PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA / Office of Water / Officer of Wastewater Management 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2040 0242 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c.

Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a.

Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes

No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a.

Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct and Indirect Discharging Mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Point Source Category ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR # 2015.02 9. Keywords: Pulp and Paper, Cluster Rules, Minimum Monitoring, Chloroform Certification 10. Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) imposed minimum monitoring requirements on bleached papergrade kraft and soda ( Subpart B) mills under 40 CFR Part 430 as part of the final Cluster Rules promulgated on April 15, 1998. The provisions required direct and indirect discharging Subpart B mills to monitor their effluent for certain pollutants, including chloroform, at specified frequencies. Subsequently, EPA has promulgated an amendment to the Cluster Rules that allows direct and indirect discharging Subpart B mills to demonstrate compliance with applicable chloroform limitations and standards under 40 CFR Part 430 in lieu of monitoring at a fiber line required by 40 CFR 430.02 by certifying ( 1) that the fiber line is not using elemental chlorine or hypochlorite as bleaching agents and ( 2) that it also maintains certain process and operating conditions identified during the initial compliance demonstration period of not less than two years, where the facility must monitor for chloroform at the minimum frequency required by 40 CFR 430.02, at a minimum, to demonstrate compliance with applicable chloroform limitations. These mills must submit a report summarizing the results of the initial compliance demonstration period and subsequently submit periodic certification reports confirming that the participating fiber line continues to operate within the range of process and operating conditions documented during the initial compliance demonstration period.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. P Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. G Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 80 b. Total annual responses 86 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 480 d. Current OMB inventory 480 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 0 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a.

Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c.

Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biennially 8.

Other ( describe) not less than annually for direct dischargers and not less than twice annually for indirect dischargers 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes

No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Jack Faulk Phone: 202.564.0768 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official James A. Hanlon, Director Office of Wastewater Management Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any 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."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 128 (Thursday, July 2, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39854-39856]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13623]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 342

[Docket No. RM20-14-000]

Five-Year Review of the Oil Pipeline Index

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) invites
comments on its proposed index level used to determine annual changes
to oil pipeline rate ceilings. The Commission proposes to use the
Producer Price Index for Finished Goods (PPI-FG) plus 0.09% as the
index level for the five-year period commencing July 1, 2021. The
Commission invites interested persons to submit comments regarding this
proposal and any alternative methodologies for calculating the index
level.

DATES: Initial Comments are due on or before August 17, 2020, and Reply
Comments are due on or before September 11, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number, by any
of the following methods:
     Agency Website: http://www.ferc.gov. Documents created
electronically using word processing software should be filed in native
applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format. All
supporting workpapers must be submitted with formulas and in a
spreadsheet format acceptable under the Commission's eFiling rules.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters unable to file comments
electronically must mail or hand deliver an original to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Monil Patel (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Evan Steiner (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    1. The Commission annually applies an index to existing oil
pipeline transportation rate ceilings to establish new rate ceiling
levels.\1\ The Commission reexamines the index level every five
years.\2\ In this notice of inquiry (NOI), the Commission invites
comments on its proposal to use the Producer Price Index for Finished
Goods (PPI-FG) \3\ plus 0.09% as the index level for the next five
years beginning July 1, 2021.\4\ This proposal is based on the Kahn
Methodology established in Order No. 561 and applied in subsequent
five-year index review proceedings.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Indexing allows oil pipelines to change their tariff rates
so long as those rates remain at or below certain ceiling levels. 18
CFR 342.3(a).
    \2\ The five-year index review process was established in Order
No. 561. See Revisions to Oil Pipeline Regulations Pursuant to the
Energy Policy Act of 1992, Order No. 561, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
30,985 (1993), order on reh'g, Order No. 561-A, FERC Stats. & Regs.
] 31,000 (1994), aff'd, Ass'n of Oil Pipe Lines v. FERC, 83 F.3d
1424 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
    \3\ The PPI-FG is determined and issued by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.
    \4\ As provided by 18 CFR 342.3(d)(2), ``The index will be
calculated by dividing the PPI-FG for the calendar year immediately
preceding the index year, by the previous calendar year's PPI-FG.''
Multiplying the rate ceiling effective on June 30 of the index year
by the resulting number establishes the new rate ceiling for the
year beginning the next day, July 1.
    \5\ Five-Year Review of the Oil Pipeline Index, 153 FERC ]
61,312, at PP 5, 12-18 (2015) (2015 Index Review), aff'd, Ass'n of
Oil Pipe Lines v. FERC, 876 F.3d 336 (D.C. Cir. 2017); Five-Year
Review of Oil Pipeline Pricing Index, 133 FERC ] 61,228, at PP 5-9,
60-63 (2010) (2010 Index Review), order on reh'g, 135 FERC ] 61,172
(2011); see also Five-Year Review of Oil Pipeline Pricing Index, 114
FERC ] 61,293 (2006) (2005 Index Review); Five-Year Review of Oil
Pipeline Pricing Index, 102 FERC ] 61,195 (2003), aff'd, Flying J
Inc. v. FERC, 363 F.3d 495 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. As discussed below, commenters are invited to submit comments

