Subject:	Meeting with with Portland Cement Association (DRAFT)

Location:	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC

Date: 		November 3, 2009

Participants:	See attached list

THC Test Plan Discussion

This primary purpose of this meeting was to discuss industry plans to
conduct additional testing for THC to supplement existing data as part
of the MACT floor analysis. PCA representatives presented an overview of
their plans to collect at least an additional 30 days, more in some
cases, of THC CEMS data at approximately 38 sites. These sites were
selected on the basis of representing different kiln types (long wet or
dry kilns, preheater kilns, and preheater/precalciner kilns), presence
or absence of commingled coal mill or raw material dryer exhaust, and
high (over 50 ppm) or low (under 50ppm) THC emissions. With this test
plan, the PCA plans to address whether THC emissions are affected by
kiln type, commingling of coal mill or raw material dryer exhaust with
kiln exhaust, and the types of organic materials within the limestone.
At least 30-days of THC CEMS testing are to be completed by March 31,
2010.

To run simultaneously with the THC CEM testing, PCA plans to conduct raw
material sampling and analysis for organic content. Samples of aggregate
kiln feed raw materials will be collected for 30 days and composited for
analysis. In addition, samples of limestone will likewise be collected
and analyzed for organic content.

Test by one cement company has indicated that raw mill grinding may
result in low temperature off-gassing from the raw mill. If during the
THC testing phase, THC emissions are higher during raw mill on
conditions, PCA will conduct test using an FLS method to measure low
temperature off-gassing from raw mill grinding.

As part of the same test plan, the PCA will conduct stack test for THC
and organic HAP from standalone raw material dryers to determine their
emission characteristics. The test for organic HAP will measure those
listed in the THC limit alternative compliance method in the proposed
rule.

EPA stated that it agreed with PCA’s proposed approach and would issue
an e-mail to that effect to the PCA for distribution to its members. EPA
asked that they be kept informed of the progress, as well as problems,
with the THC testing. PCA stated that they will get letters of
commitment from the participating companies and provide copies to EPA.

Portland Cement NESHAP Comments

In response to a request from PCA to EPA to share its impressions of the
PCA comments on the proposed cement NESHAP, EPA provided the following
comments:

Mercury - any recommendations to revise emissions limits will have to be
based on new emissions and other objective data provided by PCA.

EPA is assessing the EPA comments on the statistical variability used in
developing the proposed emission limits.

HCl – EPA agreed with the PCA that true area source cannot be used as
part of the MACT floor determination. PCA and EPA discussed the issue of
data quality for the major sources used in the analysis.

PM – EPA described its view on the need to revise the existing PM
limits.

EPA described its preference for a production based standard over an
input based standard.

EPA described its view on the use of CKD shuttling to reduce mercury
emissions.

Participants in November 3, 2009 Meeting with the Portland Cement
Association

Portland Cement Association

Andy O’Hare, PCA

Hector Ybanez, Holcim

John Holmes,

Curtis Leslie, Ash Grove

Mike Pelan, Lafarge

Satish Sheth, Cemex

Bill _________, Holcim

Dave _______ (by telephone)

Nancy Garnett, TXI (by telephone)

Meg Garakani, Holcim (by telephone)

US EPA

Keith Barnett

Elineth Torres

Steve Silverman (by telephone)

RTI International

Mike Laney

Marvin Branscome (by telephone)

November 4, 2009


[Federal Register: January 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 2)]
[Notices]
[Page 269-270]
[DOCID:fr05ja09-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 13159-000 and 13230-000; Project No. 13231-000]

City of Marseilles, IL; Marseilles Land and Water Company; Notice
of Competing Preliminary Permit Applications Accepted for Filing and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

December 24, 2008.
    The City of Marseilles, Illinois (City) and the Marseilles Land and
Water Company (Land and Water Company) have filed applications,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study
the feasibility of projects on the North and South Head Races of the
Illinois River in La Salle County, Illinois. The proposed projects
would use the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Marseilles Lock and Dam.
    On March 31, 2008, the City filed an application, Project No.
13159, for the proposed Marseilles Hydroelectric

Project for surplus power production at the North Head Race. The
proposed project would utilize the existing U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' Marseilles Lock and Dam, and install additional incremental
capacity to a previously existing licensed project, Project No. 12020.
The proposed project would consist of: (1) The existing 2,730-foot-
long, 80 to 200-foot-wide North Head Race; (2) an existing powerhouse
containing four new generating units having a total installed capacity
of 5 megawatts; (3) a proposed 400-foot-long, 34-kilovolt transmission
line; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The City's proposed Marseilles
Hydroelectric Project for surplus power production at the North Head
Race would have an average annual generation of 22.03 gigawatt-hours.
    On May 20, 2008, the City filed a second application, Project No.
13230, for the proposed Marseilles Hydroelectric Project for power
production at the North Head Race. The proposed project would utilize
the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Marseilles Lock and Dam, and
generate the now-available capacity from the recently terminated
license in Project No. 12020. The project would consist of: (1) The
existing 2,730-foot-long, 80-to 200-foot-wide North Head Race; (2) an
existing powerhouse containing six new generating units having a total
installed capacity of 4.745 megawatts; (3) a proposed 400-foot-long,
34-kilovolt transmission line; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The
City's proposed Marseilles Hydroelectric Project for power production
at the North Head Race would have an average annual generation of 37
gigawatt-hours.
    On May 20, 2008, Land and Water Company filed an application,
Project No. 13231, for the proposed Boyce Hydro-Marseilles
Hydroelectric Project. The proposed project would utilize the existing
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Marseilles Lock and Dam, and would
consist of: (1) The existing 3,100-foot-long, 200-foot-wide North Head
Race; (2) a proposed powerhouse containing three new generating units
having a total installed capacity of 9.4 megawatts; (3) the existing
110-foot-wide south channel that narrows to approximately 50-feet-wide
at the South Head Race; (4) a proposed 400-foot-long, 34-kilovolt
transmission line; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The proposed Boyce
Hydro-Marseilles Hydroelectric Project would have an average annual
generation of 55 gigawatt-hours. Land and Water Company's proposed
development competes with the two permit applications filed by the
City.
    Applicants Contact: For the City of Marseilles, Illinois: Ms.
Jacquelyn Spencer, Clerk, City of Marseilles, Illinois, City Hall, 209
Lincoln Street, Marseilles, IL 61341,<PHONE_NUMBER>. For the
Marseilles Land and Water Company: Mr. Lee W. Mueller, Vice President,
Marseilles Land and Water Company, 4132 S Rainbow Boulevard, Las Vegas,
NV 89103,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice noted
above.
    Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``eFiling'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC, 20426.
For more information on how to submit these types of filings please go
to the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's Web site at http:/
/www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13129, P-13143, or P-13284) in the docket number field to access the
document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-31309 Filed 1-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25462-25463]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10273]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4109-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

Oklahoma; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-4109-DR), dated April 8, 2013,
and related determinations.

DATES:  Effective Date: April 8, 2013.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated April 8, 2013, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Oklahoma resulting from a severe winter storm and snowstorm
during the period of February 24-26, 2013, is of sufficient severity
and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the State of Oklahoma.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. You are
further authorized to provide snow assistance under the Public
Assistance program for a limited period of time during or proximate
to the incident period. Consistent with the requirement that Federal
assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the
Stafford Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be
limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Sandy Coachman, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Oklahoma have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Alfalfa, Beaver, Beckham, Blaine, Custer, Dewey, Ellis,
Garfield, Grant, Kay, Kingfisher, Major, Noble, Roger Mills,
Washita, Woods, and Woodward Counties for Public Assistance.
    Dewey and Ellis Counties for snow assistance under the Public
Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period during or
proximate to the incident period.

    All counties within the State of Oklahoma are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-10273 Filed 4-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: March 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 49)]
[Notices]
[Page 11097]
[DOCID:fr16mr09-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-762-000]

Power Resources, Ltd.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

March 9, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Power Resources Ltd.'s application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is March 30, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list.
    They are also available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the
Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-5553 Filed 3-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 129 (Friday, July 5, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32068-32072]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14360]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0825; FRL-9996-07-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Delaware; Emissions Statements Rule Certification for the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision formally submitted by the State of
Delaware. Under section 182 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), states' SIPs
must require stationary sources in ozone nonattainment areas to report
annual emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile
organic compounds (VOC). This SIP revision provides Delaware's
certification that its existing emissions statements program satisfies
the emissions statements requirements of the CAA for the 2008 ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving
Delaware's emissions statements program certification for the 2008
ozone NAAQS as a SIP revision in accordance with the requirements of
the CAA.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 5, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0825. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are

available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Calcinore, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2043. Ms. Calcinore can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under the CAA, EPA establishes NAAQS for criteria pollutants in
order to protect human health and the environment. In response to
scientific evidence linking ozone exposure to adverse health effects,
EPA promulgated the first ozone NAAQS, the 0.12 part per million (ppm)
1-hour ozone NAAQS, in 1979. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). The CAA
requires EPA to review and reevaluate the NAAQS every five years in
order to consider updated information regarding the effects of the
criteria pollutants on human health and the environment. On July 18,
1997, EPA promulgated a revised ozone NAAQS, referred to as the 1997
ozone NAAQS, of 0.08 ppm averaged over eight hours. See 62 FR 38855.
This 8-hour ozone NAAQS was determined to be more protective of public
health than the previous 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS. In 2008, EPA
strengthened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 to 0.075 ppm. The 0.075
ppm standard is referred to as the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16436
(March 27, 2008).
    On May 21, 2012 and June 11, 2012, EPA designated nonattainment
areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 77 FR 30088 and 77 FR 34221. Effective
July 20, 2012, New Castle County and Sussex County in Delaware were
designated as marginal nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. New
Castle County was designated as part of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-
Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE 2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area, which
includes the following counties: New Castle in Delaware; Cecil in
Maryland; Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland,
Gloucester, Mercer, Ocean, and Salem in New Jersey; and Bucks, Chester,
Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia in Pennsylvania. 40 CFR 81.308,
81.321, 81.331, and 81.339. Sussex County was designated marginal
nonattainment as the Seaford 2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area, which
includes only Sussex County. 40 CFR 81.308.
    Section 182 of the CAA identifies plan submission requirements for
ozone nonattainment areas. Specifically, section 182(a)(3)(B) requires
that states develop and submit, as a revision to their SIP, rules which
establish annual reporting requirements for certain stationary sources.
Sources that are within ozone nonattainment areas must annually report
the actual emissions of NOX and VOC to the state. However,
states may waive this reporting requirement for classes or categories
of stationary sources that emit under 25 tons per year (tpy) of
NOX or VOC if the state provides an inventory of emissions
from these classes or categories of sources as required by CAA sections
172 and 182. See CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii).
    On March 6, 2015, EPA issued a final rule addressing a range of
nonattainment area SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including
the emissions statements requirement of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) (2015
final rule). 80 FR 12264. Per the preamble to EPA's 2015 final rule,
the source emissions statements requirement applies to all areas
designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 12264,
12291. The preamble to EPA's 2015 final rule also states that most
areas that are required to have an emissions statements program for the
2008 ozone NAAQS already have a program in place due to a nonattainment
designation for an earlier ozone NAAQS. Id. The preamble to EPA's 2015
final rule states that, ``If an area has a previously approved
emissions statement rule in force for the 1997 ozone NAAQS or the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS that covers all portions of the nonattainment area for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS, such rule should be sufficient for purposes of
the emissions statement requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.'' Id. In
cases where an existing emissions statements rule is still adequate to
meet the emissions statements requirement under the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
states may provide the rationale for that determination to EPA in a
written statement for approval in the SIP to meet the requirements of
CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). Id. In this statement, states should identify
how the emissions statements requirement of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)
are met by their existing emissions statement rule. Id.
    In summary, Delaware is required to submit, as a formal revision to
its SIP, a statement certifying that Delaware's existing emissions
statements program satisfies the requirements of CAA section
182(a)(3)(B) and covers Delaware's portions of the Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE 2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment
area (i.e. New Castle County) and the Seaford 2008 ozone NAAQS
nonattainment area (i.e. Sussex County).

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On June 29, 2018, the State of Delaware, through the Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC),
submitted, as a formal revision to its SIP, a statement certifying that
Delaware's existing SIP-approved emissions statements program under 7
DE Administrative Code 1117 Section 7.0 satisfies the emissions
statements requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    On April 9, 2019 (84 FR 14075), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Delaware. In the NPRM, EPA proposed
to approve, as a SIP revision, Delaware's June 29, 2018 emissions
statements certification as satisfying the requirements of CAA section
182(a)(3)(B) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The rationale for EPA's proposed
action can be found in the April 9, 2019 NPRM and will not be restated
here.

