[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 13 (Friday, January 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2869-2871]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00846]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0298]

Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; Motion
Picture Association of America

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; grant of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA grants the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)
a five-year exemption from the electronic logging device (ELD)
requirements for all commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers providing
transportation to or from a theatrical or television motion picture
production site. MPAA requested this exemption to allow these drivers
to complete paper records of duty status (RODS) instead of using an ELD
device. FMCSA has determined that the unique aspects of these drivers'
operations, combined with additional oversight of their paper RODS, is
equivalent to that which

would result from the use of ELDs for their particular operations, and
therefore provides an equivalent level of safety.

DATES: This exemption is effective January 19, 2018 and expires January
19, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
notice, contact Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier
Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety
Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email: [email protected]. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov and insert
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2017-0298 in the ``Keyword'' box and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption
request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must
provide the public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant
to the application, including any safety analyses that have been
conducted. The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public
comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain
the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed
(49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Request for Exemption

    MPAA requested an exemption from the final rule on ELD requirements
published in the Federal Register on December 16, 2015 (80 FR 78292).
The exemption would allow all drivers of CMVs providing transportation
of passengers and property to and from a theatrical or television
motion picture production site to complete paper RODS instead of using
an ELD device on or after December 18, 2017, the compliance date for
the ELD rule. The term of the requested exemption is five years,
subject to renewal.
    MPAA reported that approximately 6,500 CMV drivers operate CMVs on
a full- or part-time basis for the motion picture industry. According
to HOS data developed by third party compliance services, these drivers
spend on average less than four hours each day driving and drive about
40 miles per day. Their resulting RODs are often very complex, as are
the driver HOS records that employing motor carriers must keep. Through
close cooperation, the industry has been able to manage the extensive
interchange of paper RODs that this work pattern requires. MPAA
asserted that industry's success in HOS management is based on a system
that is driver-based rather than vehicle-based.
    According to MPAA, few production drivers qualify for the short-
haul driver exception in 49 CFR 395.1(e)(1)(ii)(A) because they often
exceed the 12-hour limit and therefore may be subject to the ELD
requirements. Each time a production driver operates a CMV for a
different studio or production company, the motor carrier and the
driver must reconcile the driver's HOS record for the past week. At
present, cooperation between production companies, various Teamsters
locals, and drivers can reduce the burden of this detailed
reconciliation. And under the current rules, drivers themselves can
manage the necessary paper RODS, carry them to each new CMV, and
transfer paper copies to each new motor carrier as needed. When a
roadside inspection occurs, a driver can produce paper RODS for review
by the enforcement official.
    MPAA contends that the lack of interoperability among ELD platforms
developed by various manufacturers means that motion picture company
drivers will not be able to transfer HOS data from one carrier to other
carriers.
    MPAA states \1\ that the motion picture industry (MPI):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ www.regulations.gov, Docket Item FMCSA-2017-0298-0027, Filed
by Alicia Leahy for MPAA on November 28, 2017.

``. . . has developed a comprehensive database that contains HOS
data, making it easier for motor carriers to keep track of drivers'
cumulative HOS and prevent HOS violations from occurring, all while
protecting the confidentiality of each motor carrier's private
records. This is true even when the driver has worked for a separate
USDOT# within the MPI within the prior 7-day period or same 24-hour
period. This same level of safety, compliance, and visibility to the
driver's hours of service is impossible in the current ELD
landscape.
    ``Current regulatory requirements designate that drivers submit
logs within 13 days of the 24-hour period to which the record
pertains. 49 CFR 395.8(a)(2)(ii). MPAA Member companies go above and
beyond by requiring drivers to submit RODS within 24 hours of the
duty period to which the record pertains, which is a 12-day
reduction in the timeframe otherwise required.''
    ``The RODS are then reviewed by third-party auditing companies,
resulting in accelerated reporting of HOS compliance and an
independent assessment of accuracy. This allows any concerns that
may be discovered in the review to be expeditiously addressed by the
employing motor carrier that is ultimately responsible for
enforcement of the regulations. Member companies' current practices
include reviewing driver payroll records and other supporting
documentation such as fuel receipts, inspection reports, vehicle
records and receipts, expense receipts, schedules, bill of lading,
etc. to verify the accuracy of the paper logs'' [emphasis in
original].

    A copy of MPAA's application for exemption is available for review
in the docket for this notice.

V. Public Comments

    On October 27, 2017, FMCSA published notice of this application and
requested public comments (82 FR 49771). The Agency received 29
comments. Eight respondents, including Teamsters Local 399 and the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), provided support for the
exemption. Eleven respondents, including the Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety (Advocates) and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
(CVSA), opposed the exemption. Ten respondents commented about the ELD
rule but did not comment on MPAA's application.
    Among supporters of the application, Teamsters Local 399, which has
4,500 members in the motion picture and television industry, stated
that ``[t]he AMPTP [Alliance of Motion Picture and

Television Producers], it's signatory Studios and Producers spend
millions of dollars, year after year, decade after decade, keeping
themselves and Teamster drivers in compliance throughout the United
States. Paper logs for our industry have been practiced, preached and
perfected with safe and accurate results for multiple Studios,
Production Companies and thousands of drivers in the motion picture
industry that are employed by them.''
    Among opponents of the application, Advocates concluded that MPAA
``does not meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for the
exemption. The Application fails to justify the need for the exemption,
provide an analysis of the safety impacts the requested exemption may
cause, or provide information on the specific countermeasures to be
undertaken to ensure that the exemption will achieve an equivalent or
greater level of safety than would be achieved absent the exemption.''
    CVSA registered its opposition by noting that ``exemptions from
federal safety regulations have the potential to undermine safety,
while also complicating the enforcement process. The Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations and the Hazardous Materials Regulations
exist to ensure that those operating in the transportation industry are
equipped to do it safely.''

VI. FMCSA Response

    FMCSA has evaluated MPAA's application and the public comments. The
Agency disagrees with commenters' remarks that MPAA has not justified
the need for the exemption or provided specific countermeasures. MPAA
has outlined their unique operational issues that justify not using
ELDs and clearly explained the special handling of their RODs that
ensures a high level of accuracy to provide the equivalent level of
safety.
    We note at the outset that Congress has recognized the unique
aspects of the motion picture industry's operations and has provided
statutory exceptions from some HOS regulations.\2\ The industry's
drivers generally operate short distances and normally spend much of
their time off duty. Therefore, Congress has allowed these drivers
longer work days and drive time compared to the normal hours-of-service
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Section 4133 of SAFETEA-LU (119 Stat. 1744) (set out as
a note to 49 U.S.C. 31136).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of the nature of their operations, motion picture industry
drivers often will continue to use the same paper RODS from one carrier
to another. In these unique circumstances, using an ELD system would
provide little additional accuracy to the HOS data because most duty
status information would be manually entered by the drivers and
interoperability between the systems is not required. As MPAA states,
the paper log provides continuity for the carrier and enforcement to
evaluate compliance, regardless of the number of carriers for which the
driver is operating in a given 7-day or even 24-hour period. FMCSA
acknowledges that, given the unique arrangements under which drivers in
the motion picture industry routinely operate for multiple carriers
over brief periods of time, paper RODS may prove more efficient than
ELDs.
    In addition, MPAA members are required to submit their RODS within
24 hours, rather than waiting for the 13-day period allowed by 49 CFR
395.8. According to MPAA, these ``RODS are reviewed by a third-party
auditing company, resulting in accelerated reporting of HOS compliance
and an independent assessment of accuracy.'' In view of the heightened
scrutiny of HOS records to which drivers in the motion picture industry
are subject to (as described in the MPAA statement in Section III,
above), FMCSA believes that drivers operating under this exemption will
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of
safety that would be achieved through the use of ELDs [49 CFR
381.305(a)].

VII. Decision

    For the reasons addressed above, and subject to the terms and
conditions set forth in Section VIII, FMCSA grants MPAA's request for
an exemption from the ELD requirement under 49 CFR 395.8(a).

VIII. Terms and Conditions of the Exemption

    1. Drivers operating under the exemption are exempt from the ELD
requirement under 49 CFR 395.8(a).
    2. The exemption is effective January 19, 2018 and, unless revoked
at an earlier date, expires January 19, 2023.
    3. Drivers must have a copy of this notice or equivalent signed
FMCSA exemption document in their possession while operating under the
terms of the exemption. The exemption document must be presented to law
enforcement officials upon request.
    4. Carriers operating under this exemption may not have an
``Unsatisfactory'' rating with FMCSA or be subject to any imminent
hazard or out of service orders.

Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), during the period this
exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation
that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect
to a firm or person operating in interstate commerce.

