82 FR 49295 - Revisions to the Cost-of-Capital Composite Railroad Criteria
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 205 (October 25, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 205 (October 25, 2017)
| Page Range | 49295-49297 | |
| FR Document | 2017-22894 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 25, 2017)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 49295-49297] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-22894] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 49 CFR Chapter X [Docket No. EP 664 (Sub-No. 3)] Revisions to the Cost-of-Capital Composite Railroad Criteria AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. ACTION: Final Action. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) is adopting a final action to update one of the screening criteria used to create the ``composite railroad'' for the Board's annual cost-of-capital determination. This final action requires a company's stock to be listed on either the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) or the Nasdaq Stock Market (NASDAQ), rather than on either the NYSE or American Stock Exchange (AMEX), as the AMEX no longer exists. DATES: This action is applicable on November 24, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy C. Ziehm, (202) 245-0391. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As one of its regulatory responsibilities, the Board determines annually the railroad industry's cost of capital.\1\ The cost-of-capital figure represents the Board's estimate of the average rate of return needed to persuade investors to provide capital to the freight rail industry. The cost-of-capital determination is one component used in evaluating the adequacy of railroad revenues each year under the procedures and standards mandated by Congress in the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, Public Law 94-210, 90 Stat. 31 (1976) and promulgated in Standards for Railroad Revenue Adequacy, 364 I.C.C. 803 (1981), modified, 3 I.C.C.2d 261 (1986), aff'd sub nom. Consol. Rail Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 78 (3d Cir. 1988). The cost-of-capital finding is also an essential component of many other Board regulatory proceedings. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The cost of capital is calculated as the weighted average of the cost of debt and the cost of equity, with the weights determined by the railroad industry's capital structure (the fraction of capital from debt or equity on a market-value basis). See Methodology to be Employed in Determining R.R. Indus.'s Cost of Capital, EP 664, slip op. at 6 (STB served Jan. 17, 2008). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Board determines the railroad industry's cost of capital for a ``composite railroad,'' which is based on data from a sample of railroads. Pursuant to Railroad Cost of Capital--1984, 1 I.C.C.2d 989 (1985), the sample includes all railroads that meet the following criteria: --The company is a Class I line-haul railroad; --If the Class I railroad is controlled by another company, the controlling company is primarily a railroad company and is not already included in the study frame; \2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ A company is considered to be primarily in the railroad business if at least 50% of its total assets are devoted to railroad operations. R.R. Cost of Capital--1984, 1 I.C.C.2d at 1003-04. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --The company's bonds are rated at least BBB by Standard & Poor's and Baa by Moody's; --The company's stock is listed on either the NYSE or the AMEX; and --The company has paid dividends throughout the review year. 1 I.C.C.2d at 1003-04; see also R.R. Cost of Capital--2015, EP 558 (Sub-No. 19), slip op. at 3 (STB served Aug. 5, 2016). On April 18, 2017, the Board issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to update the fourth screening criterion used to create the ``composite railroad'' for the Board's annual cost-of- capital determination. Specifically, the Board proposed that its fourth screening criterion be modified to require a company's stock to be listed on either the NYSE or the NASDAQ, rather than on either the NYSE or AMEX, as the AMEX is no longer in existence. See NPRM, slip op. at 1-2. The Board sought comments on the NPRM by May 18, 2017, and replies by June 19, 2017. The Board received comments on the proposed action from the Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the Western Coal Traffic League (WCTL). No reply comments were filed. After consideration of the comments received, the Board is adopting the changes proposed in the NPRM as a final action. Comments In its comments, AAR states that it is supportive of the Board's proposal to update the ``composite railroad'' screening criteria to better reflect the current state of the marketplace. (AAR Comment 2.) AAR requests that the Board move expeditiously to adopt the proposal and prohibit any party from expanding the scope of this proceeding by offering proposals that would ``manipulate'' the cost-of-capital process. (Id.) WCTL generally supports the Board's proposal and states that expanding the screening criteria to include NASDAQ-listed companies, i.e., CSX Corporation (CSX),\3\ would result in a larger composite sample. (WCTL Comment 1-2.) WCTL, however, argues that the ``composite railroad'' sample is still rather small, consisting of just four companies--CSX; Kansas City Southern Corporation (KCS); Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC); and Union Pacific Corporation (UPC)--that have [[Page 49296]] significant differences. (Id. at 2.) WCTL also notes that the composite sample omits BNSF Railway Company (BNSF)--which, it asserts, is by some measures the largest railroad in the United States--because BNSF constitutes less than 50% of the assets of its parent company, Berkshire Hathaway. (Id.) According to WCTL, by including CSX in the composite sample (but omitting BNSF), the industry average cost of capital reflects roughly 59% western and 41% eastern railroads, even though in actuality western railroads--UPC, BNSF, and KCS--account for 73% of the industry, and the two eastern railroads--CSX and NSC-- account for only 27%. (Id.) \4\ WCTL argues that excluding CSX, along with BNSF, from the composite sample would actually result in an average that is more representative of the regional division (75% western and 25% eastern). (Id.) WCTL asserts that the Board's proposal could result in an average that is less representative of the industry as a whole, and a cost-of-capital figure that is more distorted. (Id. at 2-3.) Additionally, WCTL states that a ``complicating factor'' is that the second stage of the Board's Multi-Stage Discounted Cash Flow model (MSDCF) uses a simple average of the growth rates of the individual carriers, such that KCS counts just as much as UPC. (Id.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ In the Board's cost of capital calculation for 2016, the Board waived its requirement that a company's stock be listed on either the NYSE or the AMEX, noting that CSX Corporation transferred its stock exchange listing from the NYSE to the NASDAQ in 2015. R.R. Cost of Capital--2016, EP 558 (Sub-No. 20), slip op. at 2 n.4 (STB served Aug. 7, 2017). \4\ WCTL's figures appear to be percentages of the total market capitalization of the railroad industry. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Despite its criticisms, WCTL recommends that the Board adopt the proposed change, but ``on a tentative or qualified basis that would allow the Board to revisit the matter, and allow parties to present relevant evidence, if inclusion of NASDAQ-traded carriers turns out to undermine the representativeness of the composite sample, or the accuracy of the cost-of-capital'' figure. (Id.) The Final Action To reflect the current marketplace, the Board will adopt the changes proposed in the NPRM and now require, as its fourth screening criterion, that a company's stock be listed on either the NYSE or the NASDAQ. Commenters generally support the Board's proposal and agree that the NASDAQ is a suitable replacement for the AMEX in the cost-of- capital determination. As noted in the NPRM, when the Board's predecessor adopted the fourth screening criterion, it did so to ``insure the availability of stock price data.'' R.R. Cost of Capital-- 1984, 1 I.C.C.2d at 1004. By requiring applicable carriers to trade on either the NYSE or the NASDAQ, the Board will continue to ensure the availability of stock price data for use in the Board's computation of the rail industry's cost of capital. Although WCTL supports the Board's proposal and states that expanding the screening criteria to include NASDAQ-listed companies, i.e., CSX, would result in a larger composite group, it argues that the Board's proposed change could result in an average cost-of-capital figure that is less representative of the regional division of rail assets than it is now. The Board, however, is unpersuaded by WCTL's argument. The purpose of including only carriers listed on particular stock exchanges in the ``composite group'' is to ensure the availability of stock price data for the annual cost-of-capital determinations for carriers that satisfy the other criteria. See R.R. Cost of Capital--1984, 1 I.C.C.2d 989, 1004 (1984). Here, there is no debate that CSX meets the other criteria and that NASDAQ is a reliable source of stock price data. Excluding a carrier that meets the other criteria and has a reliable source of stock data, in an effort to achieve a ``balance'' between eastern and western carriers, is unwarranted. In any event, railroads operating in different parts of the United States may confront different markets, traffic mixes, densities, and topography. As a consequence, there are differences in the cost structures of eastern and western carriers. These physical and cost structure differences, however, do not imply variances in the cost of capital on a regional basis. Investors deploy capital around the world, looking to obtain the highest possible return, while incurring the lowest possible risk. WCTL has not provided evidence to demonstrate that there is any difference in the rate of return investors demand-- i.e., the cost of capital--when investing in eastern and western rail carriers. Therefore, the Board believes that it is better to include CSX in the composite-industry cost of capital, as it was in previous years when it was listed on NYSE, to ensure a larger sample size. With respect to WCTL's argument that another ``complicating factor'' is that the second stage of the Board's MSDCF uses a simple average of the growth rates of individual carriers, such that KCS counts as much as UP, the Board finds such an argument to be outside the scope of this proceeding. The core issue here is whether, for purposes of the cost-of-capital calculation, it is appropriate to replace a defunct stock exchange (AMEX) with a stock exchange in current and prevalent use (NASDAQ). WCTL's growth rate argument does not relate to that issue and is a collateral attack on other components of the Board's approved methodology. Finally, the Board declines WCTL's request to adopt the final action on a conditional or tentative basis, purportedly to allow parties to present additional evidence after implementation. If parties have concerns in the future that inclusion of NASDAQ-traded carriers ultimately results in a less representative composite sample, they may file a petition to modify or revisit the composite group criteria regulation. Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, generally requires a description and analysis of new rules that would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In drafting a rule, an agency is required to: (1) Assess the effect that its regulation will have on small entities; (2) analyze effective alternatives that may minimize a regulation's impact; and (3) make the analysis available for public comment. 5 U.S.C. 601-604. Under Sec. 605(b), an agency is not required to perform an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis if it certifies that the proposed or final rules will not have a ``significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' Because the goal of the RFA is to reduce the cost to small entities of complying with federal regulations, the RFA requires an agency to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis of small entity impacts only when a rule directly regulates those entities. In other words, the impact must be a direct impact on small entities ``whose conduct is circumscribed or mandated'' by the proposed rule. White Eagle Coop. Ass'n v. Conner, 553 F.3d 467, 478, 480 (7th Cir. 2009). An agency has no obligation to conduct a small entity impact analysis of effects on entities that it does not regulate. United Distrib. Cos. v. FERC, 88 F.3d 1105, 1170 (D.C. Cir. 1996). In the NPRM, the Board already certified under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the proposed change would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the RFA. The Board explained that a change in the listing requirement for inclusion in the composite railroad would not have a significant economic impact on the railroads included; likewise, the Board articulated that, whether or not a railroad would be included in the composite group would have no significant economic impact on that individual railroad. A copy of the [[Page 49297]] NPRM was served on the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). The final action changes one of the criteria for a railroad's inclusion in the data sample that the Board uses to calculate the annual cost of capital. By definition, that group of railroads is limited to Class I carriers, which are not small businesses under the Board's definition for RFA purposes.\5\ Thus, the action does not place any additional burden on small entities. Therefore, the Board certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the final action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the RFA. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, DC 20416. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Effective June 30, 2016, for the purpose of RFA analysis for rail carriers subject to our jurisdiction, the Board defines a ``small business'' as a rail carrier classified as a Class III rail carrier under 49 CFR part 1201. See Small Entity Size Standards Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EP 719 (STB served June 30, 2016) (with Board Member Begeman dissenting). Class III carriers have annual operating revenues of $20 million or less in 1991 dollars, or $35,809,698 or less when adjusted for inflation using 2016 data. Class II carriers have annual operating revenues of less than $250 million in 1991 dollars or $ less than $447,621,226 when adjusted for inflation using 2016 data. The Board calculates the revenue deflator factor annually and publishes the railroad revenue thresholds on its Web site. 49 CFR part 1201. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is ordered: 1. The final action described above is adopted and will be applicable on November 24, 2017. 2. Notice of the action adopted here will be published in the Federal Register. 3. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration. 4. This decision is effective on the date of service. Decided: October 17, 2017. By the Board, Board Members Begeman and Miller. Kenyatta Clay, Clearance Clerk. [FR Doc. 2017-22894 Filed 10-24-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 49295
(3) ASTM D5582–14, Standard Test criteria used to create the ‘‘composite —The company’s bonds are rated at
Method for Determining Formaldehyde railroad’’ for the Board’s annual cost-of- least BBB by Standard & Poor’s and
Levels from Wood Products Using a capital determination. This final action Baa by Moody’s;
Desiccator, Approved-August 1, 2014, requires a company’s stock to be listed —The company’s stock is listed on
IBR approved for § 770.20(b). on either the New York Stock Exchange either the NYSE or the AMEX; and
(4) ASTM D6007–14, Standard Test (NYSE) or the Nasdaq Stock Market —The company has paid dividends
Method for Determining Formaldehyde (NASDAQ), rather than on either the throughout the review year.
Concentrations in Air from Wood NYSE or American Stock Exchange 1 I.C.C.2d at 1003–04; see also R.R. Cost
Products Using a Small-Scale Chamber, (AMEX), as the AMEX no longer exists. of Capital—2015, EP 558 (Sub-No. 19),
Approved October 1, 2014, IBR slip op. at 3 (STB served Aug. 5, 2016).
This action is applicable on
DATES:
approved for §§ 770.3, 770.7(a) through On April 18, 2017, the Board issued
November 24, 2017.
(c), 770.15(c), 770.17(a), 770.18(a), and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
770.20(b) through (d). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (NPRM) that proposed to update the
(5) ASTM E1333–14, Standard Test Amy C. Ziehm, (202) 245–0391. fourth screening criterion used to create
Method for Determining Formaldehyde Assistance for the hearing impaired is the ‘‘composite railroad’’ for the Board’s
Concentrations in Air and Emission available through the Federal annual cost-of-capital determination.
Rates from Wood Products Using a Information Relay Service (FIRS) at Specifically, the Board proposed that its
Large Chamber, Approved October 1, (800) 877–8339. fourth screening criterion be modified to
2014, IBR approved for §§ 770.3, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As one of require a company’s stock to be listed
770.7(a) through (c), 770.10(b), its regulatory responsibilities, the Board on either the NYSE or the NASDAQ,
770.15(c), 770.17(a), 770.18(a), and determines annually the railroad rather than on either the NYSE or
770.20(c) and (d). industry’s cost of capital.1 The cost-of- AMEX, as the AMEX is no longer in
(c) * * * capital figure represents the Board’s existence. See NPRM, slip op. at 1–2.
(1) BS EN ISO 12460–3:2015 E, Wood- estimate of the average rate of return The Board sought comments on the
based panels.—Determination of needed to persuade investors to provide NPRM by May 18, 2017, and replies by
formaldehyde release—Part 3: Gas capital to the freight rail industry. The June 19, 2017. The Board received
analysis method, November 2015, IBR cost-of-capital determination is one comments on the proposed action from
approved for § 770.20(b). component used in evaluating the the Association of American Railroads
(2) BS EN ISO 12460–5:2015 E, Wood adequacy of railroad revenues each year (AAR) and the Western Coal Traffic
based panels.—Determination of under the procedures and standards League (WCTL). No reply comments
formaldehyde release—Part 5: mandated by Congress in the Railroad were filed. After consideration of the
Extraction method (called the perforator Revitalization and Regulatory Reform comments received, the Board is
method), December 2015, IBR approved Act of 1976, Public Law 94–210, 90 Stat. adopting the changes proposed in the
for § 770.20(b). 31 (1976) and promulgated in Standards NPRM as a final action.
* * * * * for Railroad Revenue Adequacy, 364 Comments
(f) * * * I.C.C. 803 (1981), modified, 3 I.C.C.2d
(1) JIS A 1460:2015(E), Determination In its comments, AAR states that it is
261 (1986), aff’d sub nom. Consol. Rail supportive of the Board’s proposal to
of the emission of formaldehyde from Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 78 (3d
building boards—Desiccator method, update the ‘‘composite railroad’’
Cir. 1988). The cost-of-capital finding is screening criteria to better reflect the
First English edition, published 2015– also an essential component of many
10, IBR approved for § 770.20(b). current state of the marketplace. (AAR
other Board regulatory proceedings. Comment 2.) AAR requests that the
* * * * * The Board determines the railroad Board move expeditiously to adopt the
(g) * * * industry’s cost of capital for a proposal and prohibit any party from
(1) PS 1–09, Structural Plywood, May ‘‘composite railroad,’’ which is based on expanding the scope of this proceeding
2010, IBR approved for §§ 770.1(c) and data from a sample of railroads. by offering proposals that would
770.3. Pursuant to Railroad Cost of Capital— ‘‘manipulate’’ the cost-of-capital
(2) PS 2–10, Performance Standard for 1984, 1 I.C.C.2d 989 (1985), the sample process. (Id.)
Wood-Based Structural-Use Panels, June includes all railroads that meet the WCTL generally supports the Board’s
2011, IBR approved for §§ 770.1(c) and following criteria: proposal and states that expanding the
770.3. screening criteria to include NASDAQ-
—The company is a Class I line-haul
[FR Doc. 2017–23062 Filed 10–24–17; 8:45 am] listed companies, i.e., CSX Corporation
railroad;
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P (CSX),3 would result in a larger
—If the Class I railroad is controlled by
composite sample. (WCTL Comment 1–
another company, the controlling
2.) WCTL, however, argues that the
company is primarily a railroad
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD ‘‘composite railroad’’ sample is still
company and is not already included
rather small, consisting of just four
49 CFR Chapter X in the study frame; 2
companies—CSX; Kansas City Southern
[Docket No. EP 664 (Sub-No. 3)] Corporation (KCS); Norfolk Southern
1 The cost of capital is calculated as the weighted
average of the cost of debt and the cost of equity,
Corporation (NSC); and Union Pacific
Revisions to the Cost-of-Capital with the weights determined by the railroad Corporation (UPC)—that have
Composite Railroad Criteria industry’s capital structure (the fraction of capital
nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
from debt or equity on a market-value basis). See 3 In the Board’s cost of capital calculation for
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. Methodology to be Employed in Determining R.R. 2016, the Board waived its requirement that a
Indus.’s Cost of Capital, EP 664, slip op. at 6 (STB company’s stock be listed on either the NYSE or the
ACTION: Final Action.
served Jan. 17, 2008). AMEX, noting that CSX Corporation transferred its
2 A company is considered to be primarily in the stock exchange listing from the NYSE to the
SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation railroad business if at least 50% of its total assets NASDAQ in 2015. R.R. Cost of Capital—2016, EP
Board (STB or Board) is adopting a final are devoted to railroad operations. R.R. Cost of 558 (Sub-No. 20), slip op. at 2 n.4 (STB served Aug.
action to update one of the screening Capital—1984, 1 I.C.C.2d at 1003–04. 7, 2017).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:30 Oct 24, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM 25OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_49500/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 49297
NPRM was served on the U.S. Small DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great
Business Administration (SBA). Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Copies of the Permit Holder Letter are
The final action changes one of the
Administration available from John K. Bullard, Regional
criteria for a railroad’s inclusion in the
Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic
data sample that the Board uses to
50 CFR Part 648 Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great
calculate the annual cost of capital. By
Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930–
definition, that group of railroads is [Docket No. 170301213–7869–02] 2298, or available on the Internet at
limited to Class I carriers, which are not http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.
small businesses under the Board’s RIN 0648–BG70
noaa.gov/sustainable/species/scallop/.
definition for RFA purposes.5 Thus, the
Fisheries of the Northeastern United FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
action does not place any additional
States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; Shannah Jaburek, Fisheries Management
burden on small entities. Therefore, the Specialist, 978–282–8456.
State Waters Exemption
Board certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
that the final action will not have a AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
significant economic impact on a Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Background
substantial number of small entities Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), The Scallop State Waters Exemption
within the meaning of the RFA. A copy Commerce. Program, described at § 648.54, specifies
of this decision will be served upon the ACTION: Final rule. that a state with a scallop fishery may
Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Office of be eligible for state waters exemptions if
Advocacy, U.S. Small Business SUMMARY: NMFS approves and it has a scallop conservation program
Administration, Washington, DC 20416. implements an exemption for vessels that does not jeopardize the biomass
with Federal Limited Access General and fishing mortality and effort limit
It is ordered: Category Individual Fishing Quota objectives of the Scallop FMP. Under
1. The final action described above is permits from the State of Maine and the the Program, if NMFS determines that a
adopted and will be applicable on Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This state is eligible, federally permitted
November 24, 2017. exemption enables the vessels to scallop vessels fishing in state waters
2. Notice of the action adopted here continue fishing in their respective state may be exempted from specific Federal
will be published in the Federal waters once NMFS has announced that scallop regulations. One of these
Register. the Federal Northern Gulf of Maine total exemptions enables some scallop
allowable catch has been fully harvested vessels to continue to fish in state
3. A copy of this decision will be in a given year. Additionally,
served upon the Chief Counsel for waters within the Northern Gulf of
Massachusetts has requested that Maine (NGOM) management area once
Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Federal Limited Access General
Small Business Administration. the Federal NGOM total allowable catch
Category Northern Gulf of Maine (TAC) is reached. Any state interested in
4. This decision is effective on the permits also be included in its applying for this exemption must
date of service. exemption. Both states have requested identify the scallop-permitted vessels
this exemption as part of the Scallop that would be subject to the exemption
Decided: October 17, 2017.
State Water Exemption Program. This (i.e., limited access, limited access
By the Board, Board Members Begeman program specifies that a state may be
and Miller. general category (LAGC) individual
eligible for a state waters exemption to fishing quota (IFQ), LAGC incidental, or
Kenyatta Clay, specific Federal regulations if it has a LAGC NGOM). No vessel is permitted to
Clearance Clerk. scallop fishery and a scallop fish for scallops in the Federal portion
[FR Doc. 2017–22894 Filed 10–24–17; 8:45 am] conservation program that does not of the NGOM once the TAC is
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
jeopardize the biomass and fishing harvested. We provided a broader
mortality/effort limit objectives of the description of the Scallop State Waters
Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Exemption Program in the preamble of
Management Plan. Based on the the proposed rule (82 FR 29470; June
information that Maine and 29, 2017) for this action. We are not
Massachusetts have submitted, NMFS repeating that information here.
has determined that both states qualify We received a request from Maine to
for this exemption and that this expand its current exemptions to allow
exemption will not have an impact on the four IFQ-permitted vessels with
5 Effective June 30, 2016, for the purpose of RFA the effectiveness of Federal management Maine state-waters permits to fish in the
analysis for rail carriers subject to our jurisdiction, measures for the scallop fishery overall Maine state-waters portion of the NGOM
the Board defines a ‘‘small business’’ as a rail or within the Northern Gulf of Maine management area once we project the
carrier classified as a Class III rail carrier under 49 management area. Federal TAC to be fully harvested.
CFR part 1201. See Small Entity Size Standards
DATES: Effective October 25, 2017. Massachusetts also sent a request to
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EP 719 (STB
served June 30, 2016) (with Board Member ADDRESSES: Documents supporting this exempt LAGC IFQ and NGOM-federally
Begeman dissenting). Class III carriers have annual action, including the State of Maine and permitted vessels that also hold a state
operating revenues of $20 million or less in 1991 Commonwealth of Massachusetts permit. Only the northern portion of
dollars, or $35,809,698 or less when adjusted for Massachusetts state waters,
nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
requests for the exemption, the
inflation using 2016 data. Class II carriers have Categorical Exclusion, and Framework approximately Boston and north, fall
annual operating revenues of less than $250 million
Adjustment 28 to the Atlantic Sea within the NGOM management area.
in 1991 dollars or $ less than $447,621,226 when
adjusted for inflation using 2016 data. The Board Scallop Fishery Management Plan The fishery in this area has traditionally
calculates the revenue deflator factor annually and (FMP) are available upon request from been split between a handful of state-
publishes the railroad revenue thresholds on its John K. Bullard, Regional only vessels and 12 vessels with both
Web site. 49 CFR part 1201. Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Federal and state permits to fish for
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:30 Oct 24, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM 25OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_49500/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2017-10-25 01:17:11
Document Modified: 2017-10-25 01:17:11
| 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 | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final Action. | |
| Dates | This action is applicable on November 24, 2017. | |
| Contact | Amy C. Ziehm, (202) 245-0391. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339. | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 49295 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR