Review of the General Purpose Costing System, 27181-27182 [2019-12241]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2019 / Notices to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–C2–2019–012 and should be submitted on or before July 2, 2019. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.28 Eduardo A. Aleman, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2019–12187 Filed 6–10–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011–01–P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 10787] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Statement of Exigent/ Special Family Circumstances for Issuance of a U.S. Passport to a Minor Under Age 16 Notice of request for public comment. ACTION: The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB. DATES: The Department will accept comments from the public up to August 12, 2019. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • Web: Persons with access to the internet may comment on this notice by going to www.Regulations.gov. You can search for the document by entering ‘‘Docket Number: DOS–2019–0013’’ in the Search field. Then click the ‘‘Comment Now’’ button and complete the comment form. • Email: PPTFormsOfficer@state.gov. • Regular Mail: Send written comments to: PPT Forms Officer, U.S. Department of State, CA/PPT/S/PMO, 44132 Mercure Cir., P.O. Box 1199, Sterling, VA 20166–1199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: • Title of Information Collection: Statement of Exigent/Special Family Circumstances for Issuance of a U.S. Passport to a Minor under Age 16. • OMB Control Number: 1405–0216. • Type of Request: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: 28 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jun 10, 2019 Jkt 247001 • Originating Office: Bureau of Consular Affairs, Passport Services (CA/ PPT). • Form Number: DS–5525. • Respondents: Individuals or Households. • Estimated Number of Respondents: 37,451. • Estimated Number of Responses: 37,451. • Average Time per Response: 30 minutes. • Total Estimated Burden Time: 18,726 hours per year. • Frequency: On occasion. • Obligation to Respond: Required to Obtain a Benefit. We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to: • Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department. • Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used. • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. • Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review. Abstract of Proposed Collection The information collected on the DS– 5525, ‘‘Statement of Exigent/Special Family Circumstances for Issuance of a U.S. Passport to a Minor under Age 16’’, is used in conjunction with the DS–11, ‘‘Application for a U.S. Passport’’. The DS–5525 can serve as the statement describing exigent or special family circumstances, which is required if notarized written consent of the nonapplying parent or guardian cannot be obtained when the passport application is executed for a minor under age 16. Methodology Passport Services collects information from U.S. citizens and non-citizen nationals when they complete and submit the DS–5525, ‘‘Statement of Exigent/Special Family Circumstances for Issuance of a U.S. Passport to a Minor under Age 16’’. Passport applicants can either download the DS– 5525 from the internet or obtain the form from an Acceptance Facility/ PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 27181 Passport Agency. The form must be completed, signed, and submitted along with the applicant’s DS–11, ‘‘Application for a U.S. Passport’’. Rachel M. Arndt, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Passport Services. [FR Doc. 2019–12297 Filed 6–10–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710–06–P SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD [Docket No. EP 431 (Sub-No. 4)] Review of the General Purpose Costing System In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) served in this docket on February 4, 2013, the Board sought public comment on proposals to modify the Board’s general purpose costing system, the Uniform Railroad Costing System (URCS), to eliminate a feature known as the ‘‘make-whole adjustment’’ and to adjust the locomotive unit-mile (LUM) cost allocation. After evaluating comments received in response to the NPR, the Board served a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPR) on August 4, 2016, with modified proposals for eliminating the makewhole adjustment and changing the LUM cost allocation, and a new proposal to modify train-mile (TM) cost allocations. For the reasons stated below, the Board will discontinue this proceeding. As discussed in prior decisions in this proceeding, the Board uses URCS for a variety of regulatory functions. URCS is used in rate reasonableness proceedings as part of the initial market dominance determination. URCS also plays a role in the Board’s determination of whether a rate exceeds a reasonable maximum, and, when warranted, setting the maximum rate prescription. In addition, URCS is used to develop variable costs for making cost determinations in abandonment, certain trackage rights, and other proceedings; to provide the railroad industry and shippers with a standardized costing model; to cost the Board’s Carload Waybill Sample; and to provide interested parties with basic cost information regarding railroad industry operations. URCS develops a regulatory cost estimate that can be applied to a service that occurs anywhere on a rail carrier’s system. These cost estimates are developed through three distinct phases of URCS. • Phase I occurred only once when URCS was originally developed using the annual reports submitted by Class I rail carriers (R–1 reports). Regression E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM 11JNN1 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES 27182 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2019 / Notices analyses were performed to develop equations linking expense account groupings with particular measures of railroad activities. • Annually, in Phase II, URCS takes the aggregated cost data and traffic statistics provided by Class I carriers in their most recent R–1 reports and other reports and disaggregates them by calculating system-average unit costs associated with specific rail activities. • In Phase III, when movements are costed, URCS takes the unit costs from Phase II and applies them to the characteristics of a particular movement in order to calculate the variable cost of that movement. The Board initiated this proceeding to address concerns with the make-whole adjustment, which is calculated and applied in Phase III. The make-whole adjustment is intended to recognize the efficiency savings that a carrier obtains in its higher-volume shipments and thus render more appropriate unit costs. The Board questioned whether the current make-whole adjustment best reflects economies of scale as shipment size increases. Review of the General Purpose Costing System (NPR), EP 431 (Sub-No. 4), slip op. at 4 (STB served Feb. 4, 2013); Review of the General Purpose Costing System (SNPR), EP 431 (Sub-No. 4), slip op. at 3–4 (STB served Aug. 4, 2016). The Board noted that, as applied, the make-whole adjustment creates particular types of step functions between shipment sizes by reducing system-average unit costs by various set percentages depending on whether the movement is classified as unit train, multi-car, or single-car. NPR, EP 431 (Sub-No. 4), slip op. at 3–4; SNPR, EP 431 (Sub-No. 4), slip op. at 4–5. While the current URCS methodology generally reflects economies of scale across those movement classifications, the Board proposed ways to attempt to reflect economies of scale within those movement classifications to better address economies of scale overall. To address the concerns with the make-whole adjustment, the NPR proposed changes to switching costs related to switch engine minutes, equipment costs for the use of railroadowned equipment during switching, station clerical costs, and car-mile costs, as well as other related changes to URCS. NPR, EP 431 (Sub-No. 4), slip op. at 5–9. The NPR also proposed changes to the LUM cost allocation. Id. at 9–10. With respect to switching costs, the NPR proposed to allocate costs on a shipment basis. Id. at 5–6. After reviewing comments in response to the NPR, the Board modified its proposal in the SNPR by changing how the current efficiency VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Jun 10, 2019 Jkt 247001 adjustments would be applied to switching costs, railroad-owned equipment costs, station clerical costs, and car-mile costs. SNPR, EP 431 (SubNo. 4), slip op. at 7–20. The SNPR also proposed to address step functions arising from LUM and TM cost allocations. Id. at 25–28. With respect to switching costs, the SNPR proposed to implement a new concept called the Carload Weighted Block (CWB) Adjustment, which would incorporate parties’ NPR comments that switching costs should be allocated based not just on an event component (the shipment), but on a time component (influenced by the number of cars in a shipment) as well. Id. at 9–11. The Board held a technical workshop regarding the SNPR proposals on September 7, 2016, and then received public comments on October 11, 2016, and reply comments on November 7, 2016.1 While these comments were not uniformly critical, many stakeholders expressed concerns about various aspects of the SNPR proposals. No commenter supported the CWB Adjustment and several commenters generally opposed other aspects of the SNPR, including proposals to modify the calculation of railroad-owned equipment costs, and car-mile costs. The Board recognizes and appreciates the substantial effort undertaken by stakeholders in this proceeding to assist the Board in grappling with the complexities of URCS. The Board continues to believe that URCS can be updated to better reflect economies of scale and improve cost allocations. However, the Board has determined that potential refinements of URCS would benefit from additional study and analysis, as most commenters argued. Given the need for further study and analysis to arrive at a more optimal revision of the URCS system, and to also ensure efficient docket management, the Board will not take further action in this proceeding and will discontinue this docket. Any future proposals by the Board to update URCS would be made in a new proceeding. It is ordered: 1. This proceeding is discontinued. 2. Notice of the Board’s action will be published in the Federal Register. 1 The following parties filed comments and reply comments on the SNPR in this proceeding: Association of American Railroads (AAR); Highroad Consulting, Ltd. (Highroad); SMART-Transportation Division-New York State Legislative Board (SMART–TD) (reply comments only); Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP); and Western Coal Traffic League (WCTL). Additionally, joint comments and reply comments were filed by the American Chemistry Council and others (referred to collectively as ACC). PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 3. This decision is effective on its date of service. By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Fuchs, and Oberman. Aretha Laws-Byrum, Clearance Clerk. [FR Doc. 2019–12241 Filed 6–10–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915–01–P TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Meeting of the Regional Energy Resource Council Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). ACTION: Notice of meeting. AGENCY: The TVA Regional Energy Resource Council (RERC) has scheduled a meeting to discuss the 2019 IRP development process, develop the RERC’s 2019 IRP recommendation, and identify the challenges and opportunities faced by TVA in developing the 2019 IRP. The RERC was established to advise TVA on its energy resource activities and the priority to be placed among competing objectives and values. Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Members of the TVA Board of Directors also plan to attend portions of this meeting. DATES: The meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 26, 2019, from 12:45 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., EDT, and Thursday, June 27, 2019, from 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., EDT. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at The Read House Hotel, 107 West MLK Boulevard, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402. An Individual requiring special accommodation for a disability should let the contact below know at least a week in advance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liz Upchurch, 865–632–8305, efupchurch@ tva.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting agenda includes the following: 1. Introductions 2. Overview of the 2019 IRP development process 3. Key steps in moving to a final IRP recommendation 4. A panel discussion on challenges and opportunities identified by the 2019 IRP 5. Public input session 6. Council Discussion and Advice The RERC, along with members of TVA’s Board of Directors, will hear opinions and views of citizens during a public session starting at 5:00 p.m., EDT, lasting up to one hour, on SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM 11JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 112 (Tuesday, June 11, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27181-27182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12241]


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

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

[Docket No. EP 431 (Sub-No. 4)]


Review of the General Purpose Costing System

    In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) served in this docket on 
February 4, 2013, the Board sought public comment on proposals to 
modify the Board's general purpose costing system, the Uniform Railroad 
Costing System (URCS), to eliminate a feature known as the ``make-whole 
adjustment'' and to adjust the locomotive unit-mile (LUM) cost 
allocation. After evaluating comments received in response to the NPR, 
the Board served a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPR) on 
August 4, 2016, with modified proposals for eliminating the make-whole 
adjustment and changing the LUM cost allocation, and a new proposal to 
modify train-mile (TM) cost allocations. For the reasons stated below, 
the Board will discontinue this proceeding.
    As discussed in prior decisions in this proceeding, the Board uses 
URCS for a variety of regulatory functions. URCS is used in rate 
reasonableness proceedings as part of the initial market dominance 
determination. URCS also plays a role in the Board's determination of 
whether a rate exceeds a reasonable maximum, and, when warranted, 
setting the maximum rate prescription. In addition, URCS is used to 
develop variable costs for making cost determinations in abandonment, 
certain trackage rights, and other proceedings; to provide the railroad 
industry and shippers with a standardized costing model; to cost the 
Board's Carload Waybill Sample; and to provide interested parties with 
basic cost information regarding railroad industry operations.
    URCS develops a regulatory cost estimate that can be applied to a 
service that occurs anywhere on a rail carrier's system. These cost 
estimates are developed through three distinct phases of URCS.
     Phase I occurred only once when URCS was originally 
developed using the annual reports submitted by Class I rail carriers 
(R-1 reports). Regression

[[Page 27182]]

analyses were performed to develop equations linking expense account 
groupings with particular measures of railroad activities.
     Annually, in Phase II, URCS takes the aggregated cost data 
and traffic statistics provided by Class I carriers in their most 
recent R-1 reports and other reports and disaggregates them by 
calculating system-average unit costs associated with specific rail 
activities.
     In Phase III, when movements are costed, URCS takes the 
unit costs from Phase II and applies them to the characteristics of a 
particular movement in order to calculate the variable cost of that 
movement.
    The Board initiated this proceeding to address concerns with the 
make-whole adjustment, which is calculated and applied in Phase III. 
The make-whole adjustment is intended to recognize the efficiency 
savings that a carrier obtains in its higher-volume shipments and thus 
render more appropriate unit costs. The Board questioned whether the 
current make-whole adjustment best reflects economies of scale as 
shipment size increases. Review of the General Purpose Costing System 
(NPR), EP 431 (Sub-No. 4), slip op. at 4 (STB served Feb. 4, 2013); 
Review of the General Purpose Costing System (SNPR), EP 431 (Sub-No. 
4), slip op. at 3-4 (STB served Aug. 4, 2016). The Board noted that, as 
applied, the make-whole adjustment creates particular types of step 
functions between shipment sizes by reducing system-average unit costs 
by various set percentages depending on whether the movement is 
classified as unit train, multi-car, or single-car. NPR, EP 431 (Sub-
No. 4), slip op. at 3-4; SNPR, EP 431 (Sub-No. 4), slip op. at 4-5. 
While the current URCS methodology generally reflects economies of 
scale across those movement classifications, the Board proposed ways to 
attempt to reflect economies of scale within those movement 
classifications to better address economies of scale overall.
    To address the concerns with the make-whole adjustment, the NPR 
proposed changes to switching costs related to switch engine minutes, 
equipment costs for the use of railroad-owned equipment during 
switching, station clerical costs, and car-mile costs, as well as other 
related changes to URCS. NPR, EP 431 (Sub-No. 4), slip op. at 5-9. The 
NPR also proposed changes to the LUM cost allocation. Id. at 9-10. With 
respect to switching costs, the NPR proposed to allocate costs on a 
shipment basis. Id. at 5-6.
    After reviewing comments in response to the NPR, the Board modified 
its proposal in the SNPR by changing how the current efficiency 
adjustments would be applied to switching costs, railroad-owned 
equipment costs, station clerical costs, and car-mile costs. SNPR, EP 
431 (Sub-No. 4), slip op. at 7-20. The SNPR also proposed to address 
step functions arising from LUM and TM cost allocations. Id. at 25-28. 
With respect to switching costs, the SNPR proposed to implement a new 
concept called the Carload Weighted Block (CWB) Adjustment, which would 
incorporate parties' NPR comments that switching costs should be 
allocated based not just on an event component (the shipment), but on a 
time component (influenced by the number of cars in a shipment) as 
well. Id. at 9-11.
    The Board held a technical workshop regarding the SNPR proposals on 
September 7, 2016, and then received public comments on October 11, 
2016, and reply comments on November 7, 2016.\1\ While these comments 
were not uniformly critical, many stakeholders expressed concerns about 
various aspects of the SNPR proposals. No commenter supported the CWB 
Adjustment and several commenters generally opposed other aspects of 
the SNPR, including proposals to modify the calculation of railroad-
owned equipment costs, and car-mile costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The following parties filed comments and reply comments on 
the SNPR in this proceeding: Association of American Railroads 
(AAR); Highroad Consulting, Ltd. (Highroad); SMART-Transportation 
Division-New York State Legislative Board (SMART-TD) (reply comments 
only); Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP); and Western Coal Traffic 
League (WCTL). Additionally, joint comments and reply comments were 
filed by the American Chemistry Council and others (referred to 
collectively as ACC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board recognizes and appreciates the substantial effort 
undertaken by stakeholders in this proceeding to assist the Board in 
grappling with the complexities of URCS. The Board continues to believe 
that URCS can be updated to better reflect economies of scale and 
improve cost allocations. However, the Board has determined that 
potential refinements of URCS would benefit from additional study and 
analysis, as most commenters argued. Given the need for further study 
and analysis to arrive at a more optimal revision of the URCS system, 
and to also ensure efficient docket management, the Board will not take 
further action in this proceeding and will discontinue this docket. Any 
future proposals by the Board to update URCS would be made in a new 
proceeding.
    It is ordered:
    1. This proceeding is discontinued.
    2. Notice of the Board's action will be published in the Federal 
Register.
    3. This decision is effective on its date of service.
    By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Fuchs, and Oberman.

Aretha Laws-Byrum,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2019-12241 Filed 6-10-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.