for the issuance of the MLC/DMLC is 33 U.S.C.
1221(c)(3).

1625-0118

 PAGE

  PAGE  3  of   NUMPAGES  4


[Federal Register: August 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 153)]
[Notices]
[Page 46129-46132]
[DOCID:fr07au08-124]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58275; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-025]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change, and Amendment No. 2
Thereto, Relating to the Establishment of the Equity Value Indicator
Cross

July 31, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 20, 2008, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Exchange. On July 23, 2008, Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change. On July 30, 2008, Nasdaq withdrew Amendment No. 1
and filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. Amendment No. 2
replaces the original filing in its entirety. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change,
as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Nasdaq is proposing to establish a crossing mechanism for EVI
securities, which is designed to allow issuers of employee stock
options a market-based way of measuring the cost of such options. The
text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is
italicized; deletions are bracketed.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Changes are marked to the rules of The NASDAQ Stock Market
LLC found at http://nasdaq.complinet.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    6300. [RESERVED] Nasdaq Equity Value Indicator Cross
    (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this rule the term:
    (1) ``Imbalance'' shall mean the amount of Eligible Interest that
may not be matched with other orders at a particular price at any given
time.
    (2) ``Order Imbalance Indicator'' shall mean a message disseminated
by electronic means containing information about Eligible Interest and
the price at which such interest would execute at the time of
dissemination. The Order Imbalance Indicator shall disseminate the
following information:
    (A) ``Current Reference Price'' shall mean the highest price at
which the maximum amount of Eligible Interest can be paired.
    (B) the amount of Eligible Interest that is paired at the Current
Reference Price;
    (C) the size of any Imbalance at the Current Reference Price; and
    (D) the buy/sell direction of any Imbalance.
    (3) ``Nasdaq EVI Cross'' shall mean the process for determining the
price at which Eligible Interest shall be executed. All prices referred
to in this rule shall be in minimum increments of one penny.
    (4) ``Eligible Interest'' shall mean any priced order that may be
entered into the system for the EVI Cross.
    (5) ``EVI'' shall mean any Equity Value Indicator Tracking Security
which is issued for the purpose of generating a market-based value of
employee stock options for purposes of FASB Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 123(R), Share-Based Payment. The number of
EVIs made available via the EVI Cross, the limit price, if any, of the
EVIs, and the terms of the EVIs shall be determined by the EVI issuer
which shall make that information available to the public at the
earliest time practicable.
    (b) Processing of Nasdaq EVI Cross.
    (1) (A) No later than 4:00 p.m. EST on the day of the scheduled EVI
Cross, a Nasdaq member authorized to act for the EVI Issuer shall
direct in writing that Nasdaq enter into the System a single sell order
with the quantity and limit price if any of EVI Eligible Interest. The
sell order may not be modified after 4 p.m. and may be cancelled after
4:00 p.m. only in connection with a cancellation of the EVI Cross as
set forth in subsection (c) below.
    (B) Beginning at 8 a.m. and continuing until 4:59:59 p.m. Nasdaq
members may enter buy orders into the System. Except as provided below,
once entered, buy orders may be cancelled but may not be modified.
    (C) The EVI Cross shall occur at 5 p.m. EST. in the manner set
forth below unless the time of execution is extended. The time of
execution of the EVI Cross shall be extended only if the Current
Reference Price of the EVI security changes by 1 percent or more
between 4:59 p.m. and 5 p.m, in which case the time of the EVI Cross
will be extended by 2 minutes. The time of execution of the EVI Cross
shall be extended for an additional 2 minutes if the Current Reference
Price of the EVI Security changes by 1 percent or more in the final
minute of a two-minute

