[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 202 (Thursday, October 18, 2018)] [Notices] [Pages 52860-52865] [FR Doc No: 2018-22676]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 33270; File No. 812-14862]

Audax Credit BDC Inc., et al.; Notice of Application

October 12, 2018.

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application for an order under sections 17(d) and

57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') and rule 17d-

1 under the Act permitting certain joint transactions otherwise

prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1

under the Act.

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit a

business development company (``BDC'') and certain closed-end

investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each

other and with affiliated investment funds.

Applicants: Audax Credit BDC Inc. (the ``Company''), Audax Credit

Strategies (SCS), L.P. (``SCS''), Audax Credit Opportunities (SBA), LLC

(``SBA''), Audax Senior Debt (MP), LLC (``MP''), Audax Senior Debt

(WCTPT), LLC (``WCTPT''), Audax Senior Debt (AZ), LLC (``AZ''), Audax

Senior Loan Fund I, L.P. (``SLF I''), Audax Senior Loan Fund I

(Offshore), L.P. (``SLF I(O)''), Audax Senior Loan Fund, L.P.

(``SLF''), Audax Senior Loan Fund III, L.P. (``SLF III''), Audax Senior

Loan Fund III (Offshore), L.P. (``SLF III(O)''), Audax Senior Loan Fund

(ST), LP (``SLF(ST)''), Audax Direct Lending Solutions Fund-A, L.P.

(``Direct Lending-A''), Audax Direct Lending Solutions Fund-B, L.P.

(``Direct Lending-B''), Audax Direct Lending Solutions Fund-C, L.P.

(``Direct Lending-C''), Audax Direct Lending Solutions Fund-D, L.P.

(``Direct Lending-D'' and, collectively with SCS, SBA, MP, WCTPT, AZ,

SLF I, SLF I(O), SLF, SLF III, SLF III(O), SLF(ST), Direct Lending-A,

Direct Lending-B, and Direct Lending-C, the ``Private Funds''), and

Audax Management Company (NY), LLC (the ``Company Adviser,'' and

collectively with the Company and the Private Funds, the

``Applicants'').

Filing Dates: The application was filed on December 29, 2017 and

amended on June 14, 2018.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested

relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.

Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's

Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally

or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by

5:30 p.m. on November 6, 2018 and should be accompanied by proof of

service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a

certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing

requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts

bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason

for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be

notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the

Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F

St. NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: 101 Huntington Avenue,

Boston, Massachusetts 02199.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Ehrlich, Senior Counsel, at (202)

551-6819, or Andrea Ottomanelli Magovern, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-

6821 (Chief Counsel's Office, Division of Investment Management).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the

application. The complete application may be obtained via the

Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an

applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Company was organized as a corporation under the General

Corporation Law of the State of Delaware on January 29, 2015 and

elected to be treated as a BDC \1\ through a notification of election

to be subject to sections 55 through 65 of the Act on Form N-54A. The

Company's ``Objectives and Strategies'' \2\ are to generate current

income and, to a lesser extent, long-term capital appreciation by

investing primarily in senior secured debt of privately owned U.S.

middle-market companies. The Company has a five-member board of

directors (the ``Board''), of which three members are not ``interested

persons'' of the Company within the meaning of section 2(a)(19) of the

Act (the ``Non-Interested Directors''). No Non-Interested Director will

have any direct or indirect financial interest in any Co-Investment

Transaction (defined below) or any interest in any portfolio company,

other than indirectly through share ownership (if any) in the Company

or a Future Regulated Fund (defined below).

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

    \1\ Section 2(a)(48) of the Act defines a BDC to be any closed-

end investment company that operates for the purpose of making

investments in securities described in section 55(a)(1) through

55(a)(3) of the Act and makes available significant managerial

assistance with respect to the issuers of such securities.

    \2\ ``Objectives and Strategies'' means, with respect to a

Regulated Fund (defined below), the investment objectives and

strategies of such Regulated Fund, as described in such Regulated

Fund's registration statement, other filings the Regulated Fund has

made with the Commission under the Act, Securities Act of 1933 (the

``1933 Act''), or under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or in

the Regulated Fund's reports to stockholders.

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

    2. SCS was formed as a Delaware limited partnership on March 10,

2014 and would be an investment company but for the exclusion from the

definition of investment company provided by section 3(c)(7) of the

Act. SCS's investment objective is to invest primarily in a portfolio

of secured and unsecured loans and other debt instruments, seeking low

volatility, principal protection and current income. SCS has an

investment strategy that is similar to the Company's investment

strategy.

    3. SBA was formed as a Delaware limited liability company on March

10, 2010 and would be an investment company but for the exclusion from

the definition of investment company provided by section 3(c)(7) of the

Act. SBA's investment objective is to invest primarily in a portfolio

of secured and unsecured loans and other debt instruments, seeking low

volatility, principal protection and current

income. SBA has an investment strategy that is similar to the Company's

investment strategy.

    4. MP was formed as a Delaware limited liability company on June

28, 2017 and would be an investment company but for the exclusion from

the definition of investment company provided by section 3(c)(7) of the

Act. MP's investment objective is to invest primarily in a portfolio of

secured and unsecured loans and other debt instruments, seeking low

volatility, principal protection and current income. MP has an

investment strategy that is similar to the Company's investment

strategy.

    5. WCTPT was formed as a Delaware limited liability company on

October 25, 2011 and would be an investment company but for the

exclusion from the definition of investment company provided by section

3(c)(7) of the Act. WCTPT's investment objective is to invest in a

portfolio of first lien senior secured loans, seeking low volatility,

principal protection and current income for WCTPT. WCTPT has an

investment strategy that is similar to the Company's investment

strategy.

    6. AZ was formed as a Delaware limited liability company on

November 20, 2017 and would be an investment company but for the

exclusion from the definition of investment company provided by section

3(c)(7) of the Act. AZ's investment objective is to invest primarily in

a portfolio of secured and unsecured loans and other debt instruments,

seeking low volatility, principal protection and current income. AZ has

an investment strategy that is similar to the Company's investment

strategy.

    7. SLF I was formed as a Delaware limited partnership on July 23,

2007 and would be an investment company but for the exclusion from the

definition of investment company provided by section 3(c)(7) of the

Act. SLF I's investment objective is to invest primarily in a portfolio

of secured and unsecured loans and other debt instruments, seeking low

volatility, principal protection and current income. SLF I has an

investment strategy that is similar to the Company's investment

strategy.

    8. SLF I(O) was formed as a Cayman Islands exempted limited

partnership on October 2, 2007 and would be an investment company but

for the exclusion from the definition of investment company provided by

section 3(c)(7) of the Act. SLF I(O)'s investment objective is to

invest primarily in a portfolio of secured and unsecured loans and

other debt instruments, seeking low volatility, principal protection

and current income. SLF(IO) has an investment strategy that is similar

to the Company's investment strategy.

    9. SLF was formed as a Delaware limited partnership on August 10,

2012 and would be an investment company but for the exclusion from the

definition of investment company provided by section 3(c)(7) of the

Act. The investment objective of SLF is to invest primarily in a

portfolio of first lien senior secured loans to North American middle

market companies, although a portion of the its portfolio may be

invested in mezzanine, second lien, distressed and other securities or

instruments, including securities or instruments of non-North American

companies. SLF has an investment strategy that is similar to the

Company's investment strategy.

    10. SLF III was formed as a Delaware limited partnership on January

19, 2016 and would be an investment company but for the exclusion from

the definition of investment company provided by section 3(c)(7) of the

Act. The investment objective of SLF III is to invest primarily in a

portfolio of first lien senior secured loans to North American middle

market companies, although a portion of the its portfolio may be

invested in mezzanine, second lien, distressed and other securities or

instruments, including securities or instruments of non-North American

companies. SLF III has an investment strategy that is similar to the

Company's investment strategy.

    11. SLF III(O) was formed as a Cayman Islands exempted limited

partnership on May 25, 2016 and would be an investment company but for

the exclusion from the definition of investment company provided by

section 3(c)(7) of the Act. The investment objective of SLF III(O) is

to invest primarily in a portfolio of first lien senior secured loans

to North American middle market companies, although a portion of the

its portfolio may be invested in mezzanine, second lien, distressed and

other securities or instruments, including securities or instruments of

non-North American companies. SLF III(O) has an investment strategy

that is similar to the Company's investment strategy.

    12. SLF (ST) was formed as a Delaware limited partnership on May

16, 2018 and would be an investment company but for the exclusion from

the definition of investment company provided by section 3(c)(7) of the

Act. The investment objective of SLF (ST) is to invest primarily in a

portfolio of secured and unsecured loans and other debt instruments,

seeking low volatility, principal protection and current income. SLF

(ST) has an investment strategy that is similar to the Company's

investment strategy.

    13. Direct Lending-A, Direct Lending-B and Direct Lending-C were

each formed as a Delaware limited partnership on October 12, 2017,

October 12, 2017 and April 5, 2017, respectively, and each would be an

investment company but for the exclusion from the definition of

investment company provided by section 3(c)(7) of the Act. Direct

Lending-D was formed as a Cayman Islands exempted limited partnership

on April 10, 2018 and would be an investment company but for the

exclusion from the definition of investment company provided by section

3(c)(7) of the Act. The investment objective of each of Direct Lending-

A, Direct Lending-B, Direct Lending-C, and Direct Lending-D is to

engage in direct lending to private middle market companies based in

the United States and Canada through a variety of structures, and

primarily via unitranche and stretch senior secured loans, with

selected positions in senior secured first or second lien loans, equity

and similar investments. The investment strategy of each of Direct

Lending-A, Direct Lending-B, Direct Lending-C, and Direct Lending-D

overlaps with the Company's investment strategy.

    14. The Company Adviser, a Delaware limited liability company and

an investment adviser registered with the Commission under the

Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act''), serves as

investment adviser to both the Company and each of the Private Funds.

Under the investment advisory agreements of the Company and the Private

Funds, the Company Adviser manages the portfolio of each entity in

accordance with the investment objective and policies of each, makes

investment decisions for each entity, places purchase and sale orders

for portfolio transactions for each entity, and otherwise manages the

day-to-day operations of each entity, subject, in the case of the

Company, to the oversight of its Board.

    15. Applicants seek an order (``Order'') to permit one or more

Regulated Funds \3\ and/or one or more

Affiliated Funds \4\ to participate in the same investment

opportunities through a proposed co-investment program (the ``Co-

Investment Program'') where such participation would otherwise be

prohibited under section 57(a)(4) and rule 17d-1 by (a) co-investing

with each other in securities issued by issuers in private placement

transactions in which an Adviser negotiates terms in addition to price;

\5\ and (b) making additional investments in securities of such

issuers, including through the exercise of warrants, conversion

privileges, and other rights to purchase securities of the issuers

(``Follow-On Investments''). ``Co-Investment Transaction'' means any

transaction in which a Regulated Fund (or its Wholly-Owned Investment

Subsidiary) participates together with one or more other Regulated

Funds and/or one or more Affiliated Funds in reliance on the requested

Order.\6\ ``Potential Co-Investment Transaction'' means any investment

opportunity in which a Regulated Fund (or its Wholly-Owned Investment

Subsidiary) could not participate together with one or more Affiliated

Funds and/or one or more other Regulated Funds without obtaining and

relying on the Order.\7\

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

    \3\ ``Regulated Fund'' means the Company and any Future

Regulated Fund. ``Future Regulated Fund'' means any closed-end

management investment company (a) that is registered under the Act

or has elected to be regulated as a BDC, (b) whose investment

adviser is an Adviser, and (c) that intends to participate in the

Co-Investment Program. The term ``Adviser'' means (a) the Company

Adviser and (b) any future investment adviser that controls, is

controlled by or is under common control with the Company Adviser or

its successor and is registered as an investment adviser under the

Advisers Act. The term ``successor,'' as applied to each Adviser,

means an entity that results from a reorganization into another

jurisdiction or change in the type of business organization.

    \4\ ``Affiliated Fund'' means the Private Funds and any Future

Affiliated Fund. ``Future Affiliated Fund'' means any entity (a)

whose investment adviser is an Adviser, (b) that would be an

investment company but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act,

and (c) that intends to participate in the Co-Investment Program.

    \5\ The term ``private placement transactions'' means

transactions in which the offer and sale of securities by the issuer

are exempt from registration under the 1933 Act.

    \6\ The term ``Wholly-Owned Investment Subsidiary'' means an

entity (i) that is wholly-owned by a Regulated Fund (with the

Regulated Fund at all times holding, beneficially and of record,

100% of the voting and economic interests); (ii) whose sole business

purpose is to hold one or more investments and incur debt (which is

or would be consolidated with other indebtedness of such Regulated

Fund for financial reporting or compliance purposes under the Act)

on behalf of the Regulated Fund; (iii) with respect to which the

Regulated Fund's Board has the sole authority to make all

determinations with respect to the entity's participation under the

conditions of the application; and (iv) that would be an investment

company but for sections 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act.

    \7\ All existing entities that currently intend to rely upon the

requested Order have been named as applicants. Any other existing or

future entity that subsequently relies on the Order will comply with

the terms and conditions of the application.