Notification to FMCSA

    Exempt motor carriers must notify FMCSA within 5 business days of
any accident (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving any of their CMVs
operating under the terms of the exemption. The notification must
include the following information:
    (a) Name of the exemption: ``MPAA,''
    (b) Name of the operating motor carrier,
    (c) Date of the accident,
    (d) City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or
closest to the accident scene,
    (e) Driver's name and license number,
    (f) Vehicle number and State license number,
    (g) Number of individuals suffering physical injury,
    (h) Number of fatalities,
    (i) The police-reported cause of the accident,
    (j) Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws
or motor carrier safety regulations, and
    (k) The driver's total driving time and total on-duty time period
prior to the accident.
    Reports filed under this provision shall be emailed to
[email protected]

Termination

    FMCSA does not anticipate the drivers covered by this exemption to
experience any deterioration of their safety record. Nevertheless,
interested parties or organizations possessing information that would
otherwise show that any or all of these motor carriers are not
achieving the requisite statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any information submitted and,
if safety is being compromised or if the continuation of the exemption
is inconsistent with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) and 31136(e), FMCSA will
immediately take steps to revoke the exemption of the company or
companies and drivers in question.

    Issued on: January 12, 2018.
Cathy F. Gautreaux,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-00846 Filed 1-18-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: December 1, 2009 (Volume 229, Number 74)]
[Notices]
[Page 62795]
[DOCID:fr01de09-78]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-D-0466]

Draft Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 527.300 Dairy Products--
Microbial Contaminants and Alkaline Phosphatase Activity (Compliance
Policy Guide 7106.08); Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of draft Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 527.300 Dairy
Products--Microbial Contaminants and Alkaline Phosphatase Activity (CPG
7106.08) (the draft CPG). The draft CPG, when finalized, will provide
guidance for FDA staff on its enforcement policies for pathogens and
other indicators of inadequate pasteurization or post-pasteurization
contamination of dairy products.

DATES: Although you can comment on any CPG at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the agency considers your comment on the
draft CPG before it begins work on the final version of the CPG, submit
written or electronic comments on the draft CPG by February 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the draft CPG to the Division of
Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments
on the draft CPG to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written requests
for single copies of the draft CPG to the Division of Compliance Policy
(HFC-230), Office of Enforcement, Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. Send two self-addressed adhesive
labels to assist that office in processing your request. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft
CPG.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Monica Metz, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-316), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The draft CPG is intended to provide guidance for FDA staff
regarding pathogens and indicators of inadequate pasteurization or
post-pasteurization contamination of dairy products. The draft CPG
outlines regulatory enforcement policies for FDA staff to use to
initiate legal action recommendations based on analytical
determinations that a dairy product contains a pathogenic micro-
organism (i.e., Salmonella species, enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli
(EHEC) O157:H7, Campylobacter jejuni, Yersinia enterocolitica, or
Clostridium botulinum); toxins produced by Clostridium botulinum,
enterotoxigenic Staphylococcus, or Bacillus cereus; Staphylococcus
aureus; Bacillus cereus, nontoxigenic Escherichia coli; or alkaline
phosphatase. The draft CPG also contains information that may be useful
to the regulated industry and to the public.
    FDA is issuing the draft CPG as level 1 draft guidance consistent
with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The
draft CPG, when finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking
on pathogens and indicators of inadequate pasteurization or post-
pasteurization contamination of dairy products. It does not create or
confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA
or the public. An alternate approach may be used if such approach
satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft CPG at
http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/cpg/default.htm or http://
www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: November 24, 2009.
Michael A. Chappell,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs.
[FR Doc. E9-28756 Filed 11-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 110 (Monday, June 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33033-33034]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13372]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Approval of Noise Compatibility Program for Willow Run Airport,
Ypsilanti, Michigan

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA announces its findings on the noise compatibility
program submitted by the City of Ypsilanti, Michigan under the
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47501 et seq. (formerly the Aviation Safety and
Noise Abatement Act, hereinafter referred to as ``the Act'') and 14 CFR
Part 150 (hereinafter referred to as ``Part 150''). On January 15,
2014, the FAA determined that the noise exposure maps submitted by the
City of Ypsilanti, Michigan under Part 150 were in compliance with
applicable requirements. On May 20, 2014 the FAA approved the Willow
Run Airport noise compatibility program. This is the first Record of
Approval (ROA) for the YIP NCP, which included nine measures
recommended for approval. No program elements relating to new or
revised flight procedures for noise abatement were proposed by the
airport operator.

DATES: This notice is effective June 9, 2014, and is applicable
beginning May 20, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ernest P. Gubry, 11677 S. Wayne
Road, Suite 107, Romulus, Michigan; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Phone:
734-229-2900. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed,
upon appointment during normal business hours, at this location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA has made
a determination on each measure in the Noise Compatibility Program for
Willow Run Airport, effective May 20, 2014.
    Under section 47504 of the Act, an airport operator who has
previously submitted a Noise Exposure Map may submit to the FAA a Noise
Compatibility Program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed
by the airport operator for the reduction of existing non-compatible
land uses and prevention of additional non-compatible

land uses within the area covered by the Noise Exposure Maps. The Act
requires such programs to be developed in consultation with interested
and affected parties including local communities, government agencies,
airport users, and FAA personnel.
    Each airport noise compatibility program developed in accordance
with Part 150 is a local program, not a Federal program. The FAA does
not substitute its judgment for that of the airport proprietor with
respect to which measures should be recommended for action. The FAA's
approval or disapproval of Part 150 program recommendations is measured
according to the standards expressed in Part 150 and the Act and is
limited to the following determinations:
    a. The Noise Compatibility Program was developed in accordance with
the provisions and procedures of Part 150;
    b. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the
goals of reducing existing non-compatible land uses around the airport
and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses;
    c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate
or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of
aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or
intrude into areas preempted by the Federal Government; and
    d. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be
implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating
safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the
navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely
affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator
prescribed by law.
    Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport
noise compatibility program are delineated in Part 150, section 150.5.
Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of land
uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by itself
constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal action or
approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures may be
required. Prior to an FAA decision on a request to implement the
action, an environmental review of the proposed action may be required.
Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially
assist in the implementation of the program nor a determination that
all measures covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid
funding from the FAA under applicable law contained in Title 49 U.S.C.
Where federal funding is sought, requests for project grants must be
submitted to the FAA Airports District Office in Romulus, Michigan.
    The Willow Run Airport study contains a proposed noise
compatibility program comprised of actions designed for phased
implementation by airport management and adjacent jurisdictions from
2012 to the year 2018. It was requested that the FAA evaluate and
approve this material as a Noise Compatibility Program as described in
section 47504 of the Act. The FAA began its review of the program on
January 15, 2014 and was required by a provision of the Act to approve
or disapprove the program within 180 days (other than the use of new or
modified flight procedures for noise control). Failure to approve or
disapprove such program within the 180-day period shall be deemed to be
an approval of such program.
    The submitted program contained nine (9) proposed actions for noise
abatement, noise mitigation, land use planning and program management
on and off the airport. The FAA completed its review and determined
that the procedural and substantive requirements of the Act and Part
150 have been satisfied. The overall program was approved by the FAA,
effective May 20, 2014.
    These determinations are set forth in detail in a Record of
Approval signed by the Great Lakes Airports Division Manager on May 20,
2014. The Record of Approval, as well as other evaluation materials and
the documents comprising the submittal, are available for review, upon
appointment during normal business hours, at the FAA office listed
above and at the administrative offices of the Willow Run Airport, 801
Willow Run Airport, Ypsilanti, MI 48198.
    The Record of Approval will also be available on-line at: http://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/airport_noise/.

    Issued in Romulus, Michigan, on May 20, 2014.
John L. Mayfield, Jr.,
Manager, Detroit Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2014-13372 Filed 6-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 4072]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01462]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34 94007; File No. SR-CboeEDGA-2021-025]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed
Rule Change To Introduce a New Data Product To Be Known as the Short
Volume Report, Modify the Name of Rule 13.8 to ``Data Products'', and
Add a Preamble to Rule 13.8

January 20, 2022.
    On November 17, 2021, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'') 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 adopt
Exchange Rule 13.8(h) to introduce a new data product to be known as
the Short Volume Report, modify the name of Rule 13.8 to ``Data
Products'', and add a preamble to Rule 13.8. The proposed rule change
was published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2021.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93694 (December 1,
2021), 86 FR 69299. Comments received on the proposal are available
on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboeedga-2021-025/srcboeedga2021025.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission will either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is January 21, 2022. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ designates
March 7, 2022 as the date by which the Commission shall either approve
or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-CboeEDGA-2021-025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.
    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-01462 Filed 1-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 214 (Monday, November 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 55356]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24106]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AC19-13-000]

Entergy Louisiana, LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on October 29, 2018, Entergy Louisiana, LLC filed
a request for approval to use Account 439, authorized by the Financial
Accounting Standards Board.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the
website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 19, 2018.

    Dated: October 30, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-24106 Filed 11-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56120-56121]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19669]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-793, OMB Control No. 3235-0734]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 22c-1

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 22c-1 (17 CFR 270.22c-1) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a) (the ``Investment Company Act'' or ``Act'')
enables a fund to choose to use ``swing pricing'' as a tool to mitigate
shareholder dilution. Rule 22c-1 is intended to promote investor
protection by providing funds with an additional tool to mitigate the
potentially dilutive effects of shareholder purchase or redemption
activity and a set of operational standards that allow funds to gain
comfort using swing pricing as a means of mitigating potential
dilution.
    The respondents to amended rule 22c-1 are open-end management
investment companies (other than money market funds or exchange-traded
funds) that engage in swing pricing. Compliance with rule 22c-1(a)(3)
is mandatory for any fund that chooses to use swing pricing to adjust
its NAV in reliance on the rule.
    While we are not aware of any funds that have engaged in swing
pricing,\1\ we are estimating for the purpose of this analysis that 5
fund complexes have funds that may adopt swing pricing policies and
procedures in the future pursuant to the rule. We estimate that the
total burden associated with the preparation and approval of swing
pricing policies and procedures by those fund complexes that would use
swing pricing will be 280 hours.\2\ We also estimate that it will cost
a fund complex $48,188 to document, review and initially approve these
policies and procedures, for a total cost of $240,940.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ No funds have engaged in swing pricing as reported on Form
N-CEN as of August 15, 2022.
    \2\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (48 + 2
+ 6) hours x 5 fund complexes = 280 hours.
    \3\ These estimates are based on the following calculations: 24
hours x $237 (hourly rate for a senior accountant) = $5,688; 24
hours x $545 (blended hourly rate for assistant general counsel
($510) and chief compliance officer ($580)) = $13,080; 2 hours (for
a fund attorney's time to prepare materials for the board's
determinations) x $400 (hourly rate for a compliance attorney) =
$800; 6 hours x $4,770 (hourly rate for a board of 9 directors) =
$28,620; ($5,688 + $13,080 +$800 + $28,620) = $48,188; $48,188 x 5
fund complexes = $240,940. The hourly wages used are from SIFMA's
Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013,
modified by Commission staff to account for an 1800-hour work-year
and inflation, and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm
size, employee benefits, and overhead. The staff has estimated the
average cost of board of director time as $4,770 per hour for the
board as a whole, based on information received from funds and their
counsel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 22c-1 requires a fund that uses swing pricing to maintain the
fund's swing policies and procedures that are in effect, or at any time
within the past six years were in effect, in an easily accessible
place.\4\ The rule also requires a fund to retain a written copy of the
periodic report provided to the board prepared by the swing pricing
administrator that describes, among other things, the swing pricing
administrator's review of the adequacy of the fund's swing pricing
policies and procedures and the effectiveness of their implementation,
including the impact on mitigating dilution and any back-testing
performed.\5\ The retention of these records is necessary to allow the
staff during examinations of funds to determine whether a fund is in

compliance with its swing pricing policies and procedures and with rule
22c-1. We estimate a time cost per fund complex of $344.\6\ We estimate
that the total for recordkeeping related to swing pricing will be 20
hours, at an aggregate cost of $1,720, for all fund complexes that we
believe include funds that have adopted swing pricing policies and
procedures.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See rule 22c-1(a)(3)(iii).
    \5\ See id.
    \6\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: 2
hours x $68 (hourly rate for a general clerk) = $136; 2 hours x $104
(hourly rate for a senior computer operator) = $208. $136 + $208 =
$344.
    \7\ These estimates are based on the following calculations: 4
hours x 5 fund complexes = 20 hours. 5 fund complexes x $344 =
$1,720.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amortized over a three-year period, we believe that the hour
burdens and time costs associated with rule 22c-1, including the burden
associated with the requirements that funds adopt policies and
procedures, obtain board approval, and periodic review of an annual
written report from the swing pricing administrator, and retain certain
records and written reports related to swing pricing, will result in an
average aggregate annual burden of 113.3 hours, and average aggregate
time costs of $82,033.\8\ We also estimate that rule 22c-1 imposes a
total external cost burden of $2,655 for outside legal services related
to compliance with the policies and procedures requirement.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ These estimates are based on the following calculations:
(280 hours (year 1) + (3 x 20 hours) (years 1, 2 and 3)) / 3 = 113.3
hours; ($240,940 (year 1) + (3 x $1,720) (years 1, 2 and 3)) / 3 =
$82,033.
    \9\ This estimated burden is based on the estimated wage rate of
$531 per hour for outside legal services and the following
calculation: $531 x 5 fund complexes = $2,655.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These estimates of average costs are made solely for the purposes
of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules. This collection of information is necessary to obtain
a benefit and will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted by November 14, 2022.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an
email to: [email protected].

    Dated: September 7, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-19669 Filed 9-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P