30 Day Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2020 / Notices
The Commission believes that in
clarifying that the committed repo
facility can be used to generate
temporary liquidity through sale and
agreement to repurchase pledged
securities, to rehypothecate sovereign
debt from overnight repos, and to sell,
with the agreement to repurchase,
sovereign debt held by ICC pursuant to
direct investments in such securities,
ICC is strengthening its ability to hold
assets in a manner that minimizes delay
in access to them by describing ways to
utilize securities to quickly generate
cash when the sale of those securities
cannot otherwise be accomplished in a
timely manner due to a clearing
participant default. Further, the
Commission believes that because ICC
can use the facility to sell, with the
agreement to repurchase, sovereign debt
held by ICC pursuant to direct
investments in such securities, it is
lowering the liquidity risk of this
particular sovereign debt.
Therefore, for the reasons stated
above, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with
Rule 17Ad–22(d)(3).14
IV. Conclusion
On the basis of the foregoing, the
Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act, and in
particular, with the requirements of
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 15 and
Rules 17Ad–22(b)(3) and (d)(3)
thereunder.16
It is therefore ordered pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 17 that the
proposed rule change (SR–ICC–2019–
012), be, and hereby is, approved.18
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.19
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019–28277 Filed 12–31–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
Upon Written Request, Copies Available
From: Securities and Exchange

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES

14 17Ad–22(d)(3).
15 15

U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F).
CFR 240.17Ad–22(b)(3) and 17 CFR
240.17Ad–22(d)(3).
17 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
18 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).
19 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
16 17

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:39 Dec 31, 2019

Jkt 250001

Commission, Office of FOIA Services,
100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549–2736
Extension:
Rule 22c–1; SEC File No. 270–793, OMB
Control No. 3235–0734

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’’) has submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget a
request for extension of the previously
approved collection of information
discussed below.
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
$43,406 to document, review and
initially approve these policies and
procedures, for a total cost of $217,030.3
1 No funds have engaged in swing pricing as
reported on Form N–CEN as of August 14, 2019.
2 This estimate is based on the following
calculation: (48 + 2 + 6) hours × 5 fund complexes
= 280 hours.
3 These estimates are based on the following
calculations: 24 hours × $201 (hourly rate for a
senior accountant) = $4,824; 24 hours × $463
(blended hourly rate for assistant general counsel
($433) and chief compliance officer ($493)) =
$11,112; 2 hours (for a fund attorney’s time to
prepare materials for the board’s determinations) ×
$340 (hourly rate for a compliance attorney) = $680;
6 hours × $4,465 (hourly rate for a board of 8
directors) = $26,790; ($4,824 + $11,112 + $680 +

PO 00000

Frm 00097

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

159

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 backtesting 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 $292.6 We estimate that the
total for recordkeeping related to swing
pricing will be 20 hours, at an aggregate
cost of $1,460, for all fund complexes
that we believe include funds that have
adopted swing pricing policies and
procedures.7
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
$73,803.8
These estimates of average costs are
made solely for the purposes of the
$26,790) = $43,406; $43,406 × 5 fund complexes =
$217,030. 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 previously estimated in 2009
that the average cost of board of director time was
$4,000 per hour for the board as a whole, based on
information received from funds and their counsel.
Adjusting for inflation, the staff estimates that the
current average cost of board of director time is
approximately $4,465.
4 See rule 22c–1(a)(3)(iii).
5 See id.
6 This estimate is based on the following
calculations: 2 hours × $58 (hourly rate for a general
clerk) = $116; 2 hours × $88 (hourly rate for a senior
computer operator) = $176. $116 + $176 = $292.
7 These estimates are based on the following
calculations: 4 hours × 5 fund complexes = 20
hours. 5 fund complexes × $292 = $1,460.
8 These estimates are based on the following
calculations: (280 hours (year 1) + (3 × 20 hours)
(years 1, 2 and 3)) ÷ 3 = 113.3 hours; ($217,030 (year
1) + (3 × $1,460) (years 1, 2 and 3)) ÷ 3 = $73,803.

