80 FR 27281 - Railroad Revenue Adequacy; Petition of the Western Coal Traffic League To Institute a Rulemaking Proceeding To Abolish the Use of the Multi-Stage Discounted Cash Flow Model in Determining the Railroad Industry's Cost of Equity Capital
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 92 (May 13, 2015)
Surface Transportation Board
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 92 (May 13, 2015)
| Page Range | 27281-27283 | |
| FR Document | 2015-11565 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 92 (Wednesday, May 13, 2015)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 27281-27283] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-11565] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board 49 CFR Chapter X [Docket No. EP 722; Docket No. EP 664 (Sub-No. 2)] Railroad Revenue Adequacy; Petition of the Western Coal Traffic League To Institute a Rulemaking Proceeding To Abolish the Use of the Multi-Stage Discounted Cash Flow Model in Determining the Railroad Industry's Cost of Equity Capital AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, DOT. ACTION: Notice of public hearing. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board (Board) will hold a public hearing on July 22-23, 2015, at its headquarters in Washington, DC, to further examine issues raised in Docket No. EP 722 related to railroad revenue adequacy, and issues raised in Docket No. EP 664 (Sub-No. 2) on how the Board calculates the railroad industry's cost of equity capital. These proceedings are not consolidated but are being addressed in the same decision for administrative convenience. DATES: The hearing will be held on July 22-23, 2015, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in the Hearing Room at the Board's headquarters located at 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC. The hearing will be open for public observation. Any party wishing to speak at the hearing shall file with the Board by July 8, 2015, a notice of intent to participate (identifying the party, the proposed speaker, and the time requested, and summarizing the key points that the speaker intends to address). The notices of intent to participate are not required to be served on the parties of record; they will be posted to the Board's Web site when they are filed. Parties shall file hearing exhibits, if any, by July 22, 2015. ADDRESSES: All filings may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions at the ``E-FILING'' link on the Board's Web site at ``www.stb.dot.gov.'' Any person submitting a filing in the traditional paper format should send an original and 10 copies of the filing to: Surface Transportation Board, Attn: Docket No. [EP 722 or EP 664 (Sub-No. 2), as the case may be], 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. Copies of written submissions will be posted to the Board's Web site and will [[Page 27282]] be available for viewing and self-copying in the Board's Public Docket Room, Suite 131. Copies of the submissions will also be available (for a fee) by contacting the Board's Chief Records Officer at (202) 245- 0238 or 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Docket No. EP 722: Scott Zimmerman at (202) 245-0386. For Docket No. EP 664 (Sub-No. 2): Amy Ziehm at (202) 245-0391. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 2, 2014, the Board served a notice announcing that it would receive comments in Docket No. EP 722 to explore the Board's methodology for determining railroad revenue adequacy and the use of revenue adequacy in rate reasonableness cases, and in Docket No. EP 664 (Sub-No. 2) \1\ to explore how the Board calculates the railroad industry's cost of equity capital. The Board coordinated the two proceedings by inviting comments in both cases on the same schedule. Comments and replies were due on September 5, 2014 and November 4, 2014, respectively. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The Board instituted a rulemaking in this proceeding in response to a petition by the Western Coal Traffic League. Pet. of W. Coal Traffic League to Institute a Rulemaking Proceeding to Abolish the Use of Multi-Stage Discounted Cash Flow Model in Determining the R.R. Indus.'s Cost of Equity Capital, EP 664 (Sub- No. 2) (STB served Dec. 20, 2013). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Having reviewed the comments and replies filed in these proceedings, the Board will now hold a public hearing on July 22-23, 2015, beginning at 9:30 a.m., at its headquarters in Washington, DC, to further examine these issues. The parties have raised a number of issues for the Board to consider. In Docket No. EP 722, many of the comments focused on the revenue adequacy component of Constrained Market Pricing, by which the Board judges the reasonableness of rail freight rates. The parties should be prepared to discuss issues related to the revenue adequacy constraint, as set forth in Coal Rate Guidelines, Nationwide (Coal Rate Guidelines), 1 I.C.C. 2d 520 (1985), and are invited to address the following questions: [cir] In Coal Rate Guidelines, the Interstate Commerce Commission indicated that revenue adequacy is a long term concept that should be measured ``over time.'' 1 I.C.C.2d at 536. Some comments suggest that revenue adequacy should be measured over a business cycle, while others suggest that a business cycle would not be sufficient. If the revenue adequacy constraint were to be utilized, what would be an appropriate time period? What would be an appropriate definition for a ``business cycle'' if the Board were to use that as a time measure? [cir] In Coal Rate Guidelines, the Interstate Commerce Commission stated that ``[a] railroad seeking to earn revenues that would provide it, over the long term, a return on investment above the cost of capital would have to demonstrate with particularity: (1) A need for the higher revenues; (2) the harm it would suffer if it could not collect them; and (3) why the captive shippers should provide them.'' Id. at 536 n.36. Some comments allude to this language in suggesting that, in the case of a revenue adequate railroad, that railroad should be required to justify rate increases on captive shippers. Should the Board consider requiring a revenue adequate railroad, whose increased rate has been challenged, to justify the increase on a complaining captive shipper? Would such an approach be consistent with the Board's governing statute and/or relevant case law? [cir] Constrained market pricing imposes constraints on the extent to which a railroad may charge differentially higher rates on captive traffic, and several comments contend that captive shippers should not be required to differentially provide returns in excess of adequate revenue levels. Should a revenue adequate railroad's ability to differentially price be limited for all captive shippers or for a subset of captive shippers that are most likely to be subject to the railroad's market power? Is there a way to identify those shippers that are most likely to be subject to the railroad's market power, such as through Revenue to Variable Cost ratios, the Revenue Shortfall Allocation Method, or something approximating the Maximum Mark-up Methodology used in the Board's rate proceedings? Additionally, the parties should be prepared to further explore the following issues raised in the comments and replies: [cir] Some comments suggest that revenue adequacy should be tied to the availability of competitive access remedies. What competitive access remedies would be appropriate (and consistent with the Board's governing statute) when a railroad is revenue adequate? Because a proposal regarding competitive access remedies is currently pending before the Board, see Petition For Rulemaking to Adopt Revised Competitive Switching Rules, Docket No. EP 711, parties are asked to specifically consider the impact of revenue adequacy on that proposal, particularly in light of the recent service issues faced by the industry. [cir] Some comments argue that any proposal that would limit the railroads' return on investment would negatively impact the railroads' ability to invest in their networks and expand capacity. Please discuss the impact of your revenue adequacy proposals on the railroads, again, in light of the recent service issues faced by the industry. With respect to Docket No. EP 664 (Sub-No. 2), the parties should be prepared to discuss whether the method the Board uses to make its annual industry cost of equity capital determinations needs to be modified and how such modifications, if any, should be implemented. The parties are also invited to discuss the following issues raised in the comments: [cir] As part of its annual cost of capital determination, the Board uses a Multi-Stage Discounted Cash Flow (Multi-Stage DCF) model. Some comments suggest that the Board's Multi-Stage DCF model is biased upward. Does such a problem exist and, if so, how is it best corrected? [cir] Since 2009, the Board has relied on the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) as part of its annual cost of capital determination. Under CAPM, ``beta'' is used to measure the amount of non-diversifiable risk of the railroad industry. Some comments note that betas for the railroad industry have ranged above and below 1.0 since 2009. Do those changes in beta reflect actual differences in the riskiness of the railroad industry? Should the Board consider setting beta equal to 1.0 or some other figure? [cir] Some comments suggest that the Board's approach for determining the ``market risk premium'' under CAPM is atypical. Is the Board's methodology sufficiently reliable or are there more commonly used approaches that the Board should consider adopting? [cir] Certain comments note that the Board's CAPM analysis currently relies on a sample of four observations. Does this sample adequately reflect the railroad industry, or would using a broader sample, such as the S&P 500, lead to a more realistic estimate in determining the cost of equity? [cir] Some comments contend that the Board should consider changes to how it determines Return on Investment. Would changes to the Return on Investment methodology require changes to the Cost of Capital methodology? Should the Board consider adjusting how it determines Return on Investment (e.g., using replacement costs) and how could those [[Page 27283]] adjustments be implemented in a practicable manner? Board Releases and Live Video Streaming Available via the Internet Decisions and notices of the Board, including this notice, are available on the Board's Web site at www.stb.dot.gov. This hearing will be available on the Board's Web site by live video streaming. To access the hearing, click on the ``Live Video'' link under ``Information Center'' at the left side of the home page beginning at 9:30 a.m. on July 22-23, 2015. This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources. It is ordered: 1. A public hearing will be held on July 22-23, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., at the Board's headquarters at 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC, as described above. 2. By July 8, 2015, any party wishing to speak at the hearing shall file with the Board a notice of intent to participate (identifying the party, the proposed speaker, and the time requested, and summarizing the key points that the speaker intends to address). The notices of intent to participate need not be served on the parties of record. Parties appearing at the hearing shall file hearing exhibits, if any, by July 22, 2015. 3. This decision is effective on its service date. Decided: May 8, 2015. By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings. Jeffrey Herzig, Clearance Clerk. [FR Doc. 2015-11565 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 92 / Wednesday, May 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 27281
In the comments, various parties have requirement should be modified to DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
also proposed new methodologies that allow for increased transparency.
could be used specifically for rate cases Surface Transportation Board
involving grain shipments. These Board Releases and Live Video
approaches include adopting a ‘‘Two- Streaming Available via the Internet 49 CFR Chapter X
Benchmark’’ approach for grain Decisions and notices of the Board, [Docket No. EP 722; Docket No. EP 664
shipments hauled by revenue adequate (Sub-No. 2)]
including this notice, are available on
carriers 3 and replacing the existing
the Board’s Web site at
Three-Benchmark approach with an ‘‘Ag Railroad Revenue Adequacy; Petition
Commodity Maximum Rate ‘‘www.stb.dot.gov.’’ This hearing will be of the Western Coal Traffic League To
Methodology,’’ which includes a available on the Board’s Web site by live Institute a Rulemaking Proceeding To
‘‘Revenue Adequacy Adjustment video streaming. To access the hearing, Abolish the Use of the Multi-Stage
Factor.’’ 4 To the extent that any parties click on the ‘‘Live Video’’ link under Discounted Cash Flow Model in
feel that these approaches have merit or ‘‘Information Center’’ at the left side of Determining the Railroad Industry’s
are flawed, they should be prepared to the home page beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Cost of Equity Capital
discuss. June 10, 2015.
Revenue Adequacy. Interested parties AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board,
This action will not significantly DOT.
are invited to address whether the Board affect either the quality of the human
should consider the revenues and costs ACTION: Notice of public hearing.
environment or the conservation of
of Canadian carriers’ full-system energy resources. SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation
operations, to include the parent Board (Board) will hold a public hearing
company and subsidiaries, when It is ordered:
on July 22–23, 2015, at its headquarters
determining revenue adequacy in rate 1. A public hearing will be held on in Washington, DC, to further examine
reasonableness challenges of grain June 10, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., in the issues raised in Docket No. EP 722
shipments. Board’s Hearing Room, at 395 E Street related to railroad revenue adequacy,
Aggregation of Claims. Interested SW., Washington, DC, as described and issues raised in Docket No. EP 664
parties are asked to address whether the above. (Sub-No. 2) on how the Board calculates
Board should allow multiple the railroad industry’s cost of equity
agricultural farmers and other 2. Any party wishing to speak at the
hearing shall file with the Board a capital. These proceedings are not
agricultural shippers to aggregate their consolidated but are being addressed in
distinct rate claims against the same notice of intent to participate
(identifying the party, the proposed the same decision for administrative
carrier into a single proceeding. convenience.
Other Ideas. Additionally, in further speaker, the time requested, and a
considering the matter of grain rates, summary of the key points the speaker DATES: The hearing will be held on July
parties are invited to discuss whether intends to address) no later than May 22–23, 2015, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in
there are ways in which the Board could 29, 2015. The notices of intent to the Hearing Room at the Board’s
create greater transparency for grain participate need not be served on the headquarters located at 395 E Street
shippers regarding how railroads set parties of record. Parties appearing at SW., Washington, DC. The hearing will
rates. To that end, parties at the hearing the hearing shall file hearing exhibits, if be open for public observation. Any
are asked to address the disclosure party wishing to speak at the hearing
any, by June 10, 2015.
requirements for agricultural tariff rates shall file with the Board by July 8, 2015,
3. This decision is effective on its a notice of intent to participate
under 49 CFR 1300.5 5 and whether this
service date. (identifying the party, the proposed
requirement should be modified to
allow for increased transparency. Parties Decided: May 8, 2015. speaker, and the time requested, and
are also asked to address the By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting
summarizing the key points that the
requirement that rail carriers file Director, Office of Proceedings. speaker intends to address). The notices
agricultural contract summaries under of intent to participate are not required
Raina S. Contee,
49 CFR part 1313 6 and whether this to be served on the parties of record;
Clearance Clerk. they will be posted to the Board’s Web
3 See id. at 25.
[FR Doc. 2015–11558 Filed 5–12–15; 8:45 am] site when they are filed. Parties shall
4 See National Grain and Feed Association BILLING CODE 4915–01–P file hearing exhibits, if any, by July 22,
Opening 27–35. 2015.
5 Under § 1300.5(a), a rail carrier must publish,
ADDRESSES: All filings may be submitted
make available, and retain for public inspection its
currently effective rates, schedules of rates, charges,
either via the Board’s e-filing format or
and other service terms, and any scheduled changes in the traditional paper format. Any
to the same with respect to transportation of person using e-filing should attach a
agricultural products (including grain, as defined in document and otherwise comply with
7 U.S.C. 75 and products thereof). The information
published must include an accurate description of
the instructions at the ‘‘E–FILING’’ link
the services offered to the public; the specific on the Board’s Web site at
‘‘www.stb.dot.gov.’’ Any person
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
applicable rates (or the basis for calculating the
rates), charges, and service terms; and be arranged submitting a filing in the traditional
in a way that allows for the determination of the
exact rate, charges, and service terms applicable to
products (including grain as defined in 7 U.S.C. 75) paper format should send an original
and allows complaints to be filed regarding such and 10 copies of the filing to: Surface
any given shipment. 49 CFR 1300.5(b).
contracts. 49 CFR 1313.1 and 1313.2. The level of
Additionally, the rail carrier must highlight any Transportation Board, Attn: Docket No.
increases, reductions, and other changes so that the information that must be provided in the summary
varies depending on whether contract is for grain
[EP 722 or EP 664 (Sub-No. 2), as the
nature and effective dates of those changes are
readily identifiable. Id. and whether the shipment is to a port. At a case may be], 395 E Street SW.,
6 Section 1313 requires that rail carriers subject to minimum the summary must include: The carrier Washington, DC 20423–0001.
the Board’s jurisdiction promptly file a summary of name; the specific commodity; the shipper’s Copies of written submissions will be
each contract for the transportation of agricultural identity; the rail car data; the rates; and the charges. posted to the Board’s Web site and will
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 May 12, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM 13MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_27373/page/1.svg)
![27282 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 92 / Wednesday, May 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules
be available for viewing and self- to be utilized, what would be an revenue adequacy on that proposal,
copying in the Board’s Public Docket appropriate time period? What would be particularly in light of the recent service
Room, Suite 131. Copies of the an appropriate definition for a ‘‘business issues faced by the industry.
submissions will also be available (for a cycle’’ if the Board were to use that as Æ Some comments argue that any
fee) by contacting the Board’s Chief a time measure? proposal that would limit the railroads’
Records Officer at (202) 245–0238 or Æ In Coal Rate Guidelines, the return on investment would negatively
395 E Street SW., Washington, DC Interstate Commerce Commission stated impact the railroads’ ability to invest in
20423–0001. that ‘‘[a] railroad seeking to earn their networks and expand capacity.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For revenues that would provide it, over the Please discuss the impact of your
Docket No. EP 722: Scott Zimmerman at long term, a return on investment above revenue adequacy proposals on the
(202) 245–0386. For Docket No. EP 664 the cost of capital would have to railroads, again, in light of the recent
(Sub-No. 2): Amy Ziehm at (202) 245– demonstrate with particularity: (1) A service issues faced by the industry.
0391. Assistance for the hearing need for the higher revenues; (2) the With respect to Docket No. EP 664
impaired is available through the harm it would suffer if it could not (Sub-No. 2), the parties should be
Federal Information Relay Service collect them; and (3) why the captive prepared to discuss whether the method
(FIRS) at (800) 877–8339. shippers should provide them.’’ Id. at the Board uses to make its annual
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 536 n.36. Some comments allude to this industry cost of equity capital
2, 2014, the Board served a notice language in suggesting that, in the case determinations needs to be modified
announcing that it would receive of a revenue adequate railroad, that and how such modifications, if any,
comments in Docket No. EP 722 to railroad should be required to justify should be implemented. The parties are
explore the Board’s methodology for rate increases on captive shippers. also invited to discuss the following
determining railroad revenue adequacy Should the Board consider requiring a issues raised in the comments:
revenue adequate railroad, whose Æ As part of its annual cost of capital
and the use of revenue adequacy in rate
increased rate has been challenged, to determination, the Board uses a Multi-
reasonableness cases, and in Docket No.
justify the increase on a complaining Stage Discounted Cash Flow (Multi-
EP 664 (Sub-No. 2) 1 to explore how the
captive shipper? Would such an Stage DCF) model. Some comments
Board calculates the railroad industry’s
approach be consistent with the Board’s suggest that the Board’s Multi-Stage
cost of equity capital. The Board
governing statute and/or relevant case DCF model is biased upward. Does such
coordinated the two proceedings by
law? a problem exist and, if so, how is it best
inviting comments in both cases on the
Æ Constrained market pricing corrected?
same schedule. Comments and replies
imposes constraints on the extent to Æ Since 2009, the Board has relied on
were due on September 5, 2014 and
which a railroad may charge the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM)
November 4, 2014, respectively.
Having reviewed the comments and differentially higher rates on captive as part of its annual cost of capital
replies filed in these proceedings, the traffic, and several comments contend determination. Under CAPM, ‘‘beta’’ is
Board will now hold a public hearing on that captive shippers should not be used to measure the amount of non-
July 22–23, 2015, beginning at 9:30 a.m., required to differentially provide diversifiable risk of the railroad
at its headquarters in Washington, DC, returns in excess of adequate revenue industry. Some comments note that
to further examine these issues. The levels. Should a revenue adequate betas for the railroad industry have
parties have raised a number of issues railroad’s ability to differentially price ranged above and below 1.0 since 2009.
for the Board to consider. In Docket No. be limited for all captive shippers or for Do those changes in beta reflect actual
EP 722, many of the comments focused a subset of captive shippers that are differences in the riskiness of the
on the revenue adequacy component of most likely to be subject to the railroad’s railroad industry? Should the Board
Constrained Market Pricing, by which market power? Is there a way to identify consider setting beta equal to 1.0 or
the Board judges the reasonableness of those shippers that are most likely to be some other figure?
rail freight rates. The parties should be subject to the railroad’s market power, Æ Some comments suggest that the
prepared to discuss issues related to the such as through Revenue to Variable Board’s approach for determining the
revenue adequacy constraint, as set Cost ratios, the Revenue Shortfall ‘‘market risk premium’’ under CAPM is
forth in Coal Rate Guidelines, Allocation Method, or something atypical. Is the Board’s methodology
Nationwide (Coal Rate Guidelines), 1 approximating the Maximum Mark-up sufficiently reliable or are there more
I.C.C. 2d 520 (1985), and are invited to Methodology used in the Board’s rate commonly used approaches that the
address the following questions: proceedings? Board should consider adopting?
Æ In Coal Rate Guidelines, the Additionally, the parties should be Æ Certain comments note that the
Interstate Commerce Commission prepared to further explore the Board’s CAPM analysis currently relies
indicated that revenue adequacy is a following issues raised in the comments on a sample of four observations. Does
long term concept that should be and replies: this sample adequately reflect the
Æ Some comments suggest that railroad industry, or would using a
measured ‘‘over time.’’ 1 I.C.C.2d at 536.
revenue adequacy should be tied to the broader sample, such as the S&P 500,
Some comments suggest that revenue
availability of competitive access lead to a more realistic estimate in
adequacy should be measured over a
remedies. What competitive access determining the cost of equity?
business cycle, while others suggest that
remedies would be appropriate (and Æ Some comments contend that the
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
a business cycle would not be sufficient.
consistent with the Board’s governing Board should consider changes to how
If the revenue adequacy constraint were
statute) when a railroad is revenue it determines Return on Investment.
1 The Board instituted a rulemaking in this adequate? Because a proposal regarding Would changes to the Return on
proceeding in response to a petition by the Western competitive access remedies is currently Investment methodology require
Coal Traffic League. Pet. of W. Coal Traffic League pending before the Board, see Petition changes to the Cost of Capital
to Institute a Rulemaking Proceeding to Abolish the For Rulemaking to Adopt Revised methodology? Should the Board
Use of Multi-Stage Discounted Cash Flow Model in
Determining the R.R. Indus.’s Cost of Equity
Competitive Switching Rules, Docket consider adjusting how it determines
Capital, EP 664 (Sub-No. 2) (STB served Dec. 20, No. EP 711, parties are asked to Return on Investment (e.g., using
2013). specifically consider the impact of replacement costs) and how could those
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 May 12, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM 13MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_27373/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 92 / Wednesday, May 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 27283
adjustments be implemented in a This action will not significantly points that the speaker intends to
practicable manner? affect either the quality of the human address). The notices of intent to
environment or the conservation of participate need not be served on the
Board Releases and Live Video energy resources. parties of record. Parties appearing at
Streaming Available via the Internet It is ordered: the hearing shall file hearing exhibits, if
1. A public hearing will be held on any, by July 22, 2015.
Decisions and notices of the Board, July 22–23, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., at the
including this notice, are available on 3. This decision is effective on its
Board’s headquarters at 395 E Street service date.
the Board’s Web site at www.stb.dot.gov. SW., Washington, DC, as described
This hearing will be available on the Decided: May 8, 2015.
above.
Board’s Web site by live video 2. By July 8, 2015, any party wishing By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting
streaming. To access the hearing, click to speak at the hearing shall file with Director, Office of Proceedings.
on the ‘‘Live Video’’ link under the Board a notice of intent to Jeffrey Herzig,
‘‘Information Center’’ at the left side of participate (identifying the party, the Clearance Clerk.
the home page beginning at 9:30 a.m. on proposed speaker, and the time [FR Doc. 2015–11565 Filed 5–12–15; 8:45 am]
July 22–23, 2015. requested, and summarizing the key BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 May 12, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM 13MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_27373/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-16 07:46:28
Document Modified: 2015-12-16 07:46:28
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Notice of public hearing. | |
| Dates | The hearing will be held on July 22-23, 2015, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in the Hearing Room at the Board's headquarters located at 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC. The hearing will be open for public observation. Any party wishing to speak at the hearing shall file with the Board by July 8, 2015, a notice of intent to participate (identifying the party, the proposed speaker, and the time requested, | |
| Contact | For Docket No. EP 722: Scott Zimmerman at (202) 245-0386. For Docket No. EP 664 (Sub-No. 2): Amy Ziehm at (202) 245-0391. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 27281 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR