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, 27281-27283 [2015-11565]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 92 / Wednesday, May 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules
In the comments, various parties have
also proposed new methodologies that
could be used specifically for rate cases
involving grain shipments. These
approaches include adopting a ‘‘TwoBenchmark’’ approach for grain
shipments hauled by revenue adequate
carriers 3 and replacing the existing
Three-Benchmark approach with an ‘‘Ag
Commodity Maximum Rate
Methodology,’’ which includes a
‘‘Revenue Adequacy Adjustment
Factor.’’ 4 To the extent that any parties
feel that these approaches have merit or
are flawed, they should be prepared to
discuss.
Revenue Adequacy. Interested parties
are invited to address whether the Board
should consider the revenues and costs
of Canadian carriers’ full-system
operations, to include the parent
company and subsidiaries, when
determining revenue adequacy in rate
reasonableness challenges of grain
shipments.
Aggregation of Claims. Interested
parties are asked to address whether the
Board should allow multiple
agricultural farmers and other
agricultural shippers to aggregate their
distinct rate claims against the same
carrier into a single proceeding.
Other Ideas. Additionally, in further
considering the matter of grain rates,
parties are invited to discuss whether
there are ways in which the Board could
create greater transparency for grain
shippers regarding how railroads set
rates. To that end, parties at the hearing
are asked to address the disclosure
requirements for agricultural tariff rates
under 49 CFR 1300.5 5 and whether this
requirement should be modified to
allow for increased transparency. Parties
are also asked to address the
requirement that rail carriers file
agricultural contract summaries under
49 CFR part 1313 6 and whether this
3 See
id. at 25.
National Grain and Feed Association
Opening 27–35.
5 Under § 1300.5(a), a rail carrier must publish,
make available, and retain for public inspection its
currently effective rates, schedules of rates, charges,
and other service terms, and any scheduled changes
to the same with respect to transportation of
agricultural products (including grain, as defined in
7 U.S.C. 75 and products thereof). The information
published must include an accurate description of
the services offered to the public; the specific
applicable rates (or the basis for calculating the
rates), charges, and service terms; and be arranged
in a way that allows for the determination of the
exact rate, charges, and service terms applicable to
any given shipment. 49 CFR 1300.5(b).
Additionally, the rail carrier must highlight any
increases, reductions, and other changes so that the
nature and effective dates of those changes are
readily identifiable. Id.
6 Section 1313 requires that rail carriers subject to
the Board’s jurisdiction promptly file a summary of
each contract for the transportation of agricultural
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
4 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 May 12, 2015
Jkt 235001
requirement should be modified to
allow for increased transparency.
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
June 10, 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
June 10, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., in the
Board’s Hearing Room, at 395 E Street
SW., Washington, DC, as described
above.
2. 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, the time requested, and a
summary of the key points the speaker
intends to address) no later than May
29, 2015. 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 June 10, 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.
Raina S. Contee,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2015–11558 Filed 5–12–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
products (including grain as defined in 7 U.S.C. 75)
and allows complaints to be filed regarding such
contracts. 49 CFR 1313.1 and 1313.2. The level of
information that must be provided in the summary
varies depending on whether contract is for grain
and whether the shipment is to a port. At a
minimum the summary must include: The carrier
name; the specific commodity; the shipper’s
identity; the rail car data; the rates; and the charges.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
27281
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.
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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27282
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 92 / Wednesday, May 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules
be available for viewing and selfcopying 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.
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:
Æ 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
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 May 12, 2015
Jkt 235001
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?
Æ 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?
Æ 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:
Æ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
revenue adequacy on that proposal,
particularly in light of the recent service
issues faced by the industry.
Æ 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:
Æ As part of its annual cost of capital
determination, the Board uses a MultiStage Discounted Cash Flow (MultiStage 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?
Æ 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 nondiversifiable 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?
Æ 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?
Æ 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?
Æ 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
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 92 / Wednesday, May 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules
adjustments be implemented in a
practicable manner?
Board Releases and Live Video
Streaming Available via the Internet
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 May 12, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
27283
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
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 92 (Wednesday, May 13, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27281-27283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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