extension. The time of execution of the EVI Cross shall be extended no
more than 30 times. If the time of execution of the EVI Cross has been
extended 10 times, order cancellation will be prohibited.
    (2) At 4 p.m. and continuing through the execution of the EVI
Cross, Nasdaq shall disseminate by electronic means an Order Imbalance
Indicator every minute for the first 45 minutes and every 15 seconds
thereafter.
    (3) The Nasdaq EVI Cross shall occur at the highest price that
maximizes the amount of Eligible Interest to be executed.
    (4) If the Nasdaq EVI Cross price is selected and less than all
Eligible Interest that is available would be executed, all Eligible
Interest shall be executed at the Nasdaq EVI Cross price in price/time
priority.
    (5) All Eligible Interest executed in the Nasdaq EVI Cross shall be
executed at the Nasdaq EVI Cross price, trade reported to the National
Securities Clearing Corporation and disseminated via a data feed.
    (c) The EVI Cross shall be cancelled if:
    (i) The issuer determines prior to 4:45 p.m. on the date scheduled
for the EVI Cross to cancel its participation; or
    (ii) The common stock of the issuer is in a halted state at 4:45
p.m. on the date scheduled for the EVI Cross.
    (d) The issuer of an EVI Security shall become eligible to
participate in the NASDAQ EVI Cross by paying a fee as follows:
    (i) Two percent of the total value of the EVI offering up to a
maximum of $10,000,000 of total value, plus
    (ii) One and one half percent of the total value of the EVI
offering above $10,000,000 of total value, and
    (iii) The maximum fee shall be $1,500,000.
    This fee shall be refunded if no EVI Cross is executed. This fee
shall include all processing of the EVI Cross, including order entry,
order execution, imbalance information dissemination, and transmission
to the appropriate clearing agency. Nasdaq members not issuing
securities shall pay no fees to participate in the NASDAQ EVI Cross.
* * * * *
The text of the proposed rule change is also available at Nasdaq, the
Commission's Public Reference Room, and
www.nasdaqomx.cchwallstreet.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, NASDAQ included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. NASDAQ has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Nasdaq is proposing to establish a crossing mechanism for EVI
securities, which is designed to allow issuers of employee stock
options a market-based way of measuring the cost of such options. In
this filing, Nasdaq is seeking Commission approval under Section 19(b)
of the Act only for its proposed rules relating to the EVI cross. The
registration of any particular EVI securities with the Commission is
the responsibility of the issuer and would be subject to separate
review by the Commission and its Division of Corporation Finance.\4\
Similarly, the extent to which an issuer may use a price derived from a
particular EVI crossing auction to measure the cost of employee stock
options may be subject to separate review by the Commission and its
staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Nasdaq anticipates that each EVI tracking security will
entitle the holder to specified payments upon the exercise of stock
options comprising a reference pool of stock options that have been
previously granted to employees by the issuer. The securities will
represent a payment obligation of the issuer, but will not represent
any direct ownership interest in the issuing company or in any of
the reference pool stock options. The specific features of the
securities, including how payments are calculated, maturity dates
and form of payment, will be determined by each issuer. The price
and allocation of the securities for each issuance will be
determined by the results of the auction. The issuer will make
available to the public the terms and features of its EVI tracking
security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EVI Cross is a market pricing mechanism modeled on Nasdaq's
industry leading crossing technology currently used for the Nasdaq
Opening and Closing Crosses, the Nasdaq Crossing Network, and the
Nasdaq IPO and Halt Crosses, set forth in Nasdaq Rules 4752, 4753,
4754, and 4770. As a facility of Nasdaq,\5\ the EVI Cross will utilize
the existing technology network that links more than 100,000 market
participants with NASDAQ and provide broad access for investors to
participate in price discovery for EVI instruments. The EVI Cross will
provide price discovery, equal access, and fair executions at a single
price that is fully reflective of market demand for EVI instruments.
The EVI Cross will be the appropriate mechanism to determine a fair
market price for EVI instruments which issuers may utilize to determine
their options expense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Nasdaq does not currently expect that EVI securities will be
listed on Nasdaq or any other national securities exchange. In the
event an EVI issuer desires to list its EVIs on Nasdaq or another
exchange, the issuer will be required to meet applicable listing
requirements. In the event no such requirements exist, the exchange
would be required to file a proposed rule change under Section 19(b)
seeking approval of appropriate listing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like Nasdaq's current crosses, the EVI Cross will have three
elements: (1) A defined order entry period, (2) information
dissemination, and (3) a single price execution according to a fixed
algorithm. For the EVI Cross, order entry will begin at 8 a.m. and end
at 5 p.m. EST on date of issuance, typically the first trading day
following an options grant date. Nasdaq members will access the EVI
Cross system through existing interfaces for order entry, although the
EVI Cross system will be entirely separate from the Nasdaq Market
Center execution system (the Single Book). The EVIs available for sale
in the EVI Cross will be entered into the System in a single sell
order. A Nasdaq member authorized to act on behalf of the EVI Issuer
shall direct Nasdaq to enter the single sell order into the System,
including the quantity of EVIs and the limit price, if any. Once
entered, the sell order cannot be modified after 4 p.m. and my [sic] be
cancelled after 4 p.m. only in connection with a cancellation of the
EVI Cross as set forth in subsection (c) of Rule 6300. All buy orders
must be for a fixed price and size; all EVIs will be offered by the
issuer for sale on identical terms to individual bidders. Entered buy
orders can be cancelled until 5 p.m, and no executions will occur prior
to the auction close.
    As with Nasdaq's current crosses, Nasdaq will facilitate price
discovery for the EVI Cross. First, Nasdaq will facilitate price
discovery prior to the start of the EVI Cross. As set forth in the
proposed rule, Nasdaq will require issuers to make available to the
public at the earliest possible time information regarding the number
of EVIs made available via the EVI Cross, the reserve price, if any, of
the EVIs, and the terms and conditions of the EVIs. This

requirement will reinforce the issuers' inherent interest in attracting
the maximum number of bidders to the EVI Cross by providing potential
bidders with the information they need to determine their willingness
to participate and the price and size of their orders.
    In addition, Nasdaq will facilitate price discovery by
disseminating indicative auction price information via the Order
Imbalance Indicator which is available on NASDAQTrader.com and as a
data feed. Indicative price information includes: (1) The Current
Reference Price, an indicative auction price at which all EVI
instruments would be sold based on current bids; (2) paired units, the
number of units matched for execution at the Current Reference Price;
and (3) the Imbalance, the total imbalance and the size of executable
units at the Current Reference Price. Indicative information will be
disseminated starting at 4 p.m. once per minute for the first 45
minutes, and every 15 seconds thereafter.
    Disseminating indicative information will help both issuers and
purchasers. It will assist issuers by informing them whether the EVI
Cross is likely to culminate in a successful auction. Indicative
information will enable the issuer to determine that the EVI Cross is
unlikely to succeed due to, for example, insufficient buying interest,
market volatility, or buying interest below the issuer's reserve price.
Thus, issuers can use the indicative information to exercise their
option under the proposed rule to cancel the EVI Cross any time prior
to 4:45 p.m. Indicative information assists buyers by enabling them to
gauge the level of buying interest and the likely outcome of the EVI
Cross. Thus, buyers can use indicative information to exercise their
options under the rule to enter or cancel orders in the EVI Cross.
Nasdaq understands that the transparency created by the dissemination
of indicative information has been a major factor in the success of
Nasdaq's Opening, Closing, and Intra-Day Crosses.
    To protect against volatility, Nasdaq will extend the quote-only
period if a price change greater than one percent occurs between 4:59
p.m. and 5 p.m. In that case, Nasdaq will extend the quote-only period
by two minutes. If during the final minute of a two-minute extension, a
price change greater than one percent occurs, the quote-only period
will be extended for an additional two minutes. If the quote-only
period is extended more than 10 times, members will be prohibited from
canceling orders. There will be no more than 30 extensions of the
quote-only period.
    The EVI Cross will occur at 5 p.m. Eastern Time or at such time
that the quote-only period ends, as described above. The EVI Cross will
occur at the highest price that maximizes the amount of Eligible
Interest to be executed. Final auction information disseminated to all
participants and all executions will clear through National Securities
Clearing Corporation.
    Nasdaq has unique technology and expertise in creating liquid
markets and efficient price discovery. The EVI Cross will utilize the
existing technology network that links more than 100,000 market
participants with NASDAQ and provides broad access for investors to
participate in price discovery of an options valuation security. Market
data vendors and participants will have access to imbalance information
for the EVI Cross by purchasing the Net Order Imbalance Indicator data
feed which is available on the Nasdaq TotalView data feed and also
through the Nasdaq Workstation and Nasdaq Data Store at the current
filed fee.\6\ As with other NASDAQ trading platforms, the EVI Cross
will provide an open process in which all investors have the ability to
enter orders and participate in price discovery. The EVI Cross
mechanism will be regulated by FINRA and NASDAQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Nasdaq Rule 7023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fees Applicable to the EVI Cross

    Nasdaq will assess a single fee for the EVI Cross equal to a
percentage of the total value of the issuance of the EVI Security up to
a maximum of $1,500,000. This cost will be borne by the issuer of the
EVI instrument and will cover the entire cost of the processing of the
EVI Cross, including the entry and execution of orders, the
dissemination of indicative information, and the transmission of
execution information to cross participants and to NSCC. The fee will
be based upon the total value of the EVI offering, regardless of
whether all EVIs in the offering are executed in the EVI Cross, except
that the fee shall be refunded if no EVI Cross occurs.
    Nasdaq members will pay no fees to participate in the EVI Cross by
entering orders and having them executed. Although members will be
required to establish a new port for connectivity to access the EVI
Cross, there will be no fee assessed for that port.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that the proposal is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Nasdaq believes this
proposal supports the goals of the Exchange Act by creating a new,
efficient, liquid, and transparent market for interested investors. The
proposed functionality is completely voluntary with respect to all
potential participants, including issuers, members, and customers.
Nasdaq believes that the proposed fee is fair, reasonable and non-
discriminatory, in that it must remain responsive to competitive market
forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. To the contrary, by
offering an innovative new product, Nasdaq is demonstrating the proper
functioning of the competitive framework established under the Exchange
Act and administered by the Commission.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or

    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-025 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-025. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-025 and should
be submitted on or before August 28, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-18155 Filed 8-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: July 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 134)]
[Notices]
[Page 39957-39958]
[DOCID:fr11jy08-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12540-002]

Hydrodynamics, Inc.; Notice of Paper Scoping and Soliciting
Scoping Comments and Errata to Tendering Notice

July 3, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been
filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Minor unconstructed projects.
    b. Project No.: 12540-002, 12545-002, and 12549-002.
    c. Date Filed: March 31, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Hydrodynamics, Inc.
    e. Name of Projects: Woods, Johnson, and A-Drop.
    f. Location: On the Greenfields Main Canal and the Greenfields
South Canal, parts of the Bureau of Reclamation's Sun River Irrigation
Project, in Cascade and Teton Counties, Montana, near Fairfield,
Montana.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Roger Kirk, Hydrodynamics, Inc., P.O. Box
1136, Bozeman, MT 59771,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Dianne Rodman, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426; telephone
(202) 502-6077 or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: August 4, 2008.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    Scoping comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in
lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    k. These applications are not ready for environmental analysis at
this time.
    l. The proposed Woods Project would be built at the Greenfields
Main Canal's Woods drop structure. The applicant proposes to construct:
(1) An inflatable weir spanning the full width of the canal; (2) an
intake structure with trash rack and radial gate or stop-log shut off;
(3) a buried, 72-inch-diameter, 750-foot-long steel or polyethylene
penstock; (4) a powerhouse containing one Francis or propeller
(Reaction) turbine and one generator with a rated output of 900
kilowatts (kW); (5) a tailrace about 12.5 feet long, returning flows to
the canal; (6) a switchyard; and (7) a 0.1-mile-long, 69-kilovolt (kV)
transmission line interconnecting with an existing powerline. Average
annual generation would be 2.2 gigawatt hours (GWh).
    The proposed Johnson Project would be built at the Greenfields
South Canal's

