Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 36655 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34–83386 

(June 6, 2018), 83 FR 27360 (June 12, 2018) (SR– 

ICC–2018–004) (‘‘Notice’’). 

4Notice, 83 FR at 27361. Capitalized terms used 

herein but not otherwise defined have the meaning 

set forth in the Framework and ICE Clear Europe 

rulebook, which is available at https://

www.theice.com/clear-europe/regulation#rulebook. 

5Notice, 83 FR at 27361. 

6 Id. 

7 Id. 

8Notice, 83 FR at 27361. 

9 Id. 

10 Id. 

11 Id. 

12 Id. 

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 service 

and/or distribution fees. 

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 

service and/or distribution 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 requested 

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 

or replaced, as if those rules applied to 

closed-end management investment 

companies, and will comply with 

FINRA Rule 2341, 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. 

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16154 Filed 7–27–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–83690; File No. SR–ICC– 

2018–004] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE 

Clear Credit LLC; Order Approving 

Proposed Rule Change Relating To 

Formalization of the ICC Model 

Validation Framework 

July 24, 2018. 

I. Introduction 

On May 23, 2018, ICE Clear Credit 

LLC (‘‘ICC’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’), 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 

formalize the ICC Model Validation 

Framework. The proposed rule change 

was published in the Federal Register 

on June 12, 2018.3 The Commission has 

not received any comments on the 

proposed rule change. For the reasons 

discussed below, the Commission is 

approving the proposed rule change. 

II. Description of the Proposed Rule 

Change 

The proposed rule change would 

formalize the ICC Model Validation 

Framework (‘‘Framework’’), which sets 

forth ICC’s model validation 

procedures.4 Through the use of these 

model validation procedures, ICC 

determines the effectiveness of the risk 

models underpinning ICC’s risk 

management system, considers new 

components and enhancements to 

existing components of the risk models, 

and monitors and validates on an 

ongoing basis the risk models. The 

Framework also describes the personnel 

responsible for, and the governance 

process associated with, the successful 

operation and maintenance of the model 

validation procedures. Specifically, the 

Framework designates ICC’s Risk 

Oversight Officer (‘‘ROO’’) as the 

Framework owner and makes the ROO 

responsible to the ICC President for the 

successful operation and maintenance 

of the Framework.5

ICC has a proprietary risk 

management system that uses models to 

assess the risk of the credit default 

swap-based portfolios that ICC clears. 

ICC uses its risk management system to 

determine the appropriate Initial Margin 

and Guaranty Fund requirements that 

offset the risks of the credit default 

swap-based portfolios ICC clears. The 

risk management system is composed of 

risk model components (‘‘Model 

Components’’), which employ a 

combination of statistical analysis of 

credit spread time series and stress test 

simulation scenarios to address different 

sources of risk. These sources of risk 

addressed by the Model Components 

constitute the foundation of total Initial 

Margin and Guaranty Fund 

requirements for the credit default 

swap-based portfolios that ICC clears.6

The Framework considers both new 

Model Components and enhancements 

to existing Model Components 

(collectively, ‘‘Model Change’’). New 

Model Components consider sources of 

risk that are not currently included in 

the risk management system.7

Enhancements to existing Model 

Components improve upon the 

methodologies already used by the risk 

management system to consider a given 

source or sources of risk.8 The 

Framework classifies Model Changes as 

either Materiality A or Materiality B, 

depending on how substantially the 

Model Change affects the risk 

management system’s assessment of risk 

for the related source or sources of risk.9

Materiality A Model Changes 

substantially affect the risk management 

system’s assessment of risk for the 

related source or sources of risk. 

Materiality B Model Changes do not 

substantially affect the risk management 

system’s assessment of risk for the 

related source or sources of risk. The 

Framework requires that the ICC Chief 

Risk Officer (‘‘CRO’’) and the ROO 

review and determine which 

enhancements to the risk management 

system qualify as Model Changes and 

classify Model Changes as Materiality A 

or B.10 The Framework requires that the 

ICC Risk Committee review the 

materiality classifications and provide 

feedback as necessary.11 The 

Framework also describes the Model 

Inventory which is maintained by the 

ICC Risk Department and which 

contains key information about all 

Model Components and Model 

Changes.12 The Framework requires that 

the ICC ROO review the model 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36656 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 

13 Id. 

14Notice, 83 FR at 27361. 