regarding the Commission's proposal and any alternative methodologies
for calculating the index level. Among other issues, these comments may
address different data trimming methodologies and whether and how the
index should reflect changes to the Commission's policies regarding
income tax costs and return on equity (ROE). The Commission will select
a final index level at the conclusion of this proceeding.

I. Background

A. Five-Year Review Process

    3. In Order No. 561, the Commission established an indexing
methodology that allows oil pipelines to change rates based upon an
annual index as opposed to making cost-of-service filings.\6\ The
Commission committed to review the index level every five years to
ensure that the index level chosen by the Commission adequately
reflects changes to industry costs.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Order No. 561, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,985 at 30,947.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In Order No. 561 and each successive five-year index review, the
Commission has calculated the index level based upon a methodology
developed by Dr. Alfred E. Kahn.\8\ The Kahn Methodology uses pipeline
data from Form No. 6, page 700 \9\ from the prior five-year period to
determine an adjustment to be applied to PPI-FG. The calculation is as
follows. Each pipeline's cost change on a per barrel-mile basis over
the prior five-year period (e.g., the years 2014-2019 in this
proceeding) is calculated. In order to remove statistical outliers and
spurious data, the resulting data set is trimmed to those oil pipelines
in the middle 50% of cost changes. The Kahn Methodology then calculates
three measures of the middle 50% central tendency: The median, the
mean, and a weighted mean.\10\ The Kahn Methodology calculates a
composite by averaging these three measures of central tendency and
measures the difference between the composite and the PPI-FG over the
prior five-year period. The index level is then set at PPI-FG plus (or
minus) this differential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Commission's use of the Kahn Methodology has been
affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit. Ass'n of Oil Pipelines v. FERC, 83 F.3d 1424 (D.C.
Cir. 1996); Flying J Inc. v. FERC, 363 F.3d 495 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
    \9\ 2015 Index Review, 153 FERC ] 61,312 at P 12 (updating the
Commission's calculation of the five-year oil pipeline index to use
page 700 data to measure changing barrel-mile costs). Page 700
provides summarized interstate barrel-mile and cost-of-service data
consistent with the Commission's cost-of-service methodology. Id. PP
12-13, 16.
    \10\ The weighted mean assigns a different weight to each
pipeline's cost change based on the pipeline's total barrel-miles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Developments Since the Most Recent Five-Year Review

    5. Since the Commission's most recent review of the index in 2015,
the Commission has adopted two major changes to the cost-of-service
methodology used to populate page 700 data. First, in 2018, the
Commission revised its policy concerning the treatment of income taxes
and Accumulated Deferred Income Taxes (ADIT) in the rates of master
limited partnership (MLP) pipelines (income tax policy change).
Following the remand in United Airlines, Inc. v. FERC,\11\ the
Commission determined that an impermissible double recovery results
from granting MLP pipelines an income tax allowance when using the
discounted cash flow (DCF) methodology.\12\ Thus, the Commission
instructed MLP oil pipelines to eliminate the income tax allowance from
page 700 costs filed on April 18, 2018 \13\ and clarified that
pipelines eliminating an income tax allowance may also eliminate
previously-accumulated ADIT from their costs of service.\14\ The
Commission further stated that it would incorporate the effects of the
income tax policy change on industry-wide oil pipeline costs in the
2020 five-year review of the oil pipeline index level.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 827 F.3d 122 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
    \12\ Inquiry Regarding the Commission's Policy for Recovery of
Income Tax Costs, 162 FERC ] 61,227, at P 8 (2018) (Income Tax
Policy Statement), reh'g denied, 164 FERC ] 61,030 (2018) (Income
Tax Policy Statement Rehearing Order).
    \13\ Id. P 46.
    \14\ Income Tax Policy Statement Rehearing Order, 164 FERC ]
61,030 at P 13.
    \15\ Income Tax Policy Statement, 162 FERC ] 61,227 at P 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Second, on May 21, 2020, the Commission issued a policy
statement revising its methodology for determining ROE for interstate
natural gas and oil pipelines (ROE policy change).\16\ The Commission
departed from its longstanding policy of determining pipeline ROEs by
relying solely on the discounted cash flow model (DCF) and expanded its
methodology to afford equal weighting to the results of DCF and Capital
Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) analyses.\17\ Moreover, the Commission
encouraged oil pipelines to file updated Form No. 6, page 700 data for
2019 reflecting the revised ROE methodology, explaining that such data
may help the Commission better estimate industry-wide cost changes for
purposes of the five-year index review.\18\ The Commission explained
that following Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of this
voluntary information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act,\19\ the Commission will issue a notice affording pipelines two
weeks to file updated Form No. 6, page 700 data reflecting the revised
ROE methodology.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Inquiry Regarding the Commission's Policy for Determining
Return on Equity, 171 FERC ] 61,155 (2020) (ROE Policy Statement).
    \17\ Id. PP 18, 28, 50.
    \18\ Id. P 92. The Commission further explained that pipelines
that previously filed Form No. 6 for 2019 and choose to submit
updated page 700 data should, in a footnote on the updated page 700,
either (a) confirm that their previously filed Form No. 6 was based
solely upon the DCF model or (b) provide the real ROE and resulting
cost of service based solely upon the DCF model as it was applied to
oil pipelines prior to the ROE Policy Statement. Id.
    \19\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-21.
    \20\ ROE Policy Statement, 171 FERC ] 61,155 at P 93. The
Commission clarified that pipelines that have not filed Form No. 6
for 2019 (e.g., pipelines that have received an extension of the
Form No. 6 filing deadline) should file page 700 data consistent
with their previously granted extensions and such filings should be
based upon the DCF model, which was the Commission's oil pipeline
ROE methodology as of April 20, 2020. Id. Moreover, upon OMB
approval of the information collection in the ROE Policy Statement,
those pipelines will have the opportunity to file updated page 700
data reflecting the Commission's revised oil pipeline ROE
methodology. Id. n.192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Commission Proposal

    7. We propose PPI-FG plus 0.09% as the index level for the five-
year period commencing July 1, 2021. This proposal is based on the Kahn
Methodology as applied to Form No. 6, page 700 data from the 2014
through 2019 period. The Commission's calculations are included in
workpapers available in this docket on the Commission's eLibrary
system.\21\. This proposal is subject to change based upon the updated
Form No. 6, page 700 data for 2019 and other potential adjustments as
supported by the record in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See infra P 17 (discussing the Commission's eLibrary
system).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. We invite interested persons to submit comments regarding the
Commission's proposal and any alternative methodologies for calculating
the index level for the five-year period commencing July 1, 2021.
Commenters may address issues that include, but are not limited to,
different data trimming methodologies and whether, and if so how, the
Commission should reflect the effects of cost-of-service policy changes
in the calculation of the index level.

A. Trimming of the Data Set

    9. The Commission calculated the proposed index level by trimming
the data set to the middle 50 percent of all oil pipelines, consistent
with the Commission's practice in the 2010 and 2015 index reviews.\22\
We encourage commenters to address whether the Commission should
continue to trim the data set to the middle 50 or adopt an alternative
approach to data trimming, such as returning to the Commission's prior
practice of considering the middle 80 \23\ or any other approach.
Commenters should explain why any such alternative approach is superior
to the middle 50 and how it would appropriately address outliers and
spurious data that could bias the results in either direction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 2015 Index Review, 153 FERC ] 61,312 at PP 42-44; 2010
Index Review, 133 FERC ] 61,228 at PP 60-63.
    \23\ See, e.g., 2005 Index Review, 114 FERC ] 61,293.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Cost-of-Service Policy Changes

    10. As discussed above, the Commission uses the Kahn Methodology to
measure changes in pipeline costs using page 700 data from the prior
five-year period. Accordingly, the Commission's proposal incorporates
the effects of the income tax policy change on industry-wide oil
pipeline costs because this policy change is reflected in pipelines'
page 700 data. The Commission's proposal does not include the effects
of the ROE policy change because page 700 data reflecting that policy
change has yet to be filed. However, as explained in the ROE Policy
Statement, the Commission will afford pipelines an opportunity to file
this data for consideration in this five-year index review.\24\ As
discussed above, interested persons may address whether, and if so how,
the Commission should reflect the effects of cost-of-service policy
changes (including the income tax policy change \25\ and the ROE policy
change \26\) in the calculation of the index level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ ROE Policy Statement, 171 FERC ] 61,155 at P 93.
    \25\ Income Tax Policy Statement, 162 FERC ] 61,227 at P 8.
    \26\ ROE Policy Statement, 171 FERC ] 61,155 at P 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. However, this proceeding is not the appropriate forum to
litigate the merits of the policy changes themselves. Litigating the
merits of cost-of-service policy changes in the five-year index review
is inappropriate for several reasons. First, the index adjusts for and
the effects of subsequent changes to the Commission's cost-of-service
policies which could be incorporated into the index level in the next
five-year index review. Second, litigating policy changes in the five-
year index review would be impractical because, whereas the
Commission's policies are continually evolving, the five-year index
review is based upon a snapshot of pipeline cost changes during the
applicable review period. Third, litigating policy changes would
improperly complicate and prolong the five-year index review by
introducing complex cost-of-service issues that can require years to
resolve.\27\ The Commission must complete this five-year index review
in order to establish the index level in sufficient time for it to be
used by pipelines in the index filings to be effective July 1, 2021.
Finally, cost-of-service rate proceedings, where participants and the
Commission have a full opportunity to develop an evidentiary record,
are a more appropriate forum for litigating policy changes than the
generic, industry-wide proceeding on the five-year index review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See, e.g., SFPP, L.P., Opinion No. 511-C, 162 FERC ]
61,228, at PP 4-7 (2018) (noting that the litigation culminating in
the 2018 income tax policy change began in 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Procedures

    12. Initial Comments are due on or before August 17, 2020 and Reply
Comments are due on or before September 11, 2020. Comments must refer
to Docket No. RM20-14-000, and must include the name of the commenter,
the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address.
    13. We encourage comments to be filed electronically via the
eFiling link on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov. The
Commission accepts most standard word processing formats. Documents
created electronically using word processing software should be filed
in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned
format. All supporting workpapers must be submitted with formulas and
in a spreadsheet format acceptable under the Commission's eFiling
rules. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper
filing.
    14. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    15. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters are not required to
serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

IV. Document Availability

    16. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov). At
this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's
Public Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National
Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued
by the President on March 13, 2020.
    17. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
    18. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours. For assistance, please contact
the Commission's Online Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-
208-3676) or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public
Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public
Reference Room at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    By direction of the Commission.

    Issued: June 18, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-13623 Filed 7-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9520-9522]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03557]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71526; File No. SR-BX-2014-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule Under Exchange
Rule 7018(a) With Respect to Transactions in Securities Priced at $1
per Share or More

February 12, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 3, 2014, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the fee schedule under Exchange Rule
7018(a) with respect to transactions in securities priced at $1 per
share or more. The Exchange will implement the proposed rule change on
February 3, 2014.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing several changes to its fees for certain
orders that execute at the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'').
Additionally, the Exchange is proposing to modify the tier regarding
credit for entering order [sic] that accesses liquidity in the BX
Equities System.
    Currently, the Exchange charges members for BSTG (includes BSKN
orders since it is a form of BSTG), BSCN (includes BSKP orders since it
is a form of BSCN) and BTFY orders that execute at NYSE $0.0025 per
share executed. The Exchange is proposing to increase the charge
assessed for all such orders executed at NYSE to $0.0030 per share.
    Also currently, the Exchange charges members for BMOP orders that
execute at NYSE $0.0027 per share executed. The Exchange is proposing
to increase the charge assessed for such orders executed at NYSE to
$0.0035 per share.
    The Exchange is also proposing to modify a tier with respect to the
rebates it pays for orders that access liquidity in securities priced
at $1 or more. Currently, a member will receive a credit of $0.0013 per
share executed when accessing liquidity \3\ if the member (i) has a
daily average volume of liquidity accessed in all securities during the
month of 6 million or more shares through one or more of its BX
Equities System market participant identifiers (``MPIDs''), and (ii)
adds and/or removes liquidity of 40,000 or more contracts per day
during the month through BX Options. The Exchange proposes to reduce
the 40,000 or more contracts per day to 30,000 or more contracts per
day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As with other rebate tiers, the tier does not apply to an
order that executes against a midpoint pegged order, because the
accessing order receives price improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The tier recognizes the prevalence of trading in which members
simultaneously trade different asset classes within the same strategy.
Because cash equities and options markets are linked, with liquidity
and trading patterns on one market affecting those on the other, the
Exchange believes that a pricing incentive that encourages market
participant activity in BX Options will also support price discovery
and liquidity provision in the BX Equities System.
2. Statutory Basis
    BX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions

of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and Sections 6(b)(4) and (b)(5)
of the Act,\5\ in particular, because it provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and
issuers and other persons using any facility or system that the
Exchange operates or controls, and it does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The change with respect to the tier for members active in both the
BX Equities System and BX Options is reasonable because it reflects the
availability of a price reduction for members that support liquidity on
both markets. The change is consistent with an equitable allocation of
fees because the pricing tier requires significant levels of liquidity
provision, which benefits all market participants, and because activity
in BX Options also supports price discovery and liquidity provision in
the BX Equities System due to the increasing propensity of market
participants to be active in both markets and the influence of each
market on the pricing of securities in the other. Moreover, making one
of the provisions of the tier easier to qualify for by reducing from
40,000 or more to 30,000 or more contracts per day during the month
through BX options, has the potential to reduce fees for a wider range
of market participants by introducing a new means of qualifying for a
lower fee for providing liquidity. The change is not unreasonably
discriminatory because market participants may qualify for a still
lower fee without participating in BX Options through participation in
BX's Qualified Liquidity Provider program.
    The proposed change to fees for certain orders that execute at NYSE
are reasonable because they reflect a modest increase to such fees.
Specifically, the proposed change is reasonable because it reflects a
modest increase of $0.0005 per share, from $0.0025 per share to $0.0030
per share, in the charge assessed to members executing at NYSE of BSTG,
BSCN and BTFY orders. The proposed change is also reasonable because it
reflects a modest increase of $0.0008 per share, from $0.0027 per share
to $0.0035 per share, in the charge assessed to members executing at
NYSE of BMOP orders. In addition, the change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it affects similarly situated members
in the same way.
    These fee changes are consistent with an equitable allocation of
fees and not unfairly discriminatory because the increase will maintain
the same fee being assessed to members executing at NYSE for BSTG, BSCN
and BTFY orders. The fee increase for members executing at NYSE for
BMOP orders is an equitable allocation of fees and not unfairly
discriminatory because BMOP \6\ is a premium routing option and the fee
increase is modest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ BX Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(iii) defines BMOP as a routing option
under which orders route only to protected quotations and only for
displayed size. If shares remain unexecuted after routing, they are
posted to the book. Once on the book, should the order subsequently
be locked or crossed by another market center, the system will not
route the order to the locking or crossing market center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.\7\
BX notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee
levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities
available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment,
BX must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted
from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and
because market participants may readily adjust their order routing
practices, BX believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. In
this instance, the increases with respect to certain orders coupled
with the easier to qualify for pricing tier for members active in the
Exchange's cash equities and options markets enhances the Exchange's
competitiveness by reducing fees for some and raising fees modestly for
others. Thus, although price increases, one of the proposed rule
changes provides incentives for behavior that may allow members to
reduce their trading costs. Moreover, because there are numerous
competitive alternatives to the use of the Exchange, it is likely that
BX will lose market share as a result of the changes if they are
unattractive to market participants. Accordingly, BX does not believe
that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or
competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing
in the financial markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \9\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2014-009 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2014-009. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2014-009 and
should be submitted on or before March 12, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-03557 Filed 2-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 51 (Monday, March 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 15022]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05273]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2020-0004-N-2]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, this notice announces that FRA is forwarding
the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the information collection and its expected burden. On
December 30, 2019, FRA published a notice providing a 60-day period for
public comment on the ICR.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
April 15, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the ICR to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: FRA Desk Officer.
Comments may also be sent via email to OMB at the following address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Hodan Wells, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory
Analysis Division, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) or Ms. Kim
Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information
Technology, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection
activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. See 44 U.S.C.
3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. On December 30, 2019, FRA
published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register soliciting public
comment on the ICR for which it is now seeking OMB approval. See 84 FR
72128. FRA has received no comments in response to this notice.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve this proposed collection of
information, it must provide 30-days' notice for public comment.
Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages
between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C.
3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29,
1995. OMB believes the 30-day notice informs the regulated community to
file relevant comments and affords the agency adequate time to digest
public comments before it renders a decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29,
1995. Therefore, respondents should submit their respective comments to
OMB within 30 days of publication to best ensure having their full
effect.
    Comments are invited on the following ICR regarding: (1) Whether
the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly
execute its functions, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection activities, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
being collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of information
collection activities on the public, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Railroad Police Officers.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0537.
    Abstract: FRA regulations in 49 CFR part 207 require railroads to
notify States of all designated police officers who perform duties
outside of their respective jurisdictions. This is necessary to verify
proper police authority.
    Type of Request: Extension with change (revised estimates) of a
currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 746 railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 110.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 11 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent: $836.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor,
and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Brett A. Jortland,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2020-05273 Filed 3-13-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P