Johnson drop structure. The applicant proposes to construct: (1) An
inflatable weir spanning the width of the canal; (2) an intake
structure with trash rack and radial gate or stop-log shut off; (3) a
buried, 60-inch-diameter, 900-foot-long steel or polyethylene penstock;
(4) a powerhouse containing one Francis or propeller (Reaction) turbine
and one generator with a rated output of 700 kW; (5) a tailrace about
11.25 feet long, returning flows to the canal; (6) a switchyard; (7) a
0.5-mile-long, 69-kV transmission line interconnecting with an existing
powerline; and (8) a powerhouse access road. Average annual generation
would be 1.7 GWh.
    The proposed A-Drop Project would be built at the Greenfields Main
Canal's Greenfield drop structure. The applicant proposes to construct:
(1) An inflatable weir spanning the width of the canal; (2) an intake
structure with trash rack and radial gate or stop-log shut off; (3) a
buried, 96-inch-diameter, 570-foot-long steel or polyethylene penstock;
(4) a powerhouse containing one Francis or propeller (Reaction) turbine
and one generator with a rated output of 1,000 kW; (5) a tailrace
returning flows to the canal; (6) a switchyard; (7) a 0.1-mile-long,
12-kV transmission line interconnecting with an existing powerline; and
(8) an approximately 570-foot-long powerhouse access road. Average
annual generation would be 2.5 GWh.
    m. Copies of the applications are available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the
docket number field to access each of the documents. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free
at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Copies are also
available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filings/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Scoping Process
    The Commission intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA)
on the projects in accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, as amended.\1\ The EA will consider both site-specific and
cumulative environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives to the
proposed actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ One EA will be prepared for the Woods Project (FERC No. P-
12540), Johnson Project, (FERC No. P-12545), Greenfield Project
(FERC No. P-12548) and A-Drop Project (FERC No. P-12549).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission staff does not propose to conduct any on-site scoping
meetings at this time. Instead, the staff will solicit comments,
recommendations, information, and alternatives in the Scoping Document
(SD).
    Copies of the SD outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the
EA were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list.
Copies of the SD may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link (see item m above).
    o. The tendering notice issued April 14, 2008, incorrectly stated
that the application for the A-Drop Project was filed on April 1, 2008.
The correct filing date for the A-Drop Project application is March 31,
2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-15791 Filed 7-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14196-14198]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06093]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74489; File No. SR-MIAX-2015-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule

March 12, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 27, 2015, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its current MIAX Market Maker \3\
sliding scale for transaction fees to: (i) Modify the volume thresholds
in tiers 1, 2, 3; (ii) increase the transaction fee for volume tier 1;
and (iii) increase the Priority Customer rebate incentive for tier 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``MIAX Market Maker'' for purposes of the proposed sliding
scale means any MIAX Market Maker including RMM, LMM, PLMM, DLMM,
and DPLMM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The sliding scale for MIAX Market Maker transaction fees is based
on the substantially similar fees of the Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'').\4\ Specifically, the program reduces
a MIAX Market Maker's per contract transaction fee based on percentages
of total national Market Maker volume of any options classes that trade
on the exchange during the calendar month, based on the following
scale:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55193 (January 30,
2007), 72 FR 5476 (February 6, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-111); 57191
(January 24, 2008), 73 FR 5611 (January 30, 2008); 58321 (August 6,
2008), 73 FR 46955 (SR-CBOE-2008-78). See also CBOE Fees Schedule,
p. 3.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Transaction
          Tier              Percentage of  national Market     fee per
                                     Maker volume              contract
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................  0.00%-0.05%......................        $0.25
2.......................  Above 0.05%-0.50%................         0.17
3.......................  Above 0.50%-0.80%................         0.12
4.......................  Above 0.80%-1.50%................         0.07
5.......................  Above 1.50%......................         0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The sliding scale would apply to all MIAX Market Makers for
transactions in all products except mini-options. By amending the
volume tier calculations, the sliding scale will more closely align
with that of CBOE.\5\ A MIAX Market Maker's initial $0.25 per contract
rate will be reduced if the MIAX Market Maker reaches the volume
thresholds set forth in the sliding scale in a month. As a MIAX Market
Maker's monthly volume increases, its per contract transaction fee
would decrease. The Market Maker sliding scale will continue to apply
to MIAX Market Maker (RMM, LMM, DLMM, PLMM, DPLMM) transaction fees in
all products except mini-options. MIAX Market Makers will continue to
be assessed a $0.02 per executed contract fee for transactions in mini-
options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55193 (January 30,
2007), 72 FR 5476 (February 6, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-111); 58321
(August 6, 2008), 73 FR 46955 (SR-CBOE-2008-78); 71295 (January 14,
2014), 79 FR 3443 (January 21, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2013-129).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed sliding scale is objective in
that the fee reductions are based solely on reaching stated volume
thresholds. The specific volume thresholds of the tiers were set based
upon business determinations and an analysis of current volume levels.
The specific volume thresholds and rates were set in order to encourage
MIAX Market Makers to reach for higher tiers. The Exchange believes
that the proposed changes to the tiered fee schedule may incent firms
to display their orders on the Exchange and increase the volume of
contracts traded here.
    As mentioned above, the Exchange notes that the proposed sliding
fee scale for MIAX Market Makers structured on contract volume
thresholds is based on the substantially similar fees of the CBOE.\6\
The Exchange also notes that a number of other exchanges have tiered
fee schedules which offer different transaction fee rates depending on
the monthly ADV of liquidity providing executions on their
facilities.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55193 (January 30,
2007), 72 FR 5476 (February 6, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-111); 58321
(August 6, 2008), 73 FR 46955 (SR-CBOE-2008-78); 71295 (January 14,
2014), 79 FR 3443 (January 21, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2013-129).
    \7\ See, e.g., International Securities Exchange, LLC, Schedule
of Fees, Section IV, C; NASDAQ Options Market, Chapter XV, Section
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to increase the rebate incentive for
Priority Customer orders to correspond with the increase in the
transaction fee for tier 1 of the MIAX Market Maker sliding scale. The
Exchange offers MIAX Market Makers the opportunity to reduce
transaction fees by $0.02 per contract in standard options if the
Member or its affiliates of at least 75% common ownership between the
firms as reflected on each firm's Form BD, Schedule A, qualifies in a
given month for Priority Customer Rebate Program volume tiers 3, 4, or
5 in the Fee Schedule. The Exchange proposes to amend the rebate
incentive for Priority Customer orders in order to increase the rebate
incentive for tier 1 to correspond with the increase in transaction
fees for volume tier 1 of the MIAX Market Maker sliding scale. As
proposed, any Member or its affiliates of at least 75% common ownership
between the firms as reflected on each firm's Form BD, Schedule A, that
qualifies for Priority Customer Rebate Program volume tiers 3, 4, or 5
and is a MIAX Market Maker will be assessed $0.23 per contract for tier
1, $0.15 per contract for tier 2, $0.10 per contract for tier 3, $0.05
per contract for tier 4, and $0.03 per contract for tier 5 for
transactions in standard options in lieu of the applicable transaction
fees in the Market Maker sliding scale.
    The Exchange believes that these incentives will encourage MIAX
Market Makers to transact a greater number of orders on the Exchange.

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to modify the name of the title of
the column in the chart from ``Contracts Per Month'' to ``Percentage
Thresholds of National Market Maker Volume''. The Exchange believes
that the new title more clearly describes the type of threshold
methodology that is being used for the fee.
    The proposed changes will become operative on March 1, 2015.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that
it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges
among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed volume based discount fee structure is not
discriminatory in that all MIAX Market Makers are eligible to submit
(or not submit) liquidity, and may do so at their discretion in the
daily volumes they choose during the course of the billing period. All
similarly situated MIAX Market Makers are subject to the same fee
structure, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not
unfairly discriminatory. Volume based discounts have been widely
adopted by options and equities markets, and are equitable because they
are open to all MIAX Market Makers on an equal basis and provide
discounts that are reasonably related to the value of an exchange's
market quality associated with higher volumes. The proposed fee levels
and volume thresholds are reasonably designed to be comparable to those
of other options exchanges employing similar fee programs, and also to
attract additional liquidity and order flow to the Exchange.
    The Exchange's proposal to provide MIAX Market Makers the
opportunity to reduce transaction fees by $0.02 per contract in
standard options, provided certain criteria are met, is reasonable
because the Exchange desires to offer all such market participants an
opportunity to lower their transaction fees. The Exchange's proposal to
offer MIAX Market Makers the opportunity to reduce transaction fees by
$0.02 per contract in standard options, provided certain criteria are
met, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange
offers all market participants, excluding Priority Customers, a means
to reduce transaction fees by qualifying for volume tiers in the
Priority Customer Rebate Program. The Exchange believes that offering
all such market participants the opportunity to lower transaction fees
by incentivizing them to transact Priority Customer order flow in turn
benefits all market participants.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed to change to the
name of the title of the column in the chart from ``Contracts Per
Month'' to ``Percentage Thresholds of National Market Maker Volume'' is
reasonable in that the new title more clearly describes the type of
threshold methodology that is being used for the fee.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges and to attract order flow. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment because it
modifies the Exchange's fees in a manner that encourages market
participants to provide liquidity and to send order flow to the
Exchange.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\10\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2015-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2015-13. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2015-13,
and should be submitted on or before April 8, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06093 Filed 3-17-15; 08:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM Date: June 30, 2003 Subject: Summary of the June 3, 2003 Meeting Between the EPA and the Chlorine Institute to Discuss Issues Associated with the Mercury Cell Chlor Alkali Plant NESHAP From: Heather P. Brown, EC/ R Phil Norwood, EC/ R To: Iliam Rosario, EPA/ OAQPS/ ESD/ MG The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the Environmental Protection Agency's ( EPA) meeting on June 3, 2003, with representatives of the Chlorine Institute ( CI) and companies that own or operate mercury cell chlor alkali plants. The meeting was held by teleconference. The purpose of the meeting was to obtain additional clarification of comments submitted by CI and to discuss any additional data needed by EPA to make final decisions. The handout distributed by EPA is included as Attachment 1.

DATE AND LOCATION June 3, 2003 4: 00 p. m.  6: 00 p. m.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC Held via teleconference.

ATTENDEES The conference call was attended by EPA representatives, EPA's contractor ( EC/ R Incorporated), and members of the Chlorine Institute. The individuals who participated in the meeting as well as their affiliations, are listed below.

Environmental Protection Agency Steve Fruh, Metals Group Iliam Rosario, Metals Group 2 EC/ R Incorporated Heather Brown Phil Norwood Chlorine Institute ASHTA John Reese Chlorine Institute Art Dungan Occidental Chemical Dick Timmons Olin Sandy Moore Bill Rankin Pioneer Gary Sellars Regina Wilson PPG Jerry Osheka Terry Smith Vulcan Steve Hieger Dawn Jensen Chris Martin SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION The following provides a summary of the discussion. This summary is organized by topic and does not always represent the chronology of the discussion.

Background On July 3, 2002, EPA proposed national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants from mercury cell chlor alkali facilities ( 67 FR 44672) under the authority of section 112( c)( 6) and 112( d). Eight comment letters were received regarding the proposed NESHAP. During the conference call, the comments received were discussed along with EPA's preliminary decisions. The purpose of the call was to obtain additional clarification of comments submitted by CI and to discuss any additional data EPA would need to make final decisions. 3 Issues In order to clarify comments received and to identify data potentially needed to make final decisions, EPA discussed their preliminary decisions on the final rule ( Attachment 1). The following were the major points from this discussion.

! Industry was concerned that the nine operating facilities would not be able to meet the limits. According to industry personnel, the data used to derive the limits were collected using non isokinetic sampling . EPA requested data from the facility with the best controlled emissions ( i. e., lowest annual emissions).

! Industry was concerned that they would not have the analytical resources to conduct periodic testing on a daily basis. At one facility, they only have the ability to perform inhouse laboratory analyses five days per week. Furthermore, a typical test takes several hours, including setup ( at least 2 hours), the test itself ( at least 2 hours), and the analysis ( several hours).

! Industry was concerned about sampling during off shifts ( e. g., weekends and holidays) if daily sampling was required.

! Industry indicated that no one could meet the proposed rule without using a carbon adsorption system.

! Industry requested that EPA provide flexibility for demonstrating compliance by allowing redundant control devices. One facility described their control device system, which consists of multiple carbon beds in series. The facility performs tests once per week after each bed and when the first bed exhibits breakthrough, the carbon is changed out. The change out takes between 36 and 48 hours. The facility suggested that when the carbon is being changed out, they could test the second device on a daily basis. Under this scenario, compliance would be demonstrated at the outlet of the second ( or last) carbon bed.

Action Items EPA agreed to follow up with the currently operating facility that had the lowest emissions to discuss how their emissions data were collected and how annual emissions were calculated from the test data. ATTACHMENT 1 Preliminary Decisions on Final Rule * Note: These are draft decisions. Final decisions are pending discussions with EPA work group and management.

1 Mercury Cell Chlor Alkali MACT Preliminary Decisions on Final Rule DRAFT  June 1, 2003 Comment/ Issue Preliminary Decision/ Action*

Issues Raised in Chlorine Institute Comments Title V permits should not be required ( § 63.8182) Title V permits will be required for all sources subject to the rule Compliance date should be three years after promulgation ( § 63.8186) Compliance date will be moved to 3 years from the date the final rule appears in the Federal Register Emission limits should be modified ( § 63.8190)

Emission limits should not be set " beyond the floor" While the emission limitation in the final rule will still be " beyond the floor," it will not be based on the former chloralkali facility in Maine.

Emission limits should include a factor for variability The hydrogen/ end box emission limitation in the final rule has been changed to a 365 day rolling average. Data will need to be collected starting on the compliance date and the first compliance will be reported one year ( 365 days) from the compliance date. Compliance will then be determined daily for the previous 365 days.

The emission limitation for mercury thermal recovery unit vents was not changed.

Annual chlorine capacity should be defined The hydrogen/ end box emission limitation in final rule will be based on actual chlorine production. Mercury Cell Chlor Alkali MACT Preliminary Decisions on Final Rule DRAFT  June 1, 2003 Comment/ Issue Preliminary Decision/ Action*

* Note: These are draft decisions. Final decisions are pending discussions with EPA work group and management.

2 Emission limits should be modified ( § 63.8190)

Emission limits should not depend on compliance test performance Initial compliance ( § 63.8236)

Continuous monitoring system provisions should be modified ( § 63.8240 and § 63.8242)

Demonstration of continuous compliance ( § 63.8246)

Submissions ( § 63.8254) The operating limit concept in the proposed rule will be removed. The final rule will allow two options for complying the hydrogen/ end box and mercury thermal recovery unit vent emission limitations:

Option ( 1) Continuously monitor the mercury concentration in each vent and directly compare with the emission limitation.

S For hydrogen/ end box streams, other parameters ( flow rate, etc.) would also need to be continuously monitored to allow the calculation of the mass of mercury emissions. The emissions for the previous 365 days would be divided by the chlorine production for the same period and compared with the emission limitation.

S For mercury thermal recovery unit vents, a daily average mercury concentration would be calculated and compared to the emission limitation.

For this option, the monitoring system will need to be certified by comparing results with Method 101/ 101A/ 102 during the initial and subsequent performance testing. A site specific monitoring plan will also need to be developed and followed. Mercury Cell Chlor Alkali MACT Preliminary Decisions on Final Rule DRAFT  June 1, 2003 Comment/ Issue Preliminary Decision/ Action*

* Note: These are draft decisions. Final decisions are pending discussions with EPA work group and management.

3 Emission limits should be modified ( § 63.8190)

Emission limits should not depend on compliance test performance Initial compliance ( § 63.8236)

Continuous monitoring system provisions should be modified ( § 63.8240 and § 63.8242)

Demonstration of continuous compliance ( § 63.8246)

Submissions ( § 63.8254) ( continued) Option ( 2) Determine the mercury concentration/ emissions daily using a modified test method.

. S For hydrogen/ end box streams, the emissions for the previous 365 days would be divided by the chlorine production for the same period and compared with the emission limitation.

S For mercury thermal recovery unit vents, the measured mercury concentration would be compared to the emission limitation.

For this option, the modified method would have to be certified by comparing results with Method 101/ 101A/ 102 during the initial and subsequent performance testing. While at least one measurement would be required each day, obtaining multiple measurements and using the average of all measurements taken during the day would be allowed. Mercury Cell Chlor Alkali MACT Preliminary Decisions on Final Rule DRAFT  June 1, 2003 Comment/ Issue Preliminary Decision/ Action*

* Note: These are draft decisions. Final decisions are pending discussions with EPA work group and management.

4 Work Practice Standards ( § 63.8192)

Tables 1, 2, and 6 Most of the recommendations in the Chlorine Institute comments will be incorporated.

Table 4 This table will be retained in the final rule.

Table 5 This table will be removed from the final rule.

Cell room monitoring provisions should be modified ( § 63.8192( e)) The final rule will allow the option of either complying with the detailed work practice standards OR with a cell room monitoring program. The rule will, however, include more detailed requirements for the cell room monitoring program.

Subsequent Performance Tests ( § 63.8231) Since Title V permits will be required for all facilities, these provisions will reference the Title V permit as proposed.

Recertification of the monitoring system or modified test method will also be required during these subsequent performance tests. Mercury Cell Chlor Alkali MACT Preliminary Decisions on Final Rule DRAFT  June 1, 2003 Comment/ Issue Preliminary Decision/ Action*

* Note: These are draft decisions. Final decisions are pending discussions with EPA work group and management.

5 Test Methods and Equations/ Procedures ( § 63.8234) The final rule will not contain the requirement that performance tests for mercury thermal recovery vents be conducted when mercury containing wastes are being process that result in the highest mercury concentration in the vent.

The provisions related to obtaining a sample containing twice the detection limit will not be retained in the final rule. The final rule will require a minimum sampling time of at least 2 hours and a minimum sampling volume of at least 1.7 dscm ( 60 dscf). If the results are below the analytical laboratory's detection limit, the required results ( for compliance purposes)

will be reported using the documented analytical detection limit to calculate the emission rate in the units of the standard.

Demonstration of continuous compliance ( § 63.8246) The final rule will retain the requirement that data must be collected representing at least 75 percent of the 15 minute periods in the operating day.

Start up, shutdowns, and malfunctions ( § 63.8254( c)) The final rule will retain the immediate reporting of start up,

shutdown, or malfunction events as proposed.

Records ( § 63.8256 and Table 8) Changes will be made in response to comments.

Records Retention ( § 63.8258) The final rule will retain the requirement regarding the retention of the continuous monitoring records as proposed. Mercury Cell Chlor Alkali MACT Preliminary Decisions on Final Rule DRAFT  June 1, 2003 Comment/ Issue Preliminary Decision/ Action*

* Note: These are draft decisions. Final decisions are pending discussions with EPA work group and management.

6 Definitions ( § 63.8266) Changes will be made to hydrogen system definition in response to comments. The definition of by product hydrogen stream will not be deleted.

Major Issues Raised by Other Commenters MACT should be non mercury cell production The final rule will retain the proposed new source requirement of zero mercury emissions but will not extend this requirement to existing sources.

MACT for mercury recovery should be non thermal recovery processes The final rule will not prohibit thermal mercury recovery processes.

The EPA created too many small subcategories. There should not be separate limits for plants with and without end box ventilation systems and for oven type and non oven thermal mercury recovery units. The final rule will retain separate emission limits for these situations.

The rule should also contain emission limitations for other parts of the plant, namely chlorine purification, brine preparation,

caustic, and wastewater treatment operations. The final rule will not contain emission limitations for emission sources that were not in the proposed rule.

The approach for establishing the emission limitations for thermal recovery unit vents did not result in limits that were stringent enough. The mercury thermal recovery unit vent emission limitations from the proposed rule will be retained in the final rule. Mercury Cell Chlor Alkali MACT Preliminary Decisions on Final Rule DRAFT  June 1, 2003 Comment/ Issue Preliminary Decision/ Action*

* Note: These are draft decisions. Final decisions are pending discussions with EPA work group and management.

7 The rule should include a numerical emission limitations for fugitive emissions from the cell room and other areas in the plant. The final rule will not include numerical emission limitations for fugitive emission sources.

The cell room monitoring program should be strengthened. A specific comment is that plants should not be allowed to establish their own action level. The final rule will include more detailed requirements for the cell room monitoring program. One of these requirements will be a procedure for how plants are to establish their action level.

Note: In the final rule, the cell room monitoring program is an alternative to the work practices, and not a requirement for every plant.

The rule should require an accounting and reporting of annual mercury consumption. The final rule will contain provisions to record and report annual mercury consumption.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12526-12527]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4976]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0990; FRL-9626-5]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Antelope
Valley Air Quality Management District and Mojave Desert Quality
Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Antelope Valley
Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD) and Mojave Desert Air Quality
Management District (MDAQMD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern recordkeeping for
rules governing volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
coatings, solvents and adhesives and rules governing VOC emissions from
graphic arts and paper, film, foil and fabric coatings. We are
proposing to approve two local rules to regulate these emission sources
under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by April 2, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0990, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly
available in either location

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adrianne Borgia, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3576<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the following local
rules: AVAQMD Rule 109, Recordkeeping for Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions and MDAQMD Rule 1117, Graphic Arts and Paper, Film, Foil and
Fabric Coatings. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal
Register, we are approving these local rules in a direct final action
without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not
controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish
a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments
in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if
we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of
this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of
the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are
not the subject of an adverse comment.
    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: January 13, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-4976 Filed 2-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 554-556]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28474]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0078; Notice 1]

Jayco, Inc, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Jayco, Inc., (Jayco) has determined that certain model year
(MY) 2020 travel trailers, manufactured by Jayco, do not fully comply
with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire
Selection and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load
Carrying Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536
Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) or Less. Jayco filed a noncompliance report
dated July 16, 2019. In coordination with Jayco, Starcraft RV
(Starcraft) and Highland Ridge RV (Highland), subsidiaries of Jayco,
also filed noncompliance reports dated July 17, 2019. Jayco
subsequently petitioned NHTSA on July 31, 2019, and later amended that
petition on September 26, 2019 and November 6, 2019, for a decision
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of Jayco's
petition.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is February 5,
2020.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket number and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Jayco has determined that certain MY 2020 travel trailers,
manufactured by Jayco, do not fully comply with paragraph S4.3.5 of
FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation
Vehicle Trailer Load Carrying Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles
with a GVWR of 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) or Less (49 CFR
571.110). Jayco filed a noncompliance report dated July 16, 2019, and
in addition, Starcraft and Highland, subsidiaries of Jayco, also filed
noncompliance reports dated July 17, 2019, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Jayco subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on July 31, 2019, and later amended that petition on
September 26, 2019 and November 6, 2019, 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.
    This notice of receipt of Jayco's petition, is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any Agency decision or
other exercises of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.

II. Trailers Involved

    Approximately 6,354 MY 2020 Jayco, approximately 1,006 Starcraft,
and approximately 814 Highland travel trailers, manufactured between
May 1, 2019, and June 27, 2019, are potentially involved.
    In Jayco's petition, they stated that the total number of vehicles
affected is 8,983, however, that number also includes travel trailers
sold in Canada. NHTSA can only grant exemption for vehicles sold in the
United States, totaling approximately 8,174 vehicles.

III. Noncompliance

    Jayco explains that the noncompliance is that the subject travel
trailers are equipped with vehicle placards that show the incorrect
vehicle capacity weight and an extra character in the recommended tire
inflation pressure and, therefore, do not meet the requirements set
forth in paragraph S4.3.5 of FMVSS No. 110. Specifically, the vehicle
placards show the vehicle weight capacity as 80 kg when it should be
807 kg. Also, the recommended tire inflation pressure for the rear tire
states 552 IKPA and the spare tire states 552 7KPA when they should
read 552 KPA.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraphs S4.3.5 of FMVSS No. 110 includes the requirements
relevant to this petition. Each trailer, except for an incomplete
vehicle, must show the information specified in paragraphs S4.3(c)
through (g), and may show the information specified in paragraph
S4.3(h) and (i), on a placard permanently affixed proximate to the
certification label. Each trailer, on the vehicle placard, contains a
cargo capacity statement expressed as ``The weight of cargo should
never exceed XXX kilograms or XXX pounds.'' A vehicle manufacturer's
recommended cold tire inflation pressure for front, rear, and spare
tires, are subject to the limitations of paragraph S4.3.4.

V. Summary of Jayco's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, V.
Summary of Jayco's Petition, are the views and arguments provided by
Jayco. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect
the views of the Agency.
    Jayco described the subject noncompliance and stated that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Jayco

submitted the following views and arguments in support of the petition:
    1. The ``should not exceed'' weight of cargo shown as 80 kg on the
Tire Placard Label is in error and should be 807 kg. Jayco believes
this information is redundant in that the cargo carrying capacity (CCC)
label depicts the same information required by FMVSS No. 110 paragraph
S4.3 and is correctly shown as the 807 kg.
    2. The cold tire inflation pressure shown as 552 KPA, 80 PSI, is
printed with an extra character for the rear and spare tire. Jayco
believes this error is inconsequential to vehicle safety in that the
correct information can be found on the sidewall of the tire.
    3. The top section of the Federal label depicts the exact same
information as the tire placard, with the tire size dimensions and the
cold pressure inflation values of 552 KPA/80 PSI.
    4. The bottom section of the Federal label depicts the CCC of the
trailer including the weights with the fresh water and the waste water
tanks full.
    5. The owner's manual for Jayco, StarCraft, and Highland instructs
an owner on the loading of their vehicle and where to find the required
ratings that are displayed on the Federal Certification Label. The
owner's manuals are also available on the company website at
www.jayco.com.
    6. The Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin (MCO) also contains
both the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and the unloaded vehicle
weight (UVW). The difference in these two numbers would also give the
owner the available CCC of the trailer.
    7. The most important time for RV purchasers to have the CCC
information is at the point-of-sale. Almost all of the trailers
affected by this noncompliance have been purchased already by a
consumer. Jayco has had no complaints or inquiries regarding CCC from
any of its owners or dealers on the affected models.
    8. NHTSA has previously granted similar inconsequential petitions
with respect to FMVSS No. 110. See 84 FR 25117 (May 30, 2019).
    Jayco concluded 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.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject trailers that Jayco no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant trailers under their control after Jayco
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8).

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-28474 Filed 1-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 83 (Monday, May 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 23413]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09114]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4482-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

California; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of California (FEMA-4482-DR), dated March 22, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued March 11, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of California is hereby amended to include Individual
Assistance limited to COVID-19 Funeral Assistance under Other Needs
Assistance for those areas determined to have been adversely affected
by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of March 22, 2020.

    Individual Assistance limited to COVID-19 Funeral Assistance
under Other Needs Assistance for all areas in the State of
California (already designated for Individual Assistance, limited to
the Crisis Counseling Program and emergency protective measures
[Category B] not authorized under other Federal statutes, including
direct Federal assistance).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

Robert J. Fenton,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-09114 Filed 4-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P