E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM

02JAN1

160

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2020 / Notices

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.
The public may view the background
documentation for this information
collection at the following website,
www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be
directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the
Securities and Exchange Commission,
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Room 10102, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503,
or by sending an email to:
[email protected]; and (ii)
Charles Riddle, Acting Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o Candace
Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington,
DC 20549 or send an email to: PRA_
[email protected]. Comments must be
submitted to OMB within 30 days of
this notice.
Dated: December 27, 2019.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019–28320 Filed 12–31–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
[Docket No. FD 36375]

Norfolk Southern Railway Company—
Trackage Rights Exemption—Canton
Railroad Company

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES

Norfolk Southern Railway Company
(NSR) has filed a verified notice of
exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7)
for the acquisition of local trackage
rights over an approximately 0.98-mile
line of railroad of Canton Railroad
Company (Canton Railroad) between the
connection of Canton Railroad East
Main Track and the NSR Bear Creek
Branch at or near NSR milepost BV
1.569 and Seagirt Marine Terminal Port
of Baltimore (Seagirt) in Baltimore, Md.1
The verified notice states that the
trackage rights will permit NSR to
provide direct service to Seagirt.
1 A redacted version of the agreement between
NSR and Canton Railroad was filed with NSR’s
verified notice of exemption. NSR simultaneously
filed a motion for a protective order to protect the
confidential and commercially sensitive
information in the unredacted version of the
agreement, which NSR submitted under seal. That
motion will be addressed in a separate decision.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:39 Dec 31, 2019

Jkt 250001

The transaction may be consummated
on or after January 16, 2020, the
effective date of the exemption (30 days
after the verified notice of exemption
was filed).
As a condition to this exemption, any
employees affected by the acquisition of
trackage rights will be protected by the
conditions imposed in Norfolk &
Western Railway—Trackage Rights—
Burlington Northern, Inc., 354 I.C.C. 605
(1978), as modified in Mendocino Coast
Railway—Lease & Operate—California
Western Railroad, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).
If the verified notice contains false or
misleading information, the exemption
is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the
exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)
may be filed at any time. The filing of
a petition to revoke will not
automatically stay the effectiveness of
the exemption. Petitions for stay must
be filed by January 9, 2020 (at least
seven days before the exemption
becomes effective).
All pleadings, referring to Docket No.
FD 36375, must be filed with the
Surface Transportation Board, either via
e-filing or in writing addressed to 395 E
Street SW, Washington, DC 20423–0001.
In addition, a copy of each pleading
must be served on NSR’s representative,
Garrett D. Urban, Norfolk Southern
Corporation, Three Commercial Place,
Norfolk, VA 23510.
According to NSR, this action is
categorically excluded from
environmental review under 49 CFR
1105.6(c), and from historic reporting
under 49 CFR 1105.8(b)(3).
Board decisions and notices are
available at www.stb.gov.
Decided: December 26, 2019.
By the Board, Julia M. Farr, Acting
Director, Office of Proceedings.
Kenyatta Clay,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2019–28291 Filed 12–31–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Availability of the Final Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact and Record of
Decision for the Proposed Eastgate Air
Cargo Facility, San Bernardino
International Airport, San Bernardino
County, California
Federal Aviation
Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of availability for the
Final Environmental Assessment and
AGENCY:

PO 00000

Frm 00098

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Finding of No Significant Impact and
Record of Decision.
The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) is issuing this
notice to advise the public that it has
published the Final Environmental
Assessment (EA) and Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) and Record
of Decision (ROD) signed by the FAA
that evaluated proposed Eastgate Air
Cargo Facility project at San Bernardino
International Airport (SBD), San
Bernardino, San Bernardino County,
California.

SUMMARY:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David B. Kessler, AICP, Regional
Environmental Protection Specialist,
AWP–610.1, Office of Airports, Federal
Aviation Administration, WesternPacific Region, 777 South Aviation
Boulevard, Suite 150, El Segundo,
California 90245, Telephone: 424–405–
7315.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA
as lead agency, has completed and is
publishing the Final Environmental
Assessment (EA) and Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) and Record
of Decision (ROD) for the proposed
Eastgate Air Cargo Facility at San
Bernardino International Airport (SBD).
The FONSI/ROD was prepared under
Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations
§ 1505.2.
FAA signed Final Environmental
Assessment (EA) for this proposed
project on December 20, 2019. The Final
EA was prepared by pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 and assessed the potential impact
of the proposed Eastgate Air Cargo
Facility as well as the No Action
Alternative where the proposed air
cargo facility at the airport would be
made.
In the FONSI and ROD, the FAA
identified the Eastgate Air Cargo Facility
as the preferred alternative in meeting
the purpose and need to accommodate
an unmet demand for air cargo facilities
at the airport. The Eastgate Air Cargo
Facility the following components:
Construction of a 658,500-square-foot
(sf) sort, distribution, and office
building (Air Cargo Sort Building);
Construction of about 31 acres of
taxilane and aircraft parking apron to
support 14 aircraft concurrently ranging
from Boeing-737 to Boeing-767 aircraft;
Construction of approximately 12 acres
of ground support equipment (GSE)
parking and operational support areas;
Construction of two separate 25,000-sf
GSE maintenance buildings;
Construction of an about 2000 employee
auto parking stalls and 380 semi-trailer
parking stalls; Construction of two new

E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM

02JAN1