Published Guidance

amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 55 / Thursday, March 21, 2019 / Notices
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The
information collection is published in
the Federal Register to obtain comments
from the public and affected agencies.
Comments are encouraged and must be
submitted (no later than May 20, 2019)
to be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and/or
suggestions regarding the item(s)
contained in this notice must include
the OMB Control Number 1651–0077 in
the subject line and the agency name.
To avoid duplicate submissions, please
use only one of the following methods
to submit comments:
(1) Email. Submit comments to: CBP_
PRA@cbp.dhs.gov.
(2) Mail. Submit written comments to
CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
Office of Trade, Regulations and
Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis
Branch, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor,
Washington, DC 20229–1177.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional PRA information
should be directed to Seth Renkema,
Chief, Economic Impact Analysis
Branch, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations
and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor,
Washington, DC 20229–1177,
Telephone number (202) 325–0056 or
via email CBP_PRA@cbp.dhs.gov. Please
note that the contact information
provided here is solely for questions
regarding this notice. Individuals
seeking information about other CBP
programs should contact the CBP
National Customer Service Center at
877–227–5511, (TTY) 1–800–877–8339,
or CBP website at https://www.cbp
.gov/.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CBP
invites the general public and other
Federal agencies to comment on the
proposed and/or continuing information
collections pursuant to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). This process is conducted in
accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8. Written
comments and suggestions from the
public and affected agencies should
address one or more of the following
four points: (1) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3)
suggestions to enhance the quality,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 Mar 20, 2019

Jkt 247001

utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (4) suggestions to
minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses. The
comments that are submitted will be
summarized and included in the request
for approval. All comments will become
a matter of public record.
Overview of This Information
Collection
Title: Customs-Trade Partnership
Against Terrorism (C–TPAT) and the
Trusted Trader Program.
OMB Number: 1651–0077.
Current Actions: CBP proposes to
extend the expiration date of this
information collection with no change
to the burden hours or to the
information collected.
Type of Review: Extension (with no
change).
Affected Public: Businesses.
Abstract: The C–TPAT Program is
designed to safeguard the world’s trade
industry from terrorists and smugglers
by prescreening its participants. The
C–TPAT Program applies to United
States importers, customs brokers,
consolidators, port and terminal
operators, carriers, and foreign
manufacturers.
Respondents apply to participate in
the Trusted Trader Program and
C–TPAT using an on-line application at:
https://ctpat.cbp.dhs.gov/trade-web/
index. The C–TPAT Program
application requests an applicant’s
contact and business information,
including the number of company
employees, the number of years in
business, and a list of company officers.
This collection of information is
authorized by the SAFE Port Act (Pub.
L. 109–347).
The Trusted Trader Program involves
a unification of supply chain security
aspects of the C–TPAT Program and the
internal controls of the Importer SelfAssessment (ISA) Program to integrate
supply chain security and trade
compliance. The Trusted Trader
Program strengthens security by
leveraging the C–TPAT supply chain
requirements and validation, identifying
low-risk trade entities for supply chain
security and trade compliance, and
increasing the overall efficiency of trade
by segmenting risk and processing by
account. The Trusted Trader Program
applies to importer participants who
have satisfied C–TPAT supply chain

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

10521

security and trade compliance
requirements.
After an importer obtains Trusted
Trader Program membership, the
importer will be required to submit an
Annual Notification Letter to CBP
confirming that they are continuing to
meet the requirements of the Trusted
Trader Program. This letter should
include: personnel changes that impact
the Trusted Trader Program;
organizational and procedural changes;
a summary of risk assessment and selftesting results; a summary of post-entry
amendments and/or disclosures made to
CBP; and any importer activity changes
within the last 12-month period.
C–TPAT Program Application:
Estimated Number of Respondents:
750.
Estimated Number of Responses per
Respondent: 1.
Estimated Time per Response: 20
hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 15,000.
Trusted Trader Program Application:
Estimated Number of Respondents:
50.
Estimated Number of Responses per
Respondent: 1.
Estimated Time per Response: 2
hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 100.
Trusted Trader Program’s Annual
Notification Letter:
Estimated Number of Respondents:
50.
Estimated Number of Responses per
Respondent: 1.
Estimated Time per Response: 2
hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 100.
Dated: March 14, 2019.
Seth D. Renkema,
Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis
Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
[FR Doc. 2019–05384 Filed 3–20–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–14–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
[Docket ID FEMA–2014–0005]

Individual Assistance Declarations
Factors Guidance
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:

This document provides
notice of the availability of the final

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM

21MRN1

10522

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 55 / Thursday, March 21, 2019 / Notices

Individual Assistance Declarations
Factors Guidance. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) published a notice of
availability and request for comment for
the proposed guidance on September
22, 2016.
DATES: This policy is effective on June
1, 2019.
ADDRESSES: This final guidance is
available online at http://
www.regulations.gov and on FEMA’s
website at http://www.fema.gov. The
proposed and final guidance, all related
Federal Register Notices, and all public
comments received during the comment
period are available at http://
www.regulations.gov under docket ID
FEMA–2014–0005. You may also view a
hard copy of the final guidance at the
Office of Chief Counsel, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Room
8NE, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Millican, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472, (phone) 202–
212–3221 or (email) FEMA-IARegulations@fema.dhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with NOTICES

Background
Section 1109 of the Sandy Recovery
Improvement Act of 2013 requires
FEMA, in cooperation with State, local,
and Tribal emergency management
agencies, to review, update, and revise
through rulemaking the factors found at
44 CFR 206.48(b) that FEMA uses to
determine whether to recommend
provision of Individual Assistance
during a major disaster. On November
12, 2015, FEMA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing
to implement the requirements of
section 1109. 80 FR 70116. On
September 22, 2016, FEMA sought
comment on its proposed Individual
Assistance Declarations Factors
Guidance, which is intended to provide
additional information to the public
regarding the manner in which FEMA is
proposing to evaluate a request for a
major disaster declaration authorizing
Individual Assistance. 81 FR 65369.
Public Comments on the Proposed
Guidance
FEMA received 23 comments on the
proposed Individual Assistance
Declarations Factors Guidance. The
majority of the comments were
duplicative of comments that were
received on the NPRM and are
addressed in the Factors Considered
When Evaluating a Governor’s Request
for Individual Assistance for a Major

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 Mar 20, 2019

Jkt 247001

Disaster final rule, which is published
elsewhere in today’s Federal Register.
Several comments were specific to the
guidance document and are discussed
below.
One commenter suggested that Table
2: Number of IA Requests and Granted
IA Requests by ICC Ratio could be
broken up from a 10–25 range into 10–
15, 15–20 and 20–25 ranges for the
future. FEMA believes that the ICC
ratios should not be stratified any
further at this point. Any further
stratification is likely to be incorrectly
viewed as a threshold by the States
which is not what FEMA intended ICC
to be used for. FEMA is providing this
information to States as a historical
reference to help guide States for
planning in future disaster situations.
FEMA will update the table as necessary
to provide trends and historic data to
the States in a timely manner to guide
States on what level of damage they
should likely be prepared to handle on
their own without supplemental Federal
assistance. However, it should be noted
that there are various other
circumstances and factors that may
impact the President’s determination of
whether a major disaster declaration is
necessary that are not captured in the
ICC ratio.
Another commenter suggested that
FEMA modify Table 1: Estimated Cost
of Assistance to Declaration Decision
Comparative, to use a 50 percent
benchmark instead of the breakdown of
$7.5 million or more, $1.5 to $7.5
million, and $1.5 million or less. FEMA
has also declined to use a 50 percent
benchmark because we feel that the
three different benchmarks are more
helpful to States for planning purposes.
A 50 percent benchmark may inevitably
lead to certain individuals or States use
that benchmark as a hard threshold
which FEMA seeks to avoid. In
addition, it should be noted that there
are various other circumstances and
factors that may impact the President’s
determination of whether a major
disaster declaration is necessary that are
not captured in the single data point of
the estimated cost of assistance.
One commenter asked whether the
factors were weighted differently
depending on the IA program. In
addition, they suggested casualties
should have a higher weight for a
program such as Crisis Counseling. With
respect to IA programs other than IHP,
FEMA has not identified a formula
similar to the ICC approach described
elsewhere in the guidance. Instead,
FEMA considers the factors holistically
to determine which IA programs would
best suit the needs of a community after
a disaster. In addition, there is a table

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

in the guidance correlating each
Individual Assistance program with the
factors that FEMA will consider when
evaluating a Governor’s request for a
major disaster declaration authorizing
such program. States may use this table
to better understand how the new IA
declaration factors align with the
various IA programs.
A commenter requested that FEMA
include a statement that not all of the IA
programs will be available as soon as a
major disaster is declared. FEMA added
a clarifying statement to the guidance
that authorization of Individual
Assistance programs under a major
disaster declaration means that such
programs are available for the State.
FEMA further clarified that a State may
be required to submit an additional
application or additional information
post major disaster declaration to
determine which IA programs are
necessary, the scope of each IA program,
or the amount of each IA program
funding.
Another commenter requested that
FEMA clarify that the Transportation
Infrastructure and Utilities sub-factor to
the Impact to Community Infrastructure
factor encompasses private roads,
bridges, and tunnels as well as public
roads, bridges, and tunnels. The
commenters felt that this clarification
would address situations in rural or
other areas where a private road allows
individuals access to publicly owned
transportation infrastructure. FEMA
agrees with the commenter that this
clarification was needed and made the
requested change to the guidance
document.
A commenter proposed that FEMA
should use metropolitan statistical areas
or census tract-level data instead of
county-level data to identify per capita
income or the true impact to a local area
and the communities within it. Major
disasters are generally declared by the
President on the county or parish level
for ease of administration because
county- or parish-level designations
clearly delineate which areas within a
State are or are not eligible for
supplemental Federal assistance.
Census tracts are not as well known by
disaster survivors. FEMA has chosen to
continue to use county-level data to
match with how disasters are declared.
However, a State is always welcome to
provide any additional relevant
information at the census tract level, or
at any other level, if such information
illustrates the disaster impacted local
area or community in a different light
than the county-level data.
A commenter requested clarification
of what a reasonable commuting
distance from the impacted area was for

E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM

21MRN1

amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 55 / Thursday, March 21, 2019 / Notices
rental resources under the State, Tribal,
and Local Government; NonGovernmental Organizations (NGO); and
Private Sector Activity sub-factor for the
Resource Availability factor. Reasonable
commuting distance is defined in
regulation at 44 CFR 206.111 as a
distance that does not place undue
hardship on an applicant. The
regulatory definition also takes into
consideration the traveling time
involved due to road conditions, e.g.,
mountainous regions or bridges out and
the normal commuting patterns of the
area.
Another commenter stated that the
Disaster Impacted Population Profile
factor violates Section 308 of the
Stafford Act and recommended that
FEMA exclude this factor. Section 308
of the Stafford Act covers
nondiscrimination in disaster assistance
and states that activities shall be
accomplished in an equitable and
impartial manner, without
discrimination on the grounds of race,
color, religion, nationality, sex, age,
disability, English proficiency, or
economic status. FEMA notes that in the
current practice and regulation, FEMA
considers how a disaster impacts
‘‘special populations’’ such as lowincome, the elderly, or the unemployed,
and whether such populations may have
a greater need for assistance. 44 CFR
206.48(b)(3). FEMA believes that it is
important to consider how disasters
may disproportionality have a negative
impact on certain populations. For
instance, a disaster may
disproportionality impact individuals
who are 65 years or older because they
may live on a fixed income with less
disposable income and therefore may
have a difficult time paying for repairs
to a disaster damaged home.
Information on the percentage of the
population that are non-English
speaking assists FEMA in structuring
their outreach efforts to ensure that any
messaging is conducted in the
appropriate language for the disaster
impacted population.
Another comment stated that with
respect to the Impact to Community
Infrastructure factor, FEMA should
define what ‘‘impact’’ to community
infrastructure means, and what a
‘‘significant’’ disruption is. The
commenter also requested that FEMA
provide additional guidance regarding
how it would assess this factor. For
purposes of evaluating the impact of a
major disaster on a community’s
infrastructure, FEMA considers any
covered activity (such as search and
rescue) or disruption (such as power
loss) to be sufficiently significant to fall
under this factor if that activity or

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 Mar 20, 2019

Jkt 247001

disruption lasts for more than 72 hours.
With respect to impact of the disaster on
life-saving and life-sustaining services,
FEMA is specifically seeking
information on disruption to services
such as, but not limited to, police, fire/
EMS, hospital/medical, sewage, and
water treatment services because
prolonged disruption may affect the
viability of a community and necessitate
survivor relocation. Regarding the
impact of the disaster on transportation
infrastructure and utilities, FEMA is
seeking information on the number of
roads, bridges, tunnels, and public
transit closures and utility outages of
water, power, sewage, and gas that last
longer than 72 hours. A State is
welcome to provide any additional
information that highlights the impact
of the disaster on the State and local
community infrastructure.
A commenter stated that FEMA
should exclude the ‘‘casualties’’ factor
or explain how it is weighted. FEMA
does not believe that it is appropriate to
exclude the casualties factor because it
is an important factor to help determine
the level of trauma that a community
and State suffered from a disaster. A
large amount of injured, missing, or
deceased individuals can indicate a
heightened need for supplemental
Federal assistance because casualties are
indicative of the level of trauma in the
disaster affected areas. Regarding the
weight given to the casualties factor,
FEMA has not assigned any percentage
or given weight to the factor. FEMA
considers casualties holistically along
with the other factors in the final rule
to determine the need of supplemental
Federal assistance for a State and local
community.
A commenter recommended that
FEMA move the table that correlates
each IA program to the factors
considered earlier in the guidance as
well as add a column with a tentative
timeline for each IA program. FEMA
declined to move table earlier in the
document because it is important to
have an understanding of the factors
considered in evaluating the need for a
major disaster authorizing IA before
associating each factor with the
applicable IA program. In addition,
FEMA has declined to add a tentative
timeline because the timeline of the IA
programs varies from disaster to disaster
based on numerous factors such as the
size and scope of the recovery.
A commenter asked that FEMA
include in the guidance the calculations
that are used to determine the estimated
cost of assistance so that States can do
the calculation themselves based on
local and State level damage
assessments to assist in their evaluation

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

10523

of whether or not to request a joint
FEMA-State preliminary damage
assessment. Currently, the estimated
cost of assistance is calculated by FEMA
during completion of the joint FEMAState preliminary damage assessment.
Previously, FEMA was not consistent in
sharing the results of the estimated cost
of assistance with the affected States.
FEMA clarified in the guidance that it
would provide the estimated cost of
assistance to the State during and after
the preliminary damage assessment.
Regarding the calculations, that is
beyond the scope of the Individual
Assistance Declarations Factors
guidance and is more appropriately
considered in any potential future
updates to the preliminary damage
assessment guidance and materials.
A commenter to the proposed
guidance recommended that FEMA
include in the regulation and guidance
sub-factors related to the number of
rental units impacted, the degree of
damage, the percent of disaster
impacted rental units occupied by
persons of low and moderate income,
and other similar data. FEMA has
declined to include this sub-factor
because during the disaster response
phase it may be hard to capture this
granularity of detail especially the
percent of disaster impacted rental units
occupied by persons of low and
moderate income. If a State is able to
collect this level of detailed data during
the preliminary damage assessment
phase they are welcome to provide this
information and FEMA will consider it
when evaluating the State’s request for
supplemental Federal assistance.
Changes to the Proposed Guidance
FEMA made four changes to the
proposed guidance based on comments
received on both the NPRM and the
proposed guidance. First, as discussed
above, FEMA added a clarifying
statement that a major disaster
declaration merely authorizes
Individual Assistance; additional
applications or additional information
are required to determine the program
scope or program funding amount.
Second, also as discussed above, FEMA
clarified that it will evaluate the impact
of the disaster on both private and
public roads under the ‘‘Transportation
Infrastructure and Utilities’’ sub-factor
in the ‘‘Impact to Community
Infrastructure’’ factor. Third, as
discussed the in the final rule preamble,
FEMA removed the ‘‘Planning After
Prior Disasters’’ and the ‘‘State
Services’’ sub-factors in the ‘‘Resource
Availability’’ factor based on comments
received on the NPRM. Fourth, as
discussed above in the Public

E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM

21MRN1

10524

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 55 / Thursday, March 21, 2019 / Notices

Comments on the Proposed Guidance
section FEMA clarified that it would
provide the estimated cost of assistance
to the State during and after the
Preliminary Damage Assessment.
Finally, FEMA also made changes to the
two tables that are found in the
guidance document based on an
updated data set that was used in the
final rule.
The final guidance does not have the
force or effect of law.
Authority: Pub. L. 113–2.
Peter Gaynor,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019–05396 Filed 3–20–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–23–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
[Docket No.: DHS–2018–0073]

Project 25 Compliance Assessment
Program (P25 CAP)
Science and Technology
Directorate, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: 60-Day notice of information
collection; request for comment.
(Extension of a currently approved
collection, 1640–0015).
AGENCY:

The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) invites the general
public to comment on updated data
collection forms for DHS Science and
Technology (S&T) Directorate’s Project
25 (P25) Compliance Assessment
Program (CAP): Supplier’s Declaration
of Compliance (SDoC) (DHS Form 10044
(6/08)) and an accompanying Summary
Test Report (STR) (DHS Form 10056 (9/
08)). The collections are posted on the
dhs.gov website (https://www.dhs.gov/
science-and-technology/p25-cap). The
attacks of September 11, 2001, and the
destruction of Hurricane Katrina made
apparent the need for emergency
response radio systems that can
interoperate, regardless of which
organization manufactured the
equipment. Per congressional direction,
DHS and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)
developed the P25 CAP to improve the
emergency response community’s
confidence in purchasing land mobile
radio (LMR) equipment built to P25
LMR standards. Equipment suppliers
provide the information to publicly
attest to their products’ compliance with
a specific set of P25 standards. The
SDoC, and its STR, which substantiates
the declaration, constitutes a company’s
formal, public attestation of compliance

amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 Mar 20, 2019

Jkt 247001

with the standards for the equipment. In
turn, first responders at local, tribal,
state, and federal levels across multiple
disciplines including law enforcement,
fire, and emergency medical services
personnel, will use this information to
identify P25 compliant communications
system products. The P25 CAP Program
Manager performs a simple
administrative review to ensure the
documentation is complete and accurate
in accordance with the current P25 CAP
processes.
DATES: Comments are encouraged and
accepted until May 20, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number DHS–
2018–0073, at:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Please follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail and hand delivery or
commercial delivery: Science and
Technology Directorate, ATTN: Chief
Information Office—Mary Cantey, 245
Murray Drive, Mail Stop 0202,
Washington, DC 20528.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number DHS–2018–0073. All
comments received will be posted
without change to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please
note that comments submitted by fax or
email and those submitted after the
comment period will not be accepted.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
DHS/S&T System Owner: Sridhar
Kowdley, Sridhar.kowdley@
HQ.DHS.GOV, (202) 254–8804 (Not a
toll free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DHS, in
accordance with the PRA (6 U.S.C. 193),
provides the general public and Federal
agencies with an opportunity to
comment on proposed, revised, and
continuing collection of information.
DHS is soliciting comments on the
proposed information collection request
(ICR) that is described below. The
Department of Homeland Security is
especially interested in public comment
addressing the following issues: (1) Is
this collection necessary to the proper
functions of the Department; (2) will
this information be processed and used
in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate
of burden accurate; (4) how might the
Department enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (5) how might the
Department minimize the burden of this
collection on the respondents, including

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

through the use of information
technology. Please note that written
comments received in response to this
notice will be considered public
records.
Title of Collections: Project 25 (P25)
Compliance Assessment Program (CAP):
Supplier’s Declaration of Compliance
(SDoC) (DHS Form 10044 (6/08) and
Summary Test Report (STR) (DHS Form
10056 (9/08)).
Type of Review: Renewal of an
information collection.
Respondents/Affected Public: Federal,
State, Local, and Tribal Governments.
Frequency of Collections: The SDOC
is once per month and the STR is once
annually.
Average Burden per Response: 60
minutes.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Responses: 156.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Burden Hours: 156.
Dated: March 6, 2019.
Rick Stevens,
Chief Information Officer, Science and
Technology Directorate.
[FR Doc. 2019–05395 Filed 3–20–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–9F–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Transportation Security Administration
Intent To Request Approval From OMB
of One New Public Collection of
Information: Surface Transportation
Stakeholder Survey
Transportation Security
Administration, DHS.
ACTION: 60-Day notice.
AGENCY:

The Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) invites public
comment on a new Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted
below that we will submit to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for
approval in compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The
ICR describes the nature of the
information collection and its expected
burden. The collection involves the
submission of information via a survey
regarding resource challenges, including
the availability of Federal funding,
associated with securing surface
transportation assets.
DATES: Send your comments by May 20,
2019.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be emailed
to TSAPRA@tsa.dhs.gov or delivered to
the TSA PRA Officer, Information
Technology (IT), TSA–11,
Transportation Security Administration,
SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM

21MRN1