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

    16. Applicants state that a Regulated Fund may, from time to time,

form one or more Wholly-Owned Investment Subsidiaries. Such a

subsidiary would be prohibited from investing in a Co-Investment

Transaction with any Affiliated Fund or Regulated Fund because it would

be a company controlled by its parent Regulated Fund for purposes of

section 57(a)(4) and rule 17d-1. Applicants request that each Wholly-

Owned Investment Subsidiary be permitted to participate in Co-

Investment Transactions in lieu of its parent Regulated Fund and that

the Wholly-Owned Investment Subsidiary's participation in any such

transaction be treated, for purposes of the requested Order, as though

the parent Regulated Fund were participating directly. Applicants

represent that this treatment is justified because a Wholly-Owned

Investment Subsidiary would have no purpose other than serving as a

holding vehicle for the parent Regulated Fund's investments and,

therefore, no conflicts of interest could arise between a Regulated

Fund and its Wholly-Owned Investment Subsidiary. The applicable

Regulated Fund's Board would make all relevant determinations under the

conditions with regard to a Wholly-Owned Investment Subsidiary's

participation in a Co-Investment Transaction, and the Regulated Fund's

Board would be informed of, and take into consideration, any proposed

use of a Wholly-Owned Investment Subsidiary in the Regulated Fund's

place. If the Regulated Fund proposes to participate in the same Co-

Investment Transaction with any of its Wholly-Owned Investment

Subsidiaries, the Board will also be informed of, and take into

consideration, the relative participation of the Regulated Fund and the

Wholly-Owned Investment Subsidiary.

    17. When considering Potential Co-Investment Transactions for any

Regulated Fund, the applicable Adviser will consider only the

Objectives and Strategies, investment policies, investment positions,

capital available for investment (``Available Capital''), and other

pertinent factors applicable to that Regulated Fund. The Board of each

Regulated Fund, including the Non-Interested Directors, has (or will

have prior to relying on the requested Order) determined that it is in

the best interests of the Regulated Fund to participate in the Co-

Investment Transaction.

    18. Other than pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments as

provided in conditions 7 and 8, and after making the determinations

required in conditions 1 and 2(a), the Adviser will present each

Potential Co-Investment Transaction and the proposed allocation to the

directors of the Board eligible to vote under section 57(o) of the Act

(``Eligible Directors''), and the ``required majority,'' as defined in

section 57(o) of the Act (``Required Majority'') \8\ will approve each

Co-Investment Transaction prior to any investment by the participating

Regulated Fund.

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

    \8\ In the case of a Regulated Fund that is a registered closed-

end fund, the Board members that make up the Required Majority will

be determined as if the Regulated Fund were a BDC subject to section

57(o).

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

    19. With respect to the pro rata dispositions and Follow-On

Investments provided in conditions 7 and 8, a Regulated Fund may

participate in a pro rata disposition or Follow-On Investment without

obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if, among other

things: (i) The proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and

Affiliated Fund in such disposition is proportionate to its outstanding

investments in the issuer immediately preceding the disposition or

Follow-On Investment, as the case may be; and (ii) the Board of the

Regulated Fund has approved that Regulated Fund's participation in pro

rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments as being in the best

interests of the Regulated Fund. If the Board does not so approve, any

such disposition or Follow-On Investment will be submitted to the

Regulated Fund's Eligible Directors. The Board of any Regulated Fund

may at any time rescind, suspend or qualify its approval of pro rata

dispositions and Follow-On Investments with the result that all

dispositions and/or Follow-On Investments must be submitted to the

Eligible Directors.

    20. Applicants also represent that if the Advisers, the principals

of the Advisers (``Principals''), or any person controlling, controlled

by, or under common control with an Adviser or the Principals, and the

Affiliated Funds (collectively, the ``Holders'') own in the aggregate

more than 25% of the outstanding voting shares of a Regulated Fund (the

``Shares''), then the Holders will vote such Shares as required under

condition 14. Applicants believe this condition will ensure that the

Non-Interested Directors will act independently in evaluating the Co-

Investment Program, because the ability of the Advisers or the

Principals to influence the Non-Interested Directors by a suggestion,

explicit or implied, that the Non-Interested Directors can be removed

will be limited significantly. Applicants represent that the Non-

Interested Directors will evaluate and approve any such independent

third party, taking into account its qualifications, reputation for

independence, cost to the stockholders, and other factors that they

deem relevant.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 57(a)(4) of the Act prohibits certain affiliated persons

of a BDC from participating in joint transactions with the BDC or a

company controlled by a BDC in contravention of rules as prescribed by

the Commission. Under section 57(b)(2) of the Act, any person who is

directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common

control with a BDC is subject to section 57(a)(4). Applicants submit

that each of the Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds could be deemed

to be a person related to each Regulated Fund in a manner described by

section 57(b) by virtue of being under common control. Section 57(i) of

the Act provides that, until the Commission prescribes rules under

section 57(a)(4), the Commission's rules under section 17(d) of the Act

applicable to registered closed-end investment companies will be deemed

to apply to transactions subject to section 57(a)(4). Because the

Commission has not adopted any rules under section 57(a)(4), rule 17d-1

also applies to joint transactions with Regulated Funds that are BDCs.

Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act are applicable to

Regulated Funds that are registered closed-end investment companies.

    2. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit

affiliated persons of a registered investment company from

participating in joint transactions with the company unless the

Commission has granted an order permitting such transactions. In

passing upon applications under rule 17d-1, the Commission considers

whether the company's participation in the joint transaction is

consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and

the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or

less advantageous than that of other participants.

    3. Applicants state that in the absence of the requested relief,

the Regulated Funds would be, in some circumstances, limited in their

ability to participate in attractive and appropriate investment

opportunities. Applicants believe that the proposed terms and

conditions will ensure that the Co-Investment Transactions are

consistent with the protection of each Regulated Fund's shareholders

and with the purposes intended by the policies and provisions of the

Act. Applicants state that the Regulated Funds' participation in the

Co-Investment Transactions will be consistent with the provisions,

policies, and purposes of the Act and on a basis that is not different

from or less advantageous than that of other participants.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that the Order will be subject to the following

conditions:

    1. Each time an Adviser considers a Potential Co-Investment

Transaction for an Affiliated Fund or another Regulated Fund that falls

within a Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies, the

Regulated Fund's Adviser will make an independent determination of the

appropriateness of the investment for the Regulated Fund in light of

the Regulated Fund's then-current circumstances.

    2.

    (a) If the Adviser deems a Regulated Fund's participation in any

Potential Co-Investment Transaction to be appropriate for the Regulated

Fund, it will then determine an appropriate level of investment for the

Regulated Fund.

    (b) If the aggregate amount recommended by the applicable Adviser

to be invested by the applicable Regulated Fund in the Potential Co-

Investment Transaction, together with the amount proposed to be

invested by the other participating Regulated Funds and Affiliated

Funds, collectively, in the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the

investment opportunity, the investment opportunity will be allocated

among them pro rata based on each participant's Available Capital, up

to the amount proposed to be invested by each. The applicable Adviser

will provide the Eligible Directors of each participating Regulated

Fund with information concerning each participating party's Available

Capital to assist the Eligible Directors with their review of the

Regulated Fund's investments for compliance with these allocation

procedures.

    (c) After making the determinations required in conditions 1 and

2(a), the applicable Adviser will distribute written information

concerning the Potential Co-Investment Transaction (including the

amount proposed to be invested by each participating Regulated Fund and

Affiliated Fund) to the Eligible Directors of each participating

Regulated Fund for their consideration. A Regulated Fund will co-invest

with one or more other Regulated Funds and/or one or more Affiliated

Funds only if, prior to the Regulated Fund's participation in the

Potential Co-Investment Transaction, a Required Majority concludes

that:

    (i) The terms of the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, including

the consideration to be paid, are reasonable and fair to the Regulated

Fund and its stockholders and do not involve overreaching in respect of

the Regulated Fund or its stockholders on the part of any person

concerned;

    (ii) the Potential Co-Investment Transaction is consistent with:

    (A) The interests of the Regulated Fund's stockholders; and

    (B) the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies;

    (iii) the investment by any other Regulated Funds or Affiliated

Funds would not disadvantage the Regulated Fund, and participation by

the Regulated Fund would not be on a basis different from or less

advantageous than that of any other Regulated Funds or Affiliated

Funds; provided that if any other Regulated Funds or Affiliated Funds,

but not the Regulated Fund itself, gains the right to nominate a

director for election to a portfolio company's board of directors or

the right to have a board observer or any similar right to participate

in the governance or management of the portfolio company, such event

shall not be interpreted to prohibit the Required Majority from

reaching the conclusions required by this condition (2)(c)(iii), if:

    (A) The Eligible Directors will have the right to ratify the

selection of such director or board observer, if any;

    (B) the applicable Adviser agrees to, and does, provide periodic

reports to the Regulated Fund's Board with respect to the actions of

such director or the information received by such board observer or

obtained through the exercise of any similar right to participate in

the governance or management of the portfolio company; and

    (C) any fees or other compensation that any Affiliated Fund or any

Regulated Fund or any affiliated person of any Affiliated Fund or any

Regulated Fund receives in connection with the right of the Affiliated

Fund or Regulated Fund to nominate a director or appoint a board

observer or otherwise to participate in the governance or management of

the portfolio company will be shared proportionately among the

participating Affiliated Funds (who each may, in turn, share its

portion with its affiliated persons) and the participating Regulated

Fund in accordance with the amount of each party's investment; and

    (iv) the proposed investment by the Regulated Fund will not benefit

the Advisers, any Affiliated Funds or other Regulated Funds or any

affiliated person of any of them (other than the parties to the Co-

Investment Transaction), except (A) to the extent permitted by

condition 13, (B) to the extent permitted by section 17(e) or 57(k) of

the Act, as applicable, (C) indirectly, as a result of

an interest in the securities issued by one of the parties to the Co-

Investment Transaction, or (D) in the case of fees or other

compensation described in condition 2(c)(iii)(C).

    3. Each Regulated Fund has the right to decline to participate in

any Potential Co-Investment Transaction or to invest less than the

amount proposed.

    4. The applicable Adviser will present to the Board of each

Regulated Fund, on a quarterly basis, a record of all investments in

Potential Co-Investment Transactions made by any of the other Regulated

Funds or Affiliated Funds during the preceding quarter that fell within

the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies that were

not made available to the Regulated Fund, and an explanation of why the

investment opportunities were not offered to the Regulated Fund. All

information presented to the Board pursuant to this condition will be

kept for the life of the Regulated Fund and at least two years

thereafter, and will be subject to examination by the Commission and

its staff.

    5. Except for Follow-On Investments made in accordance with

condition 8,\9\ a Regulated Fund will not invest in reliance on the

Order in any issuer in which another Regulated Fund, an Affiliated Fund

or any affiliated person of another Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund

is an existing investor.

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

    \9\ This exception applies only to Follow-On Investments by a

Regulated Fund in issuers in which the Regulated Fund already holds

investments.

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

    6. A Regulated Fund will not participate in any Potential Co-

Investment Transaction unless the terms, conditions, price, class of

securities to be purchased, settlement date, and registration rights

will be the same for each participating Regulated Fund and Affiliated

Fund. The grant to an Affiliated Fund or another Regulated Fund, but

not the Regulated Fund, of the right to nominate a director for

election to a portfolio company's board of directors, the right to have

an observer on the board of directors or similar rights to participate

in the governance or management of the portfolio company will not be

interpreted so as to violate this condition 6, if conditions

2(c)(iii)(A), (B) and (C) are met.

    7.

    (a) If any Affiliated Fund or any Regulated Fund elects to sell,

exchange or otherwise dispose of an interest in a security that was

acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction, the applicable Advisers will:

    (i) Notify each Regulated Fund that participated in the Co-

Investment Transaction of the proposed disposition at the earliest

practical time; and

    (ii) formulate a recommendation as to participation by each

Regulated Fund in the disposition.

    (b) Each Regulated Fund will have the right to participate in such

disposition on a proportionate basis, at the same price and on the same

terms and conditions as those applicable to the participating

Affiliated Funds and Regulated Funds.

    (c) A Regulated Fund may participate in such disposition without

obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The proposed

participation of each Regulated Fund and each Affiliated Fund in such

disposition is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the

issuer immediately preceding the disposition; (ii) the Board of the

Regulated Fund has approved as being in the best interests of the

Regulated Fund the ability to participate in such dispositions on a pro

rata basis (as described in greater detail in the application); and

(iii) the Board of the Regulated Fund is provided on a quarterly basis

with a list of all dispositions made in accordance with this condition.

In all other cases, the Adviser will provide its written recommendation

as to the Regulated Fund's participation to the Eligible Directors, and

the Regulated Fund will participate in such disposition solely to the

extent that a Required Majority determines that it is in the Regulated

Fund's best interests.

    (d) Each Affiliated Fund and each Regulated Fund will bear its own

expenses in connection with any such disposition.

    8.

    (a) If any Affiliated Fund or Regulated Fund desires to make a

Follow-On Investment in a portfolio company whose securities were

acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction, the applicable Advisers will:

    (i) Notify each Regulated Fund that participated in the co-

investment transaction of the proposed Follow-On Investment at the

earliest practical time; and

    (ii) formulate a recommendation as to the proposed participation,

including the amount of the proposed Follow-On Investment, by each

Regulated Fund.

    (b) A Regulated Fund may participate in such Follow-On Investment

without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The

proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and each Affiliated Fund

in such investment is proportionate to its outstanding investments in

the issuer immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and (ii) the

Board of the Regulated Fund has approved as being in the best interests

of the Regulated Fund the ability to participate in Follow-On

Investments on a pro rata basis (as described in greater detail in the

application). In all other cases, the Adviser will provide its written

recommendation as to the Regulated Fund's participation to the Eligible

Directors, and the Regulated Fund will participate in such Follow-On

Investment solely to the extent that a Required Majority determines

that it is in the Regulated Fund's best interests.

    (c) If, with respect to any Follow-On Investment:

    (i) The amount of the opportunity is not based on the Regulated

Funds' and the Affiliated Funds' outstanding investments immediately

preceding the Follow-On Investment; and

    (ii) the aggregate amount recommended by the applicable Adviser to

be invested by the applicable Regulated Fund in the Follow-On

Investment, together with the amount proposed to be invested by other

participating Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds, collectively, in

the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity,

then the investment opportunity will be allocated among them pro rata

based on each participant's Available Capital, up to the amount

proposed to be invested by each.

    (d) The acquisition of Follow-On Investments as permitted by this

condition will be considered a Co-Investment Transaction for all

purposes and subject to the other conditions set forth in the

application.

    9. The Non-Interested Directors of each Regulated Fund will be

provided quarterly for review all information concerning Potential Co-

Investment Transactions and Co-Investment Transactions, including

investments made by any other Regulated Funds or Affiliated Funds that

the Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, so that

the Non-Interested Directors may determine whether all investments made

during the preceding quarter, including those investments that the

Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, comply with

the conditions of the Order. In addition, the Non-Interested Directors

will consider at least annually the continued appropriateness for the

Regulated Fund of participating in new and existing Co-Investment

Transactions.

    10. Each Regulated Fund will maintain the records required by

section 57(f)(3) of the Act as if each of the Regulated Funds were a

BDC and each of the investments permitted under these conditions were

approved by the

Required Majority under section 57(f) of the Act.

    11. No Non-Interested Director of a Regulated Fund will also be a

director, general partner, managing member or principal, or otherwise

an ``affiliated person'' (as defined in the Act) of an Affiliated Fund.

    12. The expenses, if any, associated with acquiring, holding or

disposing of any securities acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction

(including, without limitation, the expenses of the distribution of any

such securities registered for sale under the 1933 Act) will, to the

extent not payable by the Advisers under their respective investment

advisory agreements with Affiliated Funds and the Regulated Funds, be

shared by the Regulated Funds and the Affiliated Funds in proportion to

the relative amounts of the securities held or to be acquired or

disposed of, as the case may be.

    13. Any transaction fee \10\ (including break-up or commitment fees

but excluding broker's fees contemplated section 17(e) or 57(k) of the

Act, as applicable) received in connection with a Co-Investment

Transaction will be distributed to the participating Regulated Funds

and Affiliated Funds on a pro rata basis based on the amounts they

invested or committed, as the case may be, in such Co-Investment

Transaction. If any transaction fee is to be held by an Adviser pending

consummation of the Co-Investment Transaction, the fee will be

deposited into an account maintained by such Adviser at a bank or banks

having the qualifications prescribed in section 26(a)(1) of the Act,

and the account will earn a competitive rate of interest that will also

be divided pro rata among the participating Regulated Funds and

Affiliated Funds based on the amounts they invest in such Co-Investment

Transaction. None of the Affiliated Funds, the Advisers, the other

Regulated Funds, or any affiliated person of the Regulated Funds or

Affiliated Funds will receive additional compensation or remuneration

of any kind as a result of or in connection with a Co-Investment

Transaction (other than (a) in the case of the Regulated Funds and the

Affiliated Funds, the pro rata transaction fees described above and

fees or other compensation described in condition 2(c)(iii)(C); and (b)

in the case of an Adviser, investment advisory fees paid in accordance

with the investment advisory agreements between such Adviser and the

Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund).

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

    \10\ The Applicants are not requesting, and the staff is not

providing, any relief for transaction fees received in connection

with any Co-Investment Transaction.

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

    14. If the Holders own in the aggregate more than 25% of the Shares

of a Regulated Fund, then the Holders will vote such Shares as directed

by an independent third party when voting on (1) the election of

directors; (2) the removal of one or more directors; or (3) any other

matter under either the Act or applicable state law affecting the

Board's composition, size or manner of election.

    15. Each Regulated Fund's chief compliance officer, as defined in

rule 38a-1(a)(4) under the Act, will prepare an annual report for the

Board of such Regulated Fund that evaluates (and documents the basis of

that evaluation) the Regulated Fund's compliance with the terms and

conditions of the application and procedures established to achieve

such compliance.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,

under delegated authority.

Eduardo A. Aleman,

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-22676 Filed 10-17-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 58)]
[Notices]
[Page 15229-15231]
[DOCID:fr27mr06-97]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53519; File No. SR-Amex-2006-26]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Extension of Time for Exercising Expiring Options and
Submitting Contrary Exercise Advices

March 20, 2006.
    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 14, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Amex
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with the
Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Amex, pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-
4 thereunder,\6\ proposes to amend Amex Rule 980 ``Exercise of Options
Contracts'' to add two additional minutes to the time frame within
which one may make a final decision to exercise or not exercise an
option, or to deliver a contrary exercise advice (``CEA'') \7\ to the
Exchange. The proposal

is intended to conform Amex Rule 980 to the recent industry-wide change
in the close of trading for equity options and narrow-based index
options from 4:02 p.m. to 4 p.m. (EST).\8\ The Exchange further
proposes to amend the text of Amex Rule 980 to correspond to the more
appropriate classification of Eastern Time (``ET'') rather than New
York Time (``NY Time''). The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Amex's Web site at (http://www.amex.com), at the

Amex's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \7\ Amex Rule 980(b)(ii) defines a CEA as a communication
either: (A) To not exercise an option that would be automatically
exercised under the Options Clearing Corporation's (``OCC'') Ex-by-
Ex procedure, or (B) to exercise an option that would not be
automatically exercised under the OCC's Ex-by-Ex procedure.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53244 (February 7,
2006), 71 FR 8008 (February 15, 2006) (approving SR-Amex-2006-003,
which amended Amex Rules 1,918--ANTE, 936C--ANTE and 903C to adjust
the close of normal trading hours in equity options and narrow-based
index options from 4:02 p.m. to 4:02 p.m. (ET)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 proposal. The text of these
statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below.
The Amex 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Amex Rule 980
to add two additional minutes to the time frame within which one may
make a final decision to exercise or not exercise an option, or to
deliver a CEA to the Exchange. This proposal is intended to conform
Amex Rule 980 to the recent industry-wide change to the close of
trading for equity and narrow-based index options from 4:02 p.m. to 4
p.m. (ET). The Exchange further proposes to amend the text of Amex Rule
980 to correspond to the more appropriate classification of ET rather
than NY Time.
    Currently, Amex Rule 980(c) establishes that on the business day
immediately prior to an expiration date, option holders may make final
decisions to exercise or not exercise options, and members and member
organizations may accept exercise instructions and submit a CEA to the
Exchange as late as 5:30 p.m. or 6:30 p.m. NY Time, pursuant to the
circumstances set forth in Rule 980(c). Amex Rule 980(g) establishes
that where, on the last business day before the day of expiration, the
Exchange provides advance notice of a modified time for the close of
trading in equity options, the deadline to make a final decision to
exercise or not exercise an expiring option and to deliver a CEA to the
Exchange will be 1 hour 28 minutes or 2 hours 28 minutes after the
announced modified closing time, instead of the 5:30 p.m. or 6:30 p.m.
(ET). The Exchange proposes to add two minutes to each of these
timeframes to correspond to the two-minute difference in trading time
created by the change in the close of trading time from 4:02 p.m. to 4
p.m. (ET).
    This proposal seeks only to change the exercise timeframes for
equity options, not index options, because Amex Rule 980C governing
index options does not have pre-set times.\9\ According to the
Exchange, the proposed rule change is based on similar rule changes
submitted by the Pacific Exchange, Inc., the Philadelphia Stock
Exchange, Inc., the International Securities Exchange, Inc., and the
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Amex Rule 980C provides that a memorandum to exercise any
American-style index option must be received or prepared by the
member organization no later than five (5) minutes after the close
of trading on that day and must be time stamped at the time it is
received or prepared.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53249 (February 7,
2006), 71 FR 8035 (February 15, 2006) (SR-PCX-2005-138); 53407
(March 3, 2006), 71 FR 12764 (March 13, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-12);
53439 (March 7, 2006), 71 FR 13643 (March 16, 2006) (SR-ISE-2006-
11); 53438 (March 7, 2006), 71 FR 13641 (March 16, 2006) (SR-CBOE-
2006-19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ in particular, because it
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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Amex has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30-days after the
date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30-days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Amex has asked the Commission to
waive the 30-day operative delay and the 5-day pre-filing requirement.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay and the
5-day pre-filing requirement is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because such waiver will allow the
Amex to immediately clarify its rule and conform it to the industry-
wide close of trading times now in effect. Accelerating the operative
date will allow for a more efficient and effective market operation by
offering clarity and internal consistency with existing Amex rules. For
these reasons, the Commission designates the proposed rule change as
effective and operative immediately upon filing with the
Commission.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
    \16\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative date
of this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60-days after the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate

the 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.

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-Amex-2006-26 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2006-26. 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. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Amex. 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-Amex-2006-26 and should be submitted on or before April
17, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-4343 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 87 (Monday, May 8, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21343-21346]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09175]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Docket No., EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0766; FRL-9961-21-Region 2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Reasonably
Available Control Technology for Oxides of Nitrogen for Specific
Sources in the State of New Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve two revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone
submitted by the State of New Jersey. This SIP revision consists of two
source-specific reasonably available control technology (RACT)
determinations for controlling oxides of nitrogen. One is for the
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp., LNG Station 240 located in
Carlstadt, New Jersey and the other is for Joint Base McGuire-Dix-
Lakehurst in Lakehurst, New Jersey. This action proposes to approve the
source-specific RACT determinations that were made by New Jersey in
accordance with the provisions of its regulation to help meet the
national ambient air quality standard for ozone. The intended effect of
this proposed rule is to approve source-specific emissions limitations
required by the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 7, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2016-0766, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony (Ted) Gardella
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866,
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. The EPA's Proposed Action
    A. What action is the EPA proposing today?
    B. Why is the EPA proposing this action?
    C. What are the Clean Air Act requirements for NOX
RACT?
    D. What is the EPA's evaluation of New Jersey's SIP Revision?
II. New Jersey's SIP Revision
    A. What are New Jersey's NOX RACT requirements?
    B. What are New Jersey's facility specific NOX RACT
requirements?
    C. When was New Jersey's RACT determination proposed and
adopted?
    D. When was New Jersey's proposed SIP revision submitted to the
EPA?
III. Conclusion
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The EPA's Proposed Action

A. What action is the EPA proposing today?

    The EPA is proposing to approve two source-specific State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for ozone submitted by the State of
New Jersey. These SIP revisions relate to New Jersey's oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) reasonably available control technology
(RACT) determinations for the Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp., LNG
Station 240 (Transco-240) located in Carlstadt, New Jersey, Bergen
County and for Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst (JB-MDL) located in
Lakehurst, New Jersey, Ocean County. These SIP revisions were submitted
to the EPA for approval on July 1, 2014 and July 25, 2016 respectively.
The determinations are for the four natural gas-fired water bath
heaters at the Transco-240 facility and the two natural gas-fired
boilers (Nos 2 and 3) at the JB-MDL facility.

B. Why is the EPA proposing this action?

    The EPA is proposing this action to:
     Give the public the opportunity to submit comments on the
EPA's proposed action, as discussed in the DATES and ADDRESSES
sections.
     Fulfill New Jersey's and the EPA's requirements under the
Clean Air Act (Act).
     Make New Jersey's RACT determination federally-
enforceable.

C. What are the Clean Air Act requirements for NOX RACT?

    The Act requires certain states to develop RACT regulations for
stationary sources of NOX and to provide for the
implementation of the required measures as soon as practicable. For
detailed information on the requirements of the Act for NOX
RACT and for the EPA's technical evaluation of New Jersey's SIP
revision, see the Technical Support Document (TSD), prepared in support
of this proposed action. A copy of the TSD is available in the Docket
for this action, and by contacting the individual in the For Further
Information Section.

D. What is the EPA's evaluation of New Jersey's SIP revision?

    The EPA has determined that New Jersey's proposed SIP revisions for
the NOX RACT determinations for Transco-240 and JB-MDL are
consistent with New Jersey's NOX RACT regulation and the
EPA's guidance. The EPA's basis for evaluating New Jersey's proposed
SIP revisions is whether they meet the SIP requirements described in
section 110 of the Act. The EPA has determined that New Jersey's
proposed SIP revisions will not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or
any other applicable requirement of the Act.
    The EPA has determined that the NOX emission limits
identified in New Jersey's Conditions of Approval document and
alternative emission limit compliance plan represent RACT for Transco-
240 and JB-MDL respectively. The conditions contained in these
documents currently specify emissions limits, work practice standards,
testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping/reporting requirements. These
conditions are consistent with the NOX RACT requirements
specified in Subchapter 19 of Chapter 27, Title 7 of the New Jersey
Administrative Code and conform to the EPA's NOX RACT
guidance. More specifically, the EPA proposes to approve the current
Conditions of Approval document for Transco-240 which includes the
following:
    1. The emission rate of NOX from each water bath heater,
while firing natural gas, shall not exceed 0.10 pounds per million
British thermal units (lb/MMBTU);
    2. The total emission rate of NOX from all four water
bath heaters, while combusting natural gas shall not exceed 6.7 tons
per year;
    3. Transco-240 shall operate the four natural gas-fired water bath
heaters for a combined total of 1600 hours per year or less;
    4. Transco-240 shall not operate the four water bath heaters during
the ozone season; and
    5. The flue gas recirculation (FGR) system shall operate at all
times the heater is operating.

For JB-MDL, the EPA proposes to approve the alternative emission limit
compliance plan which includes the following:
    1. An alternative NOX Emission Limit (AEL) of 0.1 lb/
MMBTU for boiler #2 and boiler #3 pursuant to N.J.A.C.7:27-19.13; and
    2. Decrease in natural gas use from 181.43 to 108.6 million cubic
feet (MMft\3\) per year for boiler #2 and from 113.04 to 57 MMft\3\ per
year for boiler #3.
In addition, the documents for both facilities specify the
NOX emissions limits, combustion process adjustments
mentioned above, emission testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements, which States and sources will need to provide
for through the Title V permitting process.

II. New Jersey's SIP Revision

A. What are New Jersey's NOX RACT requirements?

    New Jersey's NOX RACT requirements are contained in
Subchapter 19 entitled ``Control And Prohibition of Air Pollution From
Oxides of Nitrogen'', of Chapter 27, Title 7 of the New Jersey

Administrative Code. New Jersey has made numerous revisions to
Subchapter 19 since the original SIP submission. The current SIP
approved version of Subchapter 19 was approved by the EPA on August 3,
2010 (75 FR 45483). New Jersey RACT requirements specify the emission
rate of NOX from each water bath or boiler, while firing
natural gas, shall not exceed 0.10 lb/MMBTU. The maximum allowable
emission limit becomes effective on the effective date of EPA's
approval, as published in the Federal Register, of New Jersey's SIP
revision for the AEL. Until EPA's approval becomes effective, the
maximum allowable emission rate for each water bath heater or boiler is
0.05 lb/MMBTU, as required by Subchapter 19.

B. What are New Jersey's facility-specific NOX RACT requirements?

    Section 19.13 of New Jersey's regulation establishes a procedure
for a case-by-case determination of what represents RACT for a major
NOX facility, item of equipment, or source operation. This
procedure applies to facilities considered major for NOX,
which are in one of the following two situations: (1) If the
NOX facility contains any source operation or item of
equipment of a category not listed in section 19.2(b) or (c) which has
the potential to emit more than 10 tons of NOX per year, or
(2) if the owner or operator of a source operation or item of equipment
of a category listed in section 19.2(b) or (c) seeks approval of an
alternative maximum allowable emission rate. This proposal applies to
both facilities for the second situation listed above.
    New Jersey's procedure requires either submission of a
NOX control plan, if specific emission limitations do not
apply to the specific source, or submission of a request for an
alternative maximum allowable emission rate if specific emission
limitations do apply to the specific source. In either case, the
owners/operators must include a technical and economic feasibility
analysis of the possible alternative control measures. Also, in either
case, Subchapter 19 requires that New Jersey establish emission limits
which rely on a RACT determination specific to the facility. The
resulting NOX control plan or alternative maximum allowable
emission rate must be submitted to the EPA for approval as a SIP
revision.

C. When was New Jersey's RACT determination proposed and adopted?

    New Jersey's RACT determination for Transco-240 was proposed on
March 26, 2014, with the public comment period ending April 25, 2014.
New Jersey approved the RACT determination on June 12, 2014. New
Jersey's RACT determination for JB-MDL was proposed on June 8, 2016,
with the public comment period ending July 8, 2016. New Jersey approved
the RACT determination on August 26, 2016. New Jersey did not receive
any comments during either of the two comment periods.

D. When was New Jersey's SIP revision submitted to the EPA?

    New Jersey's SIP revision for Transco-240 was submitted to the EPA
on July 1, 2014 and New Jersey's SIP revision for JB-MDL was submitted
on July 25, 2016. By operation of law the submittals were deemed
administratively and technically complete six months from the submittal
dates.

III. Conclusion

    The EPA is proposing to approve the New Jersey SIP revisions for
alternative RACT emission limit determinations for the following two
sources: (1) The four water bath heaters for the Transcontinental Gas
Pipeline Corp., LNG Station 240 which includes source-specific
NOX emissions limits, combustion process adjustments,
emission testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements;
and (2) the two boilers (No's 2 and 3) for the Joint Base McGuire-Dix-
Lakehurst which includes source-specific NOX emissions
limits, combustion process adjustments, emission testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The EPA is proposing to
approve these revisions since the evaluated alternative control
measures at both facilities were determined not to be economically
feasible. In addition, the revised RACT requirements will include
limits on fuel use and total number of hours of operation at
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp., LNG Station 240 and limits on fuel
use resulting in a decrease in natural gas use at Joint Base McGuire-
Dix-Lakehurst. The EPA will consider all comments submitted prior to
any final rulemaking action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 23, 2017.
Catherine R. McCabe,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2017-09175 Filed 5-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 13, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3744-3746]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02217]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0769, FRL-9989-50-Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; ID, Kraft Pulp Mill Rule Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve
state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) on November 2, 2018. The
submitted revisions update Idaho's rules by removing obsolete and
duplicative requirements as well as requirements less stringent than
applicable Federal regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 15, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2018-0769, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not electronically submit any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randall Ruddick at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA Evaluation of Idaho's SIP Revisions
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. Background

    Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) specifies the general
requirements for states to submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and
the EPA's actions regarding approval of those SIPs. SIPs are states'
plans to implement, maintain, and enforce National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) set by EPA. Idaho regularly submits parts of IDAPA
58.01.01 to the EPA for approval into the Federally approved Idaho SIP
(generally those provisions that relate to the criteria pollutants
regulated under section 110 of the CAA for which the EPA has
promulgated NAAQS or other specific requirements of section 110).
    Idaho's SIP includes Idaho's Rules for Control of Kraft Pulping
Mills air emissions, IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>5 through 817 and <IP_ADDRESS>1
through 826, effective as a matter of state law in 1994. Since 1994,
there have been numerous revisions to Federal regulations related to
air emissions from kraft pulping mills, specifically, EPA's
promulgation of NSPS (40 CFR 60, subparts BB and BBa) and NESHAP (40
CFR 63, subparts S and MM) specific to kraft pulping mill air
emissions. Idaho underwent state rulemaking to streamline their state
kraft pulping mill rules by removing requirements that were obsolete,
less

stringent than, or otherwise covered by existing Federal rules, and by
clarifying reporting requirements. Those changes became effective as a
matter of state law in 2012. On November 2, 2018, Idaho submitted a SIP
revision to EPA requesting the Federally approved SIP be changed to
reflect Idaho's current (2012) kraft pulping mill rules.

II. EPA Evaluation of Idaho's SIP Revisions

    Idaho's November 2, 2018, SIP submittal requests that EPA remove
Idaho's 1994 version of IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>5 through 816 and 819 through
826 from the SIP and approve the State's current (2012) version of
IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>5 and 818 into the SIP.
    Idaho's 1994 regulations included emission limits at kraft pulping
mills for total reduced sulfur (TRS) and particulate matter. The
current SIP does not include kraft pulping mill requirements for TRS
because TRS is not a criteria pollutant or precursor. Although Idaho's
November 2, 2018 SIP submittal included IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>6 and .817,
which contain revised requirements for TRS, Idaho specifically
requested that EPA not approve the TRS requirements into the SIP.\1\
The TRS requirements were submitted for informational purposes only, to
provide a complete record of the rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The table in the cover letter to Idaho's submittal
identifies the citations of the rules currently approved in the SIP,
which they are requesting be updated to reflect the 2012 revisions,
not the citations of the 2012 revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to particulate matter standards for kraft pulping
mills, Idaho's 2012 regulations repealed these standards and the
related monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Idaho
explained in its November 2018 submittal that the particulate matter
requirements in the SIP are now duplicative of and less stringent than
Federal NSPS and NESHAP standards applicable to kraft pulping mills.
Idaho's SIP submittal includes a comparison, in the same units of
measurement, of the particulate matter standards approved in the
current SIP with the Federal standards that apply to kraft pulping
mills. In each case, the more recent Federal standards are more
stringent than the particulate matter standards currently in the Idaho
SIP and that Idaho requests be removed from the SIP. We note that Idaho
has incorporated by reference the Federal NSPS and NESHAP applicable to
kraft pulping mills into its regulations as of July 1, 2017 and has
received delegation to implement and enforce these Federal standards.
    Idaho's current SIP also required special studies to be completed
of kraft pulping mills by December 1972. This requirement is obsolete,
and its removal will therefore have no effect on NAAQS compliance.
    The only two remaining requirements in Idaho's rules for kraft
pulping mills that do not relate solely to TRS are revised IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>5 and 818. IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>5 which contain the revised
``Statement of Purpose'' for Idaho's rules for kraft pulping mills and
reflects the changes made in IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>6 through 826 and the
much narrower scope of Idaho's current regulations for kraft pulping
mills. IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>8 is a new requirement for notification and
reporting of emissions from gas venting regulated under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart S. IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>8 implements a reporting requirement in the
SIP and does not in any way affect implementation of the NESHAP. Both
IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>5 and .818 are consistent with requirements for SIPs
under CAA Section 110 and we therefore propose approval.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve, and incorporate by reference, in
Idaho's SIP IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>5 and .818 (state effective March 29,
2012) as requested by Idaho on November 2, 2018, and as described in
Section II above.
    EPA is also proposing, as requested by Idaho on November 2, 2018,
to remove IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>6, .817, and .821 through .826 from the
Idaho SIP because they are outdated and, in many cases, less stringent
than existing Federal CAA emissions limits, performance testing,
monitoring, and reporting requirements, and Idaho has repealed them as
a matter of state law (state effective March 29, 2012). See Section II
above.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final rule,
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the provisions described above in Section III. EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these documents generally available
electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the
appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for
more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because it does not involve technical standards; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The proposed SIP would not be approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not

impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: January 30, 2019.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2019-02217 Filed 2-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 250)]
[Notices]
[Page 79969-79970]
[DOCID:fr30de08-155]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of OMB Approvals.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b), this notice announces that
new information collections requirements (ICRs) listed below have been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). These new ICRs
pertain to 49 CFR Parts 214, 217, 218, 225, 232, 238, 260, and 262.
Additionally, FRA hereby announces that other ICRs listed below have
been re-approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). These
ICRs pertain to Parts 214, 220, 224, 225, 229, 234, 236, 238, 240, and
244. The OMB approval numbers, titles, and expiration dates are
included herein under supplementary information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Planning
and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal

Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Mail Stop 17,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>), or Ms. Nakia Jackson,
Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC
20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). (These telephone numbers are not
toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law No. 104-13, Sec.  2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as
revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5
CFR Part 1320, require Federal agencies to display OMB control numbers
and inform respondents of their legal significance once OMB approval is
obtained. The following new FRA information collections were approved
within the past twelve months: (1) OMB No. 2130-0574, Confidential
Close Call Reporting System Evaluation-Related Interview Data
Collection (Forms FRA F 6180.125A; FRA F 6180.125B). The expiration
date for this information collection is January 31, 2011. (2) OMB No.
2130-0577, Work Schedules and Sleep Patterns of Train and Engine
Service Employees (Forms FRA F 6180.127; FRA F 6180.128). The
expiration date for this information collection is April 30, 2011. (3)
OMB No. 2130-0576, Passenger Train Emergency Systems (49 CFR 218 and
238) (Final Rule). The expiration date for this information collection
is March 31, 2011. (4) OMB No. 2130-0035, Railroad Operating Rules (49
CFR Parts 217 and 218) (Final Rule) (Human Factors). The expiration
date for this information collection is May 31, 2011. (5) OMB No. 2130-
0575, Solicitation of Applications and Notice of Funds Availability--
Intercity Rail Service Program. The expiration date for this
information collection is August 31, 2011. (6) OMB No. 2130-0035,
Railroad Operating Rules (Response to Petitions for Reconsideration (49
CFR 217 and 218). The expiration date for this information collection
is August 31, 2011. (7) OMB No. 2130-0573, Implementation of Program
for Capital Grants for Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Projects
(49 CFR 262). The expiration date for this information collection is
October 31, 2011. (8) OMB No. 2130-0579, FRA Emergency Order No. 26.
The expiration date for this information collection is May 31, 2009 (9)
OMB No. 2130-0580, Notice of Funds Availability and Solicitation of
Applications for Grants under the Railroad Rehabilitation and Repair
Grant Program. The expiration date for this information collection is
June 30, 2009.
    The following information collections were re-approved within the
past year: (1.) OMB No. 2130-0524, Railroad Communications (49 CFR
220). The new expiration date for this information collection is
January 31, 2011. (2.) OMB No. 2130-0500, Railroad Accident/Incident
Reporting and Recordkeeping (49 CFR 225) (Forms FRA F 6180.39i/54/55/
55a/56/57/78/97/98/99). The new expiration date for this information
collection is February 28, 2011. (3.) OMB No. 2130-0557, Safety
Integration Plans (49 CFR 244). The new expiration date for this
information collection is March 31, 2011. (4.) OMB No. 2130-0564,
Locomotive Crashworthiness (49 CFR 229 and 238). The new expiration
date for this information collection is March 31, 2011. (5.) OMB No.
2130-0565, Safety Appliance Concern Recommendation; Safety Appliance
Standards Guidance Checklist Forms (Forms FRA F 6180.4(a)-(q)). The new
expiration date for this information collection is March 31, 2011. (6.)
OMB No. 2130-0566, Reflectorization of Freight Rolling Stock (49 CFR
224) (Form FRA F 6180.113). The new expiration date for this
information collection is June 30, 2011. (7.) OMB No. 2130-0533,
Qualifications for Locomotive Engineers (49 CFR 240). The new
expiration date for this information collection is August 31, 2011.
(8.) OMB No. 2130-0552, Locomotive Cab Sanitation Standards (49 CFR
229). The new expiration date for this information collection is August
31, 2011. (9.) OMB No. 2130-0553, Positive Train Control (49 CFR 236).
The new expiration date for this information collection is August 31,
2011. (10.) OMB No. 2130-0539, Roadway Worker Protection (Roadway
Maintenance Machines) (Form FRA F 6180.119). The new expiration date
for this information collection is August 31, 2011. (11.) OMB No. 2130-
0004, Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards and Event Recorders (49 CFR
229) (Form FRA F 6180.49A). The new expiration date for this
information collection is August 31, 2011.
    Persons affected by the above referenced information collections
are not required to respond to any collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number. These approvals by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) certify that FRA has complied
with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub L.104-
13) and with 5 CFR 1320.5(b) by informing the public about OMB's
approval of the information collection requirements of the above cited
regulations, studies, grant programs, and forms.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 22, 2008.
Kimberly Orben,
Director, Office of Financial Management, Federal Railroad
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-30891 Filed 12-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P