[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 235 (Friday, December 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85677-85678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26990]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-819, OMB Control No. 3235-0780]


Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 0-5

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 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the 
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to 
submit this collection of information to the Office of Management and 
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 0-5 (17 CFR 270.0-5) under the Investment Company Act (the 
``Act'') (15 U.S.C. 80a et seq.) entitled ``Procedure with Respect to 
Applications and Other Matters,'') sets forth procedure for 
applications seeking orders for exemptions or other relief under the 
Investment Company Act. Rule 0-5(e) requires applicants seeking 
expedited review to include certain information with the application. 
Rule 0-5(e)(1) requires that the cover page of the application include 
a notation prominently stating ``EXPEDITED REVIEW REQUESTED UNDER 17 
CFR 270.0-5(d).'' Rule 0-5(e)(2) requires applicants to submit exhibits 
with marked copies of the application showing changes from the final 
versions of two precedent applications identified as substantially 
identical. Rule 0-5(e)(3) requires an accompanying cover letter, 
signed, on behalf of the applicant, by the person executing the 
application (i) identifying two substantially identical applications 
and explaining why the applicant chose those particular applications, 
and if more recent applications of the same type have been approved, 
why the applications chosen, rather than the more recent applications, 
are appropriate; and (ii) certifying that that the applicant believes 
the application meets the requirements of rule 0-5(d) and that the 
marked copies required by rule 0-5(e)(2) are complete and accurate.
    Rule 0-5(g) provides that, if an applicant has not responded in 
writing to a request for clarification or modification of an 
application filed under standard review within 120 days after the 
request, the application will be deemed withdrawn. As an oral response 
would not stop an application from being deemed withdrawn, rule 0-5(g), 
requires applicants to respond ``in writing'' and therefore create an 
additional cost within the meaning of the PRA.
    The information collected under rule 0-5(g) and (e) is intended to 
provide an expedited review procedure for certain applications and 
establish an internal timeframe for review of applications outside of 
the expedited procedure. The rule is meant to provide relief as 
efficiently and timely as possible, while also ensuring that 
applications continue to be carefully analyzed consistent with the 
relevant statutory standards.
    Applicants for orders under the Act can include investment 
companies and affiliated persons of investment companies. Applicants 
file applications as they deem necessary. The Commission receives 
approximately 116 applications per year under the Act, and of the 116 
applications, we estimate to receive approximately 32 applications 
seeking expedited review under the Act. Although each application is 
typically submitted on behalf of multiple entities, the entities in the 
vast majority of cases are related companies and are treated as a 
single applicant for purposes of this analysis. Each application 
subject to rules 0-5(e) and 0-5(g) does not impose any ongoing 
obligations or burdens on the part of an applicant.
    Much of the work of preparing an application is performed by 
outside counsel. Based on conversations with applicants and Staff 
experience, approximately 20 percent of applications are prepared by 
in-house counsel.
    The mandatory requirements under rule 0-5(e) increase the estimated 
hour or cost burden for applicants utilizing in-house counsel by 7 
hours \1\ or $3,388 \2\ per application. Therefore, the mandatory 
requirements under rule 0-5(e) increase the total estimated annual hour 
burden by approximately 50 hours utilizing in-house counsel.\3\ The 
total estimated annual cost burden for utilizing in-house counsel is 
$24,200.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 5 hours 
(estimated hours per application to prepare the marked copies) + 2 
hour (estimated hours per application to explain, notate, and 
certify) = 7 hours.
    \2\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 5 
(estimated hours per application to prepare the marked copies) x 
$484 (hourly rate for an in-house counsel) = $2,420; 2 (estimated 
hours per application to explain, notate, and certify) x $484 
(hourly rate for an in-house counsel) = $968; $2,420 (estimated cost 
per application to prepare the marked copies) + $968 (estimated cost 
per application to explain, notate, and certify) = $3,388; the 
hourly wages data is from the Securities Industry Financial Markets 
Association's Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities 
Industry 2013, modified by Commission Staff to account for an 1,800-
hour work-year and inflation, and multiplied by 5.35 (professionals) 
to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, and overhead, 
suggests that the cost for in-house counsel is $484 per hour.
    \3\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: [5 
(estimated hours per application to prepare the marked copies) + 2 
(estimated hours per application to explain, notate, and certify)] x 
32 (estimated number of applications under expedited review) x 0.20 
(approximate percentage of applications prepared by in-house 
counsel) = 44.8 (rounded up to 50).
    \4\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 50 
(estimated total hours utilizing in-house counsel) x $484 (hourly 
rate for an in-house counsel) = $24,200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate to receive approximately 84 applications \5\ per year 
seeking standard review under the Act and of the 84 applications, we 
estimate that in approximately 10 percent of those, the applicants 
respond ``in writing'' to avoid the application being deemed withdrawn 
pursuant to rule 0-5(g). We believe the ``in writing'' requirement 
under rule 0-5(g) increases the burden for applicants utilizing in-
house counsel by 2 hours or $968 per application.\6\ Therefore, the 
``in writing'' requirement under rule 0-5(g) increases the total 
estimated annual hour burden by approximately 3.36 hours utilizing in-
house counsel.\7\ The total estimated

[[Page 85678]]

annual cost burden utilizing in-house counsel is $1,626.24.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 116 
(estimated number of all applications) -32 (estimated number of 
applications under expedited review) = 84.
    \6\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 2 
(estimated hours to prepare ``in writing'' response) x $484 (hourly 
rate for an in-house counsel) = $968.
    \7\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: 2 
(estimated hours to prepare ``in writing'' response) x 84 (estimated 
number of applications under standard review) x 0.10 (approximate 
percentage of application required to respond ``in writing'') x 0.20 
(approximate percentage of applications prepared by in-house 
counsel) = 3.36.
    \8\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 3.36 
(estimated total hours utilizing in-house counsel) x $484 (hourly 
rate for an in-house counsel) = $1,626.24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 February 6, 2024.
    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, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John 
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a8f8fae9f7e5c9c1c4cac7d0e8dbcdcb86cfc7de"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="09595b4856446860656b6671497a6c6a276e667f">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: December 5, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-26990 Filed 12-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>