III. Public Comments and EPA Response

    EPA received comments on the April 9, 2019 NPRM from three
anonymous commenters. EPA received a comment on April 11, 2019 that was
supportive of EPA's proposed action; EPA is not responding to that
comment. The other two comments and EPA's responses are discussed
below. The comments EPA received are included in the docket for this
action, available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-
OAR-2018-0825.
    Commenter 1: On April 9, 2019, EPA received an anonymous comment on
the NPRM. The commenter emphasizes the importance of emissions
reporting of NOX and VOC in ozone nonattainment areas. The
commenter expresses concern regarding states' ability to waive the
emissions reporting requirement ``if they emit under 25 tons per year
of NOX and/or VOC.'' The commenter states that the purpose
of emissions reporting is to understand the total amount of emissions
in a state ``no matter how little they emit'' and suggests that this
would assist with the identification and resolution of air quality
problems. The commenter also expresses concern that if a state has
waived the emissions statements requirements and emissions in a state
are low at the beginning of the year and

then increase, it would take a year to identify the increase in
emissions which may delay potential actions by EPA.
    EPA Response: Section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii) of the CAA permits states to
waive the emissions statements requirement of CAA section
183(a)(3)(B)(i) for any class or category of stationary sources which
emit less than 25 tpy of NOX or VOC if the state provides an
inventory of emissions from these classes or categories of sources as
required by CAA sections 172 and 182. As discussed in the NPRM, Section
7.1 of Delaware's emissions statements provisions under 7 DE
Administrative Code 1117 Section 7.0 states that Delaware may, with EPA
approval, ``waive the emissions statements requirements for classes or
categories of stationary sources with facility-wide actual emissions of
less than 25 tpy of NOX or VOCs if the class or category is
included in the base year and periodic ozone SIP emission inventories,
and the actual emissions were calculated using EPA-approved emission
factors or other methods acceptable to the EPA.'' This is consistent
with CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii) and is more stringent than the
requirements of the CAA as it requires EPA approval to waive the
emissions statements requirement. Therefore, EPA continues to find that
Delaware's emissions statements provisions under 7 DE Administrative
Code 1117 Section 7.0 meet the requirements of CAA section
182(a)(3)(B)(ii) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    In addition, EPA disagrees with the commenter that permitting
states to waive the emissions statements requirement for classes or
categories of sources that emit less than 25 tpy of NOX or
VOC will prevent EPA from obtaining data regarding a state's total
emissions of NOX and VOC or delay EPA in identifying
increases in emissions. As stated previously, states are required by
CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) to have an emissions reporting program (also
referred to as an ``emissions statements'' program) requiring sources
located in ozone nonattainment areas that emit 25 tpy or more of
NOX or VOC to annually report actual emissions to the State
(emphasis added). The emissions statements requirement of CAA section
182(a)(3)(B) is separate from the requirements for the state to submit
emissions data to EPA. States are required to submit emissions data to
EPA under the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR). 40 CFR, part 51,
subpart A.\1\ The AERR requires states to submit to EPA complete and
comprehensive data on emissions from certain point, nonpoint, onroad,
and nonroad sources triennially. In addition, the AERR requires annual
reporting for larger, Type A, point sources.\2\ Pursuant to 40 CFR
51.20, all anthropogenic stationary sources must be included in the
emission inventory as either point or nonpoint sources; if a facility's
emissions are too low to be considered a ``point source'', the
emissions must be reported as nonpoint sources.\3\ Therefore, the AERR
provides for the reporting of complete and comprehensive data on a
state's total emissions of NOX and VOC by the state to EPA.
While states may use data submitted by sources through their emissions
statements program to satisfy the AERR, the AERR is separate from the
emissions statements requirement of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B).
Therefore, the waiving of a class or category of source from a state's
emissions statements program does not affect the state's obligation to
report emissions from these sources to EPA under the AERR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For more information on the AERR, see ``Emissions Inventory
Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze
Regulations,'' May 2017, included in the docket for this rulemaking
available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-
OAR-2018-0825.
    \2\ The emission thresholds by pollutant for treatment of point
sources can be found in Table 1 of Appendix A of the AERR at 40 CFR,
part 51, subpart A.
    \3\ Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.15(b), sources on tribal lands are
excluded from the AERR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, pursuant to CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii), states may
only waive the emissions statements requirement for any class or
category of sources that emit less than 25 tpy of NOX or VOC
if the state includes that class or category of sources in the base
year and periodic inventories required by CAA section 172(c)(3),
182(a)(1), and 182(a)(3)(A) and emissions are calculated using emission
factors established by EPA or other methods acceptable to EPA (emphasis
added).\4\ EPA uses the emissions data submitted by the states under
the AERR to build the National Emissions Inventory (NEI), which in turn
may be used by the states for their base year and periodic emission
inventories.\5\ A state's waiver of the emissions statements
requirement for a class or category of sources that emit less than 25
tpy of NOX or VOC does not waive the requirement for the
sources to be captured in the state's emissions inventory. Sources will
be captured as either point or nonpoint sources in the emission
inventories regardless of whether a state has waived them from their
emissions statements program. Therefore, EPA will still have
comprehensive data on emissions in a state that meets the emissions
inventory requirements of the CAA. Regarding the concern about data not
being submitted regularly enough, CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) only
requires that ``[s]ubsequent statements shall be submitted at least
every year thereafter.'' Therefore, Delaware's requirement for sources
to submit emissions statements annually complies with the requirements
of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See ``Draft Guidance on the Implementation of an Emission
Statement Program'', July 1992, included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket
ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0825.
    \5\ The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed estimate of air
emissions of criteria pollutants, criteria precursors, and hazardous
air pollutants from air emissions sources. The NEI is released every
three years based primarily upon data provided by State, Local, and
Tribal air agencies for sources in their jurisdictions and
supplemented by data developed by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenter 2: EPA received an anonymous comment on April 19, 2019
inquiring how EPA's proposed action in the April 9, 2019 NPRM will
affect corporations incorporated in Delaware and if these corporations
will be required to change their business practices as a result of this
rulemaking.
    EPA Response: EPA's approval of Delaware's emissions statements
certification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS will not change the existing
emission statement requirements for corporations incorporated in
Delaware. EPA's April 9, 2019 NPRM proposed to approve, as a SIP
revision, Delaware's certification that the State's existing, SIP-
approved emissions statements provisions under 7 DE Administrative Code
1117 Section 7.0 continue to satisfy the emissions statements
requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Delaware's existing emissions statements provisions were first approved
by EPA into the Delaware SIP on April 29, 1996 (61 FR 7415) for a
previous NAAQS and are therefore already effective. EPA's NPRM only
proposed to find that these existing, unchanged provisions continue to
satisfy the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Because Delaware's emissions statement requirements are
unchanged, this SIP approval will not add any additional requirements
for sources in Delaware. Therefore, EPA's approval of Delaware's
emissions statements certification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS will not
change the previously applicable emissions statement requirements for
emission sources located in Delaware and therefore will not likely
cause sources in Delaware to change their business practices. To the
extent that the commenter is asking whether

companies incorporated in Delaware but with facilities outside of
Delaware that emit NOX or VOC will be affected by Delaware's
emission statement regulation, the answer is no. Sources outside of
Delaware will be required to report their emissions of NOX
and VOC according to the regulations of the state in which that source
is located.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving, as a SIP revision, the State of Delaware's June
29, 2018 emissions statements certification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as
approvable under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). Delaware's emissions
statements certification certifies that Delaware's existing SIP-
approved emissions statements program under 7 DE Administrative Code
1117 Section 7.0 satisfies the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 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 application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide 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 EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 3, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action approving Delaware's emissions statements
certification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

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, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 24, 2019.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart I-- Delaware

0
2. In Sec.  52.420, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the
entry ``Emissions Statements Rule Certification for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
 Name of  non-regulatory  SIP    Applicable geographic     submittal    EPA approval date        Additional
           revision                      area                date                               explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Emissions Statements Rule       Delaware's portions of      06/29/2018  07/05/2019,        Certification that
 Certification for the 2008      the Philadelphia-                       [Insert Federal    Delaware's SIP-
 Ozone NAAQS.                    Wilmington-Atlantic                     Register           approved regulations
                                 City, PA-NJ-MD-DE                       citation].         under 7 DE
                                 2008 ozone NAAQS                                           Administrative Code
                                 nonattainment area                                         1117 Section 7.0
                                 (i.e. New Castle                                           Emission Statement
                                 County) and the                                            meet the emissions
                                 Seaford 2008 ozone                                         statements
                                 NAAQS nonattainment                                        requirements of CAA
                                 area (i.e. Sussex                                          section 182(a)(3)(B)
                                 County).                                                   for the 2008 ozone
                                                                                NAAQS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-14360 Filed 7-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 20)]
[Notices]
[Page 5068]
[DOCID:fr01fe10-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13651-000]

Lock + \TM\ Hydro Friends Fund XXXIII, LLC; Notice of Preliminary
Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene, and Competing Applications

January 22, 2010.
    On January 8, 2010, Lock + \TM\ Hydro Friends Fund XXXIII, LLC
(Lock + Hydro) filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the
Green Lantern Project No. 13651, to be located on the Mississippi
River, in Pike County, Illinois, and Ralls County, Missouri. The
project would to be located at the existing Mississippi River Lock and
Dam No. 22 owned and operated by the U.S. Corps of Engineers that
includes a reservoir, a lock and dam equipped with roller and tainter
gates, and an earth dike.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) Two new underwater frame
modules located adjacent to the earth dike each containing nine turbine
generating units with a total capacity of about 9.45 megawatts; (2) a
new 220-foot, 450-foot-long intake conduit; (3) a new 220-foot-wide,
50-foot-long tailrace; and (4) a new 5-mile-long, 69 kilovolt
transmission line. The project would produce an estimated average
annual generation of about 62,130 megawatts-hours.
    Lock + Hydro Contact: Wayne F. Krouse, Chairman and CEO, Hydro
Green Energy, LLC., 5090 Richmond Avenue, Suite 290, Houston, TX 77056,
(877) 556-6566.
    FERC Contact: Tom Dean,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``eFiling'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13651) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-1984 Filed 1-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10774-10776]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03676]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 33800; File No. 812-15037]

Prospect Capital Management L.P., et al.

February 19, 2020.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from sections
18(a)(2), 18(c), and 18(i) of the Act, under sections 6(c) and 23(c) of
the Act for an exemption from rule 23c-3 under the Act, and for an
order pursuant to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the
Act.

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicants request an order to permit certain
registered closed-end management investment companies to issue multiple
classes of shares and to impose asset-based distribution and/or service
fees, and early withdrawal charges (``EWCs'').

APPLICANTS: Prospect Capital Management L.P. (the ``Adviser''),
Priority Senior Secured Income Management, LLC (``PSSIM''), and
Priority Income Fund, Inc. (the ``Initial Fund'').

FILING DATES: The application was filed on May 28, 2019 and amended on
September 17, 2019 and December 10, 2019.

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 March 16, 2020, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on the 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
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: 10 East 40th Street,
42nd Floor, New York, NY 10016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara T. Heussler, Senior Counsel,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Trace W. Rakestraw, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-
6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

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 Initial Fund is a Maryland corporation that is registered
under the Act as an externally managed, non-diversified, closed-end
management investment company. The Initial Fund's investment objective
is to generate current income and, as a secondary objective, long-term
capital appreciation.
    2. PSSIM is a Delaware limited liability company registered as an
investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
(``Advisers Act'') and currently serves as investment adviser to the
Initial Fund pursuant to an advisory agreement. The Adviser is a
Delaware limited partnership and is registered as an investment adviser
under the Advisers Act. The Adviser owns 50% of PSSIM and is the
operating member of PSSIM, responsible for making all investment and
operational decisions for PSSIM.
    3. The applicants seek an order to permit the Initial Fund to issue
multiple classes of shares and to impose asset-based distribution and/
or service fees, and EWCs.
    4. Applicants request that the order also apply to any continuously
offered registered closed-end management investment company, existing
now or in the future, for which the Adviser or any entity controlling,
controlled by, or under common control with the Adviser, or any
successor in interest to any such entity,\1\ acts as investment adviser
and that operates as an interval fund pursuant to rule 23c-3 under the
Act or provides periodic liquidity with respect to its shares pursuant
to rule 13e-4 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange
Act'') (each, a ``Future Fund'' and together with the Initial Fund, the
``Funds'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A successor in interest is limited to an entity that results
from a reorganization into another jurisdiction or a change in the
type of business organization.
    \2\ Any Fund relying on this relief in the future will do so in
compliance with the terms and conditions of the application.
Applicants represent that each entity presently intending to rely on
the requested relief is listed as an applicant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The Initial Fund currently makes a continuous public offering of
its shares. Applicants state that additional offerings by any Fund
relying on the order may be on a private placement or public offering
basis. Shares of the Funds will not be listed on any securities
exchange, nor quoted on any quotation medium. The Funds do not expect
there to be a secondary trading market for their shares.
    6. If the requested relief is granted, the Initial Fund may also
offer additional classes of shares in the future, with each class
having its own fee and expense structure.
    7. Applicants state that, from time to time, the Funds may create
additional classes of shares, the terms of which may differ from the
initial class pursuant to and in compliance with rule 18f-3 under the
Act.
    8. The Initial Fund provides periodic liquidity with respect to its
shares

pursuant to rule 13e-4 under the Exchange Act. Each Future Fund will
either adopt fundamental investment policies in compliance with rule
23c-3 under the Act and make periodic repurchase offers to its
shareholders, or provide periodic liquidity with respect to its shares
pursuant to rule 13e-4 under the Exchange Act.\3\ Any repurchase offers
made by the Funds, whether pursuant to rule 13e-4 under the Exchange
Act or rule 23c-3 under the Act, will be made to all holders of shares
of each such Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Applicants submit that rule 23c-3 and Regulation M under the
Exchange Act permit an interval fund to make repurchase offers to
repurchase its shares while engaging in a continuous offering of its
shares pursuant to rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Applicants represent that any asset-based distribution and/or
service fees for each class of shares will comply with the provisions
of Rule 2341 (``Sales Charge Rule'') of the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'').\4\ Applicants also represent
that each Fund will disclose in its prospectus the fees, expenses, and
other characteristics of each class of shares offered for sale by the
prospectus, as is required for open-end multiple class funds under Form
N-1A. As is required for open-end funds, each Fund will disclose its
expenses in shareholder reports, and describe any arrangements that
result in breakpoints in or elimination of sales loads in its
prospectus.\5\ In addition, applicants will comply with applicable
enhanced fee disclosure requirements for fund of funds, including
registered funds of hedge funds.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Any references in the application to the Sales Charge Rule
include any FINRA successor or replacement rule to the Sales Charge
Rule.
    \5\ Shareholder Reports and Quarterly Portfolio Disclosure of
Registered Management Investment Companies, Investment Company Act
Rel. No. 26372 (Feb. 27, 2004) (adopting release); and Disclosure of
Breakpoint Discounts by Mutual Funds, Investment Company Act Rel.
No. 26464 (June 7, 2004) (adopting release).
    \6\ Fund of Funds Investments, Investment Company Act Rel. Nos.
26198 (Oct. 1, 2003) (proposing release) and 27399 (Jun. 20, 2006)
(adopting release). See also Rules 12d1-1, et seq. of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Each Fund will comply with any requirements that the Commission
or FINRA may adopt regarding disclosure at the point of sale and in
transaction confirmations about the costs and conflicts of interest
arising out of the distribution of open-end investment company shares,
and regarding prospectus disclosure of sales loads and revenue sharing
arrangements, as if those requirements applied to each Fund. In
addition, each Fund will contractually require that any distributor of
the Fund's shares comply with such requirements in connection with the
distribution of such Fund's shares.
    11. Applicants state that each Fund may impose an EWC on shares
submitted for repurchase that have been held less than a specified
period and may waive the EWC for certain categories of shareholders or
transactions to be established from time to time. Applicants state that
each Fund will apply the EWC (and any waivers, scheduled variations or
eliminations of the EWC) uniformly to all shareholders in a given class
and consistently with the requirements of rule 22d-1 under the Act as
if the Funds were open-end investment companies.
    12. Each Fund operating as an interval fund pursuant to rule 23c-3
under the Act may offer its shareholders an exchange feature under
which the shareholders of the Fund may, in connection with the such
Fund's periodic repurchase offers, exchange their shares of the Fund
for shares of the same class of (i) registered open-end investment
companies or (ii) other registered closed-end investment companies that
comply with rule 23c-3 under the Act and continuously offer their
shares at net asset value, that are in the Fund's group of investment
companies (collectively, ``Other Funds''). Shares of a Fund operating
pursuant to rule 23c-3 that are exchanged for shares of Other Funds
will be included as part of the amount of the repurchase offer amount
for such Fund as specified in rule 23c-3 under the Act. Any exchange
option will comply with rule 11a-3 under the Act, as if the Fund were
an open-end investment company subject to rule 11a-3. In complying with
rule 11a-3, each Fund will treat an EWC as if it were a contingent
deferred sales load (``CDSL'').

Applicants' Legal Analysis

Multiple Classes of Shares

    1. Section 18(a)(2) of the Act makes it unlawful for a closed-end
investment company to issue a senior security that is a stock unless
certain requirements are met. Applicants state that the creation of
multiple classes of shares of the Funds may violate section 18(a)(2)
because the Funds may not meet such requirements with respect to a
class of shares that may be a senior security.
    2. Section 18(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that a
registered closed-end investment company may not issue or sell any
senior security that is stock if, immediately thereafter, the company
has outstanding more than one class of senior security that is stock.
Section 18(g) of the Act defines ``senior security'' that is stock as
``any stock of a class having priority over any other class as to
distribution of assets or payment of dividends''. Applicants state that
the creation of multiple classes of shares of a Fund proposed herein
may result in shares of a class having priority over another class as
to payment of dividends, and being deemed a ``senior security,''
because shareholders of different classes may pay different
distribution fees, different shareholder services fees, and any other
expense (as described elsewhere in this notice). Accordingly applicants
state that the creation of multiple classes of shares of a Fund with
different fees and expenses may be prohibited by section 18(c).
    3. Section 18(i) of the Act provides that each share of stock
issued by a registered management investment company will be a voting
stock and have equal voting rights with every other outstanding voting
stock. Applicants state that multiple classes of shares of the Funds
may violate section 18(i) of the Act because each class would be
entitled to exclusive voting rights with respect to matters solely
related to that class.
    4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security or transaction or any class or classes of persons,
securities or transactions from any provision of the Act, or from any
rule or regulation under the Act, if and to the extent such exemption
is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with
the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the
policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants request an exemption under
section 6(c) from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) to permit the
Funds to issue multiple classes of shares.
    5. Applicants submit that the proposed allocation of expenses
relating to distribution and voting rights among multiple classes is
equitable and will not discriminate against any group or class of
shareholders. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangements would
permit a Fund to facilitate the distribution of its securities and
provide investors with a broader choice of shareholder services.
Applicants assert that the proposed closed-end investment company
multiple class structure does not raise the concerns underlying section
18 of the Act to any greater degree than open-end investment companies'
multiple class structures that are permitted by rule 18f-3 under the
Act. Applicants state that each Fund will comply with the provisions of
rule 18f-3 as if it were an open-end investment company.

Early Withdrawal Charges

    1. Section 23(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that no
registered closed-end investment company shall purchase securities of
which it is the issuer, except: (a) On a securities exchange or other
open market; (b) pursuant to tenders, after reasonable opportunity to
submit tenders given to all holders of securities of the class to be
purchased; or (c) under other circumstances as the Commission may
permit by rules and regulations or orders for the protection of
investors.
    2. Rule 23c-3 under the Act permits an interval fund to make
repurchase offers of between five and twenty-five percent of its
outstanding shares at net asset value at periodic intervals pursuant to
a fundamental policy of the interval fund. Rule 23c-3(b)(1) under the
Act permits an interval fund to deduct from repurchase proceeds only a
repurchase fee, not to exceed two percent of the proceeds, that is paid
to the interval fund and is reasonably intended to compensate the fund
for expenses directly related to the repurchase. A Fund will not impose
a repurchase fee on investors who purchase and tender their shares.
    3. Section 23(c)(3) provides that the Commission may issue an order
that would permit a closed-end investment company to repurchase its
shares in circumstances in which the repurchase is made in a manner or
on a basis that does not unfairly discriminate against any holders of
the class or classes of securities to be purchased.
    4. Applicants request relief under section 6(c), discussed above,
and section 23(c)(3) from rule 23c-3 to the extent necessary for the
Funds to impose EWCs on shares of the Funds submitted for repurchase
that have been held for less than a specified period.
    5. Applicants state that the EWCs they intend to impose are
functionally similar to CDSLs imposed by open-end investment companies
under rule 6c-10 under the Act. Rule 6c-10 permits open-end investment
companies to impose CDSLs, subject to certain conditions. Applicants
note that rule 6c-10 is grounded in policy considerations supporting
the employment of CDSLs where there are adequate safeguards for the
investor and state that the same policy considerations support
imposition of EWCs in the interval fund context. In addition,
applicants state that EWCs may be necessary for the distributor to
recover distribution costs. Applicants represent that any EWC imposed
by the Funds will comply with rule 6c-10 under the Act as if the rule
were applicable to closed-end investment companies. The Funds will
disclose EWCs in accordance with the requirements of Form N-1A
concerning CDSLs.

Asset-Based Distribution and/or Service Fees

    1. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit
an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an
affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, from
participating in or effecting any transaction in connection with any
joint enterprise or joint arrangement in which the investment company
participates unless the Commission issues an order permitting the
transaction. In reviewing applications submitted under section 17(d)
and rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the participation of
the investment company in a joint enterprise or joint arrangement is
consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act, and
the extent to which the participation is on a basis different from or
less advantageous than that of other participants.
    2. Rule 17d-3 under the Act provides an exemption from section
17(d) and rule 17d-1 to permit open-end investment companies to enter
into distribution arrangements pursuant to rule 12b-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 under
the Act to the extent necessary to permit the Funds to impose asset-
based distribution and/or service fees. Applicants have agreed to
comply with rules 12b-1 and 17d-3 as if those rules applied to closed-
end investment companies, which they believe will resolve any concerns
that might arise in connection with a Fund financing the distribution
of its shares through asset-based distribution and/or service fees.
    3. For the reasons stated above, applicants submit that the
exemptions requested under section 6(c) are necessary and appropriate
in the public interest and are consistent with the protection of
investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions
of the Act. Applicants further submit that the relief requested
pursuant to section 23(c)(3) will be consistent with the protection of
investors and will insure that applicants do not unfairly discriminate
against any holders of the class of securities to be purchased.
Finally, applicants state that the Funds' imposition of asset-based
distribution and/or service fees is consistent with the provisions,
policies, and purposes of the Act and does not involve participation on
a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other
participants.

Applicants' Condition

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following condition:
    Each Fund relying on the order will comply with the provisions of
rules 6c-10, 12b-1, 17d-3, 18f-3, 22d-1, and, where applicable, 11a-3
under the Act, as amended from time to time, as if those rules applied
to closed-end management investment companies, and will comply with the
Sales Charge Rule, as amended from time to time, as if that rule
applied to all closed-end management investment companies.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-03676 Filed 2-24-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 238 (Friday, December 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 77081]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31167]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0078; Notice 2]

Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC (BATO), has
determined that certain Bridgestone bus tires do not fully comply with
paragraph S6.5(e) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles With a GVWR of More than
4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and Motorcycles. BATO has filed an
appropriate report dated July 7, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Abraham
Diaz, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile
(202) 366-5930.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), BATO submitted a petition for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the BATO's petition was published, with a 30-
day public comment period, on October 2, 2015 in the Federal Register
(80 FR 59850). No substantive comments were received. To view the
petition, comments and all supporting documents log onto the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ``NHTSA-2015-0078.''
    II. Tires Involved: Affected are approximately 328 Bridgestone
R192GZ size 12R22.5 bus tires sold in the U.S. territory of Guam and
manufactured between January 1, 2004 and April 30, 2015.
    III. Noncompliance: BATO explains that the noncompliance is that
the sidewall of the subject tires clearly states the speed restriction
in km/h, however, omits the English units in mph as required by
paragraph S6.5(e) of FMVSS No. 119.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119 requires in
pertinent part:

    S6.5 Tire Markings. Except as specified in this paragraph, each
tire shall be marked on each sidewall with the information specified
in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section. . . .
    (e) The speed restriction of the tire, if 90 km/h (55 mph) or
less, shown as follows:

Max speed ____km/h (___mph). . . .

    V. Summary of BATO's Petition: BATO states that Guam does not have
interstate highways and that the speed limits throughout Guam (35 mph
rural, 15 mph urban and 15-25 in school zones) are significantly lower
than the speed restriction of the subject tires (55 mph), thus, BATO,
believes that there is no risk of drivers consistently driving faster
than the speed restriction on the tires, even if a driver is unfamiliar
with metric units.
    BATO also believes that most professional drivers would understand
the speed restriction as stated in metric units. Since the subject
tires cannot be used in a passenger vehicle application, and will be
serviced and driven by professionals who understand the difference
between English and metric units; it is unlikely an unqualified driver
would mistakenly drive these tires faster than the speed restriction.
    BATO notes that they have not received any complaints, claims, or
warranty adjustments related to the subject tires and that these tires,
meet all other performance requirements of FMVSS No. 119.
    BATO has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future production of the subject tires
complies with FMVSS No. 119.
    In summation, BATO believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition, to exempt BATO from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.

NHTSA'S Decision

    NHTSA's Analysis: The agency agrees with BATO that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The true
measure of inconsequentiality to motor vehicle safety in this case is
that there is no effect of the noncompliances on the operational safety
of the vehicles on which these tires are mounted.
    The subject speed-restricted tires are correctly stamped with the
speed restriction in km/h. As BATO explained in its petition, omitting
the English unit does not cause a safety concern in this case since the
vehicles on which the subject tires are mounted are serviced and driven
by professionals in U.S. territory of Guam (Guam) who understand the
difference between English (mph) and Metric (kmh) speed units.
    Furthermore, NHTSA has confirmed that Guam has no interstate
highways and has maximum speed restriction of 35 mph on its road
network which is significantly less than the 55 mph speed restriction
intended for the subject tires.
    For the above reasons, it is very unlikely that the subject
vehicles will be driven faster than 55 mph for any sustained periods of
time in Guam.
    NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that BATO has met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No.
119 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, BATO's petition is hereby granted and BATO is exempted
from the obligation of providing notification of, and remedy for the
subject noncompliance.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject tires that BATO no longer controlled at the
time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve equipment distributors and
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant tires under their control after BATO notified them
that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-31167 Filed 12-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31632-31634]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13451]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75065; File No. SR-ICEEU-2015-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to CDS Procedures for CDX North
America Index CDS Contracts

May 28, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On February 12, 2015, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear
Europe'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to revise ICE Clear Europe's CDS
Procedures, CDS Risk Model Description and CDS End-of-Day Price
Discovery Policy to provide the basis for ICE Clear Europe to clear CDX
North America Index CDS Contracts (``CDX.NA Contracts''). The proposed
rule change also includes revisions to the CDS Procedures that relate
to iTraxx Contracts and single name CDS Contracts. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 2,
2015.\3\ On April 16, 2015, the Commission extended the time period in
which to either approve, disapprove, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change to May 31,
2015.\4\ The Commission did not receive comment letters regarding the
proposed change. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is
granting approval of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-74362 (Feb. 24,
2015), 80 FR 11246 (Mar. 2, 2015) (File No. SR-ICEEU-2015-005).
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-74741 (Apr. 16,
2015), 80 FR 22593 (Apr. 22, 2015) (File No. SR-ICEEU-2015-005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    ICE Clear Europe has submitted proposed amendments to its CDS
Procedures to (i) revise the CDS Procedures to add a new section
containing contract terms applicable to the CDX.NA Contracts that ICE
Clear Europe proposes to accept for clearing; (ii) make conforming
changes throughout the CDS Procedures to reference the CDX.NA
Contracts; and (iii) make certain other clarifications, corrections and
updates to the CDS Procedures (including for iTraxx Contracts and
Single Name Contracts), as discussed in more detail herein. ICE Clear
Europe has also proposed to make certain modifications to its CDS Risk
Model Description and CDS End-of-Day Price Discovery Policy (the ``CDS
Pricing Policy'') to accommodate clearing of CDX.NA Contracts, as
described herein.
    ICE Clear Europe has proposed to amend Paragraphs 1, 4, 6, 9, 10
and 11 of the CDS Procedures, described below. All capitalized terms
not defined herein are defined in the ICE Clear Europe Clearing Rules
(the ``Rules'').
    In paragraph 1 of the CDS Procedures, references will be added to
the defined terms ``iTraxx Contract'' and ``CDX.NA Contract,'' as such
terms are set out in revised paragraphs 9 and 10 of the CDS Procedures,
respectively. The definition of ``Original Annex Date'' will be
modified to apply to CDX.NA Contracts in substantially the same manner
it applies to iTraxx Contracts. In addition, the definition of
``Protocol Excluded Reference Entity'' in former paragraph 10.3 will be
changed to ``Protocol Excluded Corporate Reference Entity'' and moved
to paragraph 1, to reflect that such term is only used in the context
of corporate reference entities. Accordingly, the definition will be
revised to mean an Eligible Single Name Reference Entity that is a
Standard European Corporate (as specified in the List of Eligible
Single Name Reference Entities) and is an Excluded Reference Entity (as
defined in the 2014 CDD Protocol). (Conforming changes will be made to
references to that definition throughout the CDS Procedures.) In
addition, a correction will be made to the cross-reference in
definition of ``New Trade'' to properly refer to the definition set out
in the applicable Contract Terms for the relevant contract.
    In addition, amendments will be made to use the defined terms
``Component Transaction'' and ``Clearing'' throughout the Procedures in
lieu of the undefined terms. Finally, various conforming references to
the new or revised defined terms will be made throughout the CDS
Procedures, various provisions of the CDS Procedures will be
renumbered, and certain cross-references to prior paragraph 1.71 will
be corrected.
    Various clarifications will be made in Paragraph 9 of the CDS
Procedures, which sets out the contract terms for iTraxx Contracts.
Specifically, paragraph 9.1 will be modified to clarify that it
specifies the additional Contract Terms applicable to all iTraxx
Contracts cleared by the Clearing House. Paragraph 9.2(c)(i), which
applies to iTraxx Contracts which are governed by the Standard iTraxx
2014 CDS Supplement, will be modified to make certain additional
clarifications relating to initial payments and spun-out trades.
Paragraph 9.2(c)(i)(B) will be added to reflect current clearing house
(and market) practice that initial payments under cleared iTraxx
Contracts (other than those for which a bilateral transaction is
already recorded in Deriv/SERV) are made on the business day following
the trade date (or, if later, the business day following the date of
acceptance for clearing). New paragraph 9.2(c)(i)(D), which will
address the reference obligation for a spun-out trade following a
restructuring credit event, is substantially the same as the
corresponding language in paragraph 9.3(c)(i)(D) for contracts subject
to the Standard iTraxx Legacy CDS Supplement and was inadvertently
omitted from prior amendments. A cross-reference in paragraph
9.2(c)(i)(E) will be updated. New paragraph 9.2(c)(i)(F) will provide
that paragraph 5.7 of the Standard iTraxx 2014 CDS Supplement, which
contains restrictions on delivery of Credit Event Notices and Successor
Notices, does not apply to iTraxx Contracts (as the appropriate
restrictions in the context of a cleared transaction are already
addressed in the Rules and CDS Procedures, including Rule 1505).
    As set forth in paragraph 9.2(c)(ii), changes will also be made to
the terms of the iTraxx 2014 Confirmation with respect to iTraxx
Contracts that are governed by the Standard iTraxx 2014 CDS Supplement.
These amendments will include a clarification that references to the
2014 Credit Derivatives Definitions in the standard supplement and
confirmation will be interpreted for cleared contracts as though they
have the meaning ascribed to that term in the Rules and Procedures. In
addition, a provision that there are no ``Omitted Reference Entities''
for purposes of the standard confirmation will be removed as that term
is not used in the standard supplement and confirmation and is
therefore unnecessary.
    Similar clarifications will be made in paragraph 9.3, which relates
to iTraxx Contracts which are governed by the

Standard iTraxx Legacy CDS Supplement. Specifically, new paragraph
9.3(c)(i)(B) will contain the same clarification discussed above with
respect to the initial payment date for a contract. Paragraph
9.3(c)(i)(D) will contain a correction that the treatment therein of
reference obligations for spun-out trades applies for reference
entities subject to both Sections A and B of the Standard iTraxx Legacy
CDS Supplement (that is, both protocol-excluded and non-excluded
entities). Subparagraph (F) will provide that restrictions under the
standard supplement as to delivery of Credit Event Notices and
Succession Event Notices do not apply, as the issue is otherwise
addressed under the Rules and CDS Procedures, as discussed above. In
paragraph 9.3(c)(ii)(E), a reference to there being no ``Omitted
Reference Entities'' will also be removed for the reasons noted above.
    New paragraph 10 of the CDS Procedures will be added to set out the
contract terms for CDX.NA Contracts. Paragraph 10.1 will provide that
different sub-provisions of paragraph 10 will apply to CDX.NA Contracts
depending on whether the Original Annex Date for the relevant index
series falls before or after the Protocol Effective Date.
    New paragraph 10.2 will apply to CDX.NA Contracts with an Original
Annex Date on or after the Protocol Effective Date (i.e., for
transactions in the September 2014 or later versions of the index). New
definitions will be added to subparagraph (a), including definitions
for ``CDX.NA Contract'', ``CDX.NA Publisher'', ``CDX.NA Terms
Supplement'', ``Eligible CDX.NA Index'', ``List of Eligible CDX.NA
Indices'', and ``Relevant CDX.NA Terms Supplement'', which largely
track the analogous definitions in paragraph 9 with respect to iTraxx
Europe Contracts. Paragraph 10.2(b) will incorporate defined terms from
the Relevant CDX.NA Terms Supplement and also will contain an
inconsistency provision which provides that paragraph 10.2 governs over
the CDX.NA 2014 CDS Supplement and CDX.NA 2014 Confirmation. Paragraph
10.2(c) will contain certain amendments to the Standard CDX.NA 2014 CDS
Supplement and CDX.NA 2014 Confirmation, which are generally consistent
with the amendments to the iTraxx 2014 Terms Supplement and iTraxx 2014
Confirmation in paragraph 9.2(c) and are generally designed to
accommodate the requirements of clearing and make the standard contract
terms consistent with the Rules and Procedures. In addition, paragraph
10.2(c)(i)(E) will address the application of the defined term ``Index
Party'' in the standard supplement in the context of a cleared
transaction, and paragraphs 10.2(c)(ii)(E)-(F) will be added to refer
to certain transaction terms specified in the List of Eligible CDX.NA
Indices for the relevant index and tenor. Paragraph 10.2(c)(i)(G) will
clarify that as with iTraxx Contracts, de minimis cash settlement under
the standard supplement does not apply. Paragraph 10.2(c) will also
indicate the transaction terms that must be specified in the submission
of a trade for clearing.
    New paragraph 10.3 will apply to CDX.NA Contracts with an Original
Annex Date before the Protocol Effective Date (i.e., for transactions
in older versions of the index). Paragraph 10.3 will contain
definitions and provisions generally similar to those in paragraph
10.2, and make comparable amendments to the Standard CDX.NA Legacy CDS
Supplement and the CDX.NA Legacy Confirmation.
    New paragraph 10.4 will contain procedures for updating the CDX.NA
index version following a Credit Event or Succession Event. These
provisions will be generally consistent with the comparable provisions
for iTraxx contracts in paragraph 9.8. New paragraph 10.4(b) will add a
similar procedure for implementing a new version of the CDX.NA standard
terms supplement, if and when published, where contracts referencing
the old and new versions of the supplement are determined by the
Clearing House to be fungible.
    Existing paragraph 10, which contains contract terms for Single
Name Contracts, will be renumbered as paragraph 11 and cross references
will be updated accordingly. In addition, various clarifying amendments
will be made to this paragraph. The definitions of ``STEC Contract''
and ``Non-STEC Single Name Contract'' will be amended to clarify that
the relevant Reference Entity type will be specified in the List of
Eligible Single Name Reference Entities. The definition of ``Single
Name Contract Reference Obligations'' will be amended to clarify that
the applicable reference obligation will be specified in the List of
Eligible Single Name Reference Entities and may differ between 2003-
type CDS Contracts and 2014-type CDS Contracts. For 2014-type CDS
Contracts, the reference obligation may be designated as the Senior
Level Standard Reference Obligation that is specified from time to time
on the SRO List published under the 2014 ISDA Definitions.
    Paragraph 11.6(a)(i)(C) will be amended by adding a subsection (2)
that will make a clarification as to the initial payment date for
Single Name Contracts that corresponds to the change in payment date
discussed above for iTraxx Contracts. A change will be made in
paragraph 11.6(a)(ii) to conform to the changes made to the definition
of Single Name Contract Reference Obligation discussed above.
    In general, under ICE Clear Europe's proposal, the existing risk
methodology that applies to index CDS will also apply to the CDX.NA
Contracts. However, ICE Clear Europe proposes to make certain
amendments to its CDS Risk Model Description and CDS Pricing Policy to
address CDX.NA Contracts.
    In the CDS Risk Model Description, the index decomposition offset
methodology, which is used to determine portfolio margin benefits from
correlated long and short positions, is proposed to be modified to
address multi-region risk factors. Under the revised methodology,
portfolio margin benefits are provided first for risk factors within
the same region. After the same-region risk analysis is completed, any
cross-region benefits for index risk factors are determined. Cross-
region benefits apply only to index risk factors. The revised
description thus addresses scenarios in which margin offsets may be
provided between appropriately correlated positions in iTraxx Contracts
and positions in CDX.NA Contracts. The revisions also provide that
where risk factor profits and losses are calculated in different
currencies, they will be converted into the same base currency (Euro)
for purposes of calculation of portfolio margin benefits.
    ICE Clear Europe also proposes to amend its CDS Pricing Policy to
cover the CDX.NA Contracts. The amendments include submission
requirements with respect to CDX.NA Contracts and changes to reflect
that certain determinations with respect to firm trades for CDX.NA
Contracts are made as of the North American end-of-day.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \5\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if the
Commission finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such self-regulatory organization. Section

17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \6\ requires, among other things, that the
rules of a clearing agency are designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to
the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 17A of the Act \7\ and the rules thereunder applicable to
ICE Clear Europe. The proposed rule change will provide for clearing of
the CDX.NA Contracts, which are similar to the index CDS Contracts
currently cleared by ICE Clear Europe, in accordance with existing
rules and procedures. Specifically, the Commission believes that ICE
Clear Europe's proposal to clear the CDX.NA Contracts pursuant to its
risk management framework, operational procedures, end-of-day pricing
policies, settlement procedures and default management policies (as
modified by the proposed rule change) is designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions,
derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, and in general, to
protect investors and the public interest, consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\8\ The Commission further believes that the
clearing of CDX.NA Contracts in accordance with ICE Clear Europe's
existing CDS risk policies (including margin and guaranty fund), as
modified by the proposed rule change, is reasonably designed to meet
the requirements of Rules 17Ad-22(b)(1)-(3) \9\ related to the
measurement and management of credit exposures, margin requirements,
and the maintenance of sufficient financial resources required for a
registered clearing agency acting as a central counterparty for
security-based swaps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(1)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Commission believes that the proposed rule
change, as it relates to various clarifying and conforming changes with
respect to iTraxx Contracts and single name CDS Contracts, is designed
to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions and in general, to protect investors and the
public interest, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission therefore finds that the proposed rule change is
designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative
agreements, contracts, and transactions and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest in accordance with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \12\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\13\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-ICEEU-2015-005) be,
and hereby is, approved.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \14\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-13451 Filed 6-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P