15 Id. 

16 Id. 

17 Id. 

18 Id. 

19Notice, 83 FR at 27361. 

20 Id. 

21 Id. 

22 Id. 

23 Id. 

24The Framework defines as medium priority 

those items that reflect deficiencies in the Model 

Components, assumptions, usage, or compliance 

with stated procedures that create risks that ICC can 

mitigate with viable workarounds until it 

remediates them fully, within a reasonable 

timeframe agreed with the Risk Committee. 

25Notice, 83 FR at 27361. 

26 Id. 

27 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C). 

28 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 

29 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(b)(2)–(4), (d)(8). 30 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 

inventory at least quarterly to ensure 

that it contains accurate and up to date 

information relating to Model 

Components and Model Changes.13

To assure the effectiveness of ICC’s 

risk management system, the 

Framework employs four controls: 

Initial validation; ongoing monitoring 

and validation; investigation; and 

independent periodic review.14 Before 

going live with any Model Change, the 

Framework requires an initial validation 

of the conceptual soundness of the 

methodology and the proposed ongoing 

monitoring and validation approach.15

In addition, the Framework subjects 

Materiality A Model Changes to an 

additional independent initial 

validation.16

Ongoing monitoring and validation 

provides assurances that ICC has 

appropriately configured and calibrated 

the risk management system, including 

any recent Model Change, and that the 

risk management system is achieving 

the desired level of performance.17

Ongoing monitoring and validation 

consists of three areas: Parameter 

setting, execution monitoring, and 

outcome analysis.18 Through execution 

monitoring ICC reviews on a daily basis 

the changes generated by its risk 

management system and explains them 

in relation to known changes in cleared 

portfolios, prices, and market 

conditions. 

If ongoing monitoring and validation 

identifies features of the risk 

management system that might indicate 

weakness in a Model Component, the 

Framework requires ICC to investigate 

and identify the root cause.19 If 

weakness in a Model Component is 

discovered during investigation, the 

Framework requires the ICC CRO to 

inform the ICC Risk Committee of the 

results of the investigation.20 ICC must 

then remediate the identified weakness 

through an appropriate Model Change, 

which passes through the required steps 

of the Framework starting with an Initial 

validation.21

The Framework sets forth the process 

for selecting independent validators and 

describes the independent validator 

criteria, including technical expertise 

and independence requirements. The 

Framework requires that the ICC CRO 

provide support and information to 

allow the independent validators to 

perform periodic reviews of all Model 

Components and related practices at 

least once in every calendar year.22 At 

ICC’s choosing, the scope of an 

independent periodic review may cover 

all Model Components used by the risk 

management system, or a subset of 

Model Components, as long as all Model 

Components are included in one or 

more independent periodic reviews 

each year.23 The independent periodic 

review must demonstrate that the Model 

Components remain fit for purpose; that 

the assumptions associated with the 

Model Components are still valid; that 

ICC has adequately addressed any open 

items of medium priority 24 from Model 

Change initial validations and any other 

implementation conditions; and that 

ICC has been complying with its 

ongoing monitoring and validation 

requirements and the Model 

Components are performing without any 

significant weakness.25 The ICC CRO 

must present the periodic review to the 

ICC Risk Committee and describe ICC’s 

plans in relation to any open high or 

medium priority items in the report.26

III. Discussion and Commission 

Findings 

Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs 

the Commission to approve a proposed 

rule change of a self-regulatory 

organization if it finds that such 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

the requirements of the Act and the 

rules and regulations thereunder 

applicable to such organization.27 For 

the reasons given below, the 

Commission finds that the proposal is 

consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of 

the Act 28 and Rules 17Ad–22(b)(2), 

17Ad–22(b)(3), 17Ad–22(b)(4), and 

17Ad–22(d)(8) thereunder.29

A. Consistency With Section 

17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 

Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 

requires, among other things, that the 

rules of ICC be designed to promote the 

prompt and accurate clearance and 

settlement of securities transactions 

and, to the extent applicable, derivative 

agreements, contracts, and transactions, 

as well as to assure the safeguarding of 

securities and funds which are in the 

custody or control of ICC or for which 

it is responsible, and, in general, to 

protect investors and the public 

interest.30

As described above, the Framework 

would provide a process for reviewing 

and enhancing ICC’s risk management 

system. The Framework would also 

designate the personnel responsible for, 

and the governance process associated 

with, the successful operation and 

maintenance of the model validation 

procedures and would set forth the 

process and criteria for selecting 

independent validators. 

Taken together, the Commission 

believes these aspects of the Framework 

would help ensure that ICC’s risk 

management system appropriately and 

effectively addresses the risks associated 

with clearing security based swaprelated portfolios by providing ICC a 

means for reviewing and enhancing the 

risk management system as needed. In 

providing for independent validators, 

the Commission believes the Framework 

would help ensure that ICC receives 

unbiased and objective views regarding 

its risk management system, which 

would improve such review and 

enhancement. The Commission believes 

that both of these aspects of the 

Framework would improve the 

effectiveness of ICC’s risk management 

system, thereby improving ICC’s ability 

to manage the risks associated with 

clearing security based swap-related 

portfolios. Given that mismanagement 

of the risks associated with clearing 

security based swap-related portfolios 

could cause ICC to realize losses on 

such portfolios and disrupt ICC’s ability 

to promptly and accurately clear 

security based swap transactions, the 

Commission believes that the 

Framework would promote the prompt 

and accurate clearance and settlement of 

securities transactions. Similarly, given 

that mismanagement of the risks 

associated with clearing security based 

swap-related portfolios could cause ICC 

to realize losses on such portfolios and 

threaten ICC’s ability to operate, thereby 

threatening access to securities and 

funds in ICC’s control, the Commission 

believes that the Framework would help 

assure the safeguarding of securities and 

funds which are in the custody or 

control of the ICC or for which it is 

responsible. Finally, for both of these 

reasons, the Commission believes the 

Framework would, in general, protect 

investors and the public interest. 

Therefore, the Commission finds that 

the proposed rule change would 

promote the prompt and accurate 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 36657 

31 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 

32 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(b)(2). 

33 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(b)(2). 

34 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(b)(3). 

35 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(b)(3). 

36 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(b)(4). 

37 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(b)(4). 

38 15 U.S.C. 78q–1. 

39 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(d)(8). 

clearance and settlement of securities 

transactions, assure the safeguarding of 

securities and funds in ICC’s custody 

and control, and, in general, protect 

investors and the public interest, 

consistent with the Section 17A(b)(3)(F) 

of the Act.31

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad–22(b)(2) 

Rule 17Ad–22(b)(2) requires that ICC 

establish, implement, maintain and 

enforce written policies and procedures 

reasonably designed to use margin 

requirements to limit its credit 

exposures to participants under normal 

market conditions and use risk-based 

models and parameters to set margin 

requirements and review such margin 

requirements and the related risk-based 

models and parameters at least 

monthly.32

As described above, the Framework 

would describe how ICC would review 

and enhance its risk management 

system, including the selection and use 

of independent validators. In doing so, 

the Commission believes that the 

Framework would help ensure that 

ICC’s risk management system is 

appropriate and effective for dealing 

with the risks associated with clearing 

security based swap-related portfolios. 

The Commission believes that the 

Framework would also enable ICC to 

improve its margin requirements by 

allowing ICC to review and improve the 

models that generate such margin 

requirements. The Commission believes 

that these aspects of the Framework 

would improve ICC’s use of margin 

requirements to limit its credit 

exposures to participants under normal 

market conditions and ICC’s use of riskbased models and parameters to set 

margin requirements. 

In addition, the Framework would 

describe ICC’s process for execution 

monitoring, whereby ICC would review 

on a daily basis the changes generated 

by its risk management system and 

would explain those changes in relation 

to known changes in cleared portfolios, 

prices, and market conditions. The 

Framework would require ICC to then 

investigate any anomalies identified. In 

reviewing such changes and anomalies, 

the Commission believes ICC would 

review its margin requirements and the 

models that generate such requirements. 

Thus, the Commission believes the 

Framework would enable ICC to review 

its margin requirements and the models 

that generate such requirements on a 

daily basis. 

Therefore, for the above reasons the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with Rule 

17Ad–22(b)(2).33

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad–22(b)(3) 

Rule 17Ad–22(b)(3) requires that ICC 

establish, implement, maintain and 

enforce written policies and procedures 

reasonably designed to maintain 

sufficient financial resources to 

withstand, at a minimum, a default by 

the two participant families to which it 

has the largest exposures in extreme but 

plausible market conditions, in its 

capacity as a central counterparty for 

security-based swaps.34

As described above, the Framework 

would provide a process for reviewing 

and enhancing ICC’s risk management 

system and would set forth the process 

and criteria for selecting independent 

validators. In doing so, the Commission 

believes that the Framework would help 

ensure that ICC’s risk management 

system appropriately and effectively 

deals with the risks associated with 

clearing security based swap-related 

portfolios, including the risk associated 

with the default by the two participant 

families to which ICC has the largest 

exposures in extreme but plausible 

market conditions. The Commission 

believes that the Framework would also 

help ICC improve its guaranty fund 

requirements by allowing ICC to review 

and improve the models that generate 

such requirements. The Commission 

believes that these aspects of the 

Framework would help ensure that ICC 

effectively establishes and maintains 

financial resources sufficient to 

withstand, at a minimum, a default by 

the two participant families to which 

ICC has the largest exposures in extreme 

but plausible market conditions. 

Therefore, for the above reasons the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with Rule 

17Ad–22(b)(3).35

D. Consistency With Rule 17Ad–22(b)(4) 

Rule 17Ad–22(b)(4) requires that ICC 

establish, implement, maintain and 

enforce written policies and procedures 

reasonably designed to provide for an 

annual model validation consisting of 

evaluating the performance of its margin 

models and the related parameters and 

assumptions associated with such 

models by a qualified person who is free 

from influence from the persons 

responsible for the development or 

operation of the models being 

validated.36

As discussed above, the Framework 

would require the ICC CRO to provide 

support and information to allow 

independent validators to perform 

periodic reviews of all Model 

Components and related practices at 

least once in every calendar year. The 

Framework would further provide that 

the scope of an independent periodic 

review may cover all Model 

Components used by the risk 

management system, or a subset of 

Model Components, as long as all Model 

Components are included in one or 

more independent periodic reviews 

each year. The Framework would also 

provide the process and criteria 

(including independence) for selecting 

independent validators. Finally, the 

Framework would describe the required 

components of an independent review 

and the documentation required to be 

produced by the independent 

validators. 

The Commission believes these 

aspects of the Framework would enable 

ICC to validate the models 

underpinning its risk management 

system on an annual basis including the 

related parameters and assumptions 

associated with such models. The 

Commission also believes that by setting 

out the process and criteria (including 

independence) for selecting 

independent validators, the Framework 

would help ensure that such validations 

are performed by qualified persons free 

from influence from the persons 

responsible for the development or 

operation of the models being validated. 

Therefore, for the reasons described 

above the Commission finds that the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

Rule 17Ad–22(b)(4).37

E. Consistency With Rule 17Ad–22(d)(8) 

Rule 17Ad–22(d)(8) requires that ICC 

establish, implement, maintain and 

enforce written policies and procedures 

reasonably designed to have governance 

arrangements that are clear and 

transparent to fulfill the public interest 

requirements in Section 17A of the 

Act 38 applicable to clearing agencies, to 

support the objectives of owners and 

participants, and to promote the 

effectiveness of the clearing agency’s 

risk management procedures.39

As discussed above, the Framework 

would describe the personnel 

responsible for, and the governance 

process associated with, the successful 

operation and maintenance of the model 

validation procedures. Specifically, the 

Framework would designate ICC’s ROO 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36658 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 

40 15 U.S.C. 78q–1. 

41 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(d)(8). 

42 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 

43 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(b)(2)–(4), (d)(8). 

44 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

45 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). 

46 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

as the Framework owner and would 

make the ROO responsible to the ICC 

President for the successful operation 

and maintenance of the Framework. The 

Framework would also designate certain 

responsibilities to ICC’s CRO and the 

Risk Committee. The Commission 

believes that in doing so the Framework 

would allow ICC to establish clear and 

transparent arrangements for governing 

the Framework and its model validation 

procedures. The Commission further 

believes that these same arrangements 

would contribute to ICC’s fulfilling the 

public interest requirements in Section 

17A of the Act 40 applicable to clearing 

agencies, and the objectives of owners 

and participants. Finally, the 

Commission believes that these 

procedures and arrangements would 

promote the effectiveness of ICC’s risk 

management procedures by clarifying 

the process for, and responsibilities 

associated with, using the Framework to 

improve ICC’s risk management system. 

Therefore, for the above reasons the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with Rule 

17Ad–22(d)(8).41

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(b)(3)(F) of 

the Act 42 and Rules 17Ad–22(b)(2), 

17Ad–22(b)(3), 17Ad–22(b)(4), and 

17Ad–22(d)(8) thereunder.43

It is therefore ordered pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 44 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–ICC–2018– 

004) be, and hereby is, approved.45

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.46

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16164 Filed 7–27–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

[License No. 03/03–0249] 

Argosy Investment Partners IV, L.P.; 

Notice Seeking Exemption Under the 

Small Business Investment Act, 

Conflicts of Interest 

Notice is hereby given that Argosy 

Investment Partners IV, L.P., 950 West 

Valley Road, Suite 2900, Wayne, PA 

19087, a Federal Licensee under the 

Small Business Investment Act of 1958, 

as amended (‘‘the Act’’), in connection 

with the financing of a small concern, 

has sought an exemption under Section 

312 of the Act and Section 107.730, 

Financings which Constitute Conflicts 

of Interest of the Small Business 

Administration (‘‘SBA’’) Rules and 

Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Argosy 

Investment Partners IV, L.P. is seeking 

post-financing approval from SBA for 

loan and equity financings it made to 

POSC Holdings LLC, formerly known as 

Panhandle Oilfield Service Companies, 

Inc., 14000 Quail Springs Parkway, 

Suite 300, Oklahoma City, OK 73134. 

The financing is brought within the 

purview of § 107.730(a)(1) of the 

Regulations because Argosy Investment 

Partners V, L.P., an Associate of Argosy 

Investment Partners IV, L.P., owns more 

than ten percent of POSC Holdings LLC, 

and therefore this transaction is 

considered Financing an Associate 

requiring prior SBA approval. Argosy 

Investment Partners IV, L.P. has already 

made its investments in POSC Holdings 

LLC and is seeking post-financing SBA 

approval. 

Notice is hereby given that any 

interested person may submit written 

comments on this transaction within 

fifteen days of the date of this 

publication to the Associate 

Administrator, Office of Investment and 

Innovation, U.S. Small Business 

Administration, 409 Third Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20416. 

A. Joseph Shepard, 

Associate Administrator for Office of 

Investment and Innovation. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16206 Filed 7–27–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

[Docket No.: SBA–2018–0007] 

Surety Bond Guarantee Program Fees 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

ACTION: Notification of temporary 

initiative to test lower fees; request for 

public comments. 

SUMMARY: This document announces a 

temporary decrease in the guarantee fees 

that the U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) charges all Surety 

companies and Principals on each 

guaranteed bond (other than a bid bond) 

issued in SBA’s Surety Bond Guarantee 

(SBG) Program. 

DATES:

Applicability Date: The fee decreases 

described in this document will apply 

to all SBA surety bond guarantees 

approved during the one year period 

beginning October 1, 2018 and ending 

September 30, 2019. 

Comment Date: SBA must receive 

comments on or before August 29, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. SBA–2018– 

0007, by any of the following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov, following the 

instructions for submitting comments; 

or (2) Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: 

Jermanne Perry, Surety Bond Specialist, 

U.S. Small Business Administration, 

Office of Surety Guarantees, 409 Third 

Street SW, Suite 8600, Washington, DC 

20416. 

SBA will post all comments on 

www.regulations.gov. If you wish to 

submit confidential business 

information (CBI) as defined in the User 

Notice at www.regulations.gov, you 

must submit such information to U.S. 

Small Business Administration, 

Jermanne Perry, Office of Surety 

Guarantees, 409 Third Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20416 or send an email 

to jermanne.perry@sba.gov. Highlight 

the information that you consider to be 

CBI and explain why you believe SBA 

should hold this information as 

confidential. SBA will review your 

information and determine whether it 

will make the information public. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jermanne Perry, Surety Bond Specialist, 

Office of Surety Guarantees, (202) 401– 

8275; jermanne.perry@sba.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under its 

SBG Program, the SBA guarantees bid, 

payment and performance bonds for 

small and emerging contractors who 

cannot obtain surety bonds through 

regular commercial channels. SBA’s 

guarantee gives Sureties an incentive to 

provide bonding for small businesses 

and, thereby, assists small businesses in 

obtaining greater access to contracting 

opportunities. SBA’s guarantee is an 

agreement between a Surety and SBA 

that SBA will assume a certain 

percentage of the Surety’s loss should a 

contractor default on the underlying 

contract. Pursuant to its statutory 

authority ‘‘to establish such fee or fees 

for small business concerns and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES