5930 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices 

12See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 

83296 (May 21, 2018), 83 FR 24362 (May 25, 2018) 

(order granting NYSE National, Inc.’s exemptive 

request relating to rules of FINRA incorporated by 

reference); 83040 (April 12, 2018), 83 FR 17198 

(April 18, 2018) (order granting MIAX PEARL, 

LLC’s exemptive request relating to rules of the 

Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC 

incorporated by reference); 76998 (January 29, 

2016), 81 FR 6066, 6083–84 (February 4, 2016) 

(order granting application for registration as a 

national securities exchange of ISE Mercury, LLC 

and exemptive request relating to rules of certain 

self-regulatory organizations (‘‘SROs’’) (including 

FINRA) incorporated by reference); 61534 (February 

18, 2010), 75 FR 8760 (February 25, 2010) (order 

granting BATS Exchange, Inc.’s exemptive request 

relating to rules incorporated by reference by the 

BATS Exchange Options Market rules) (‘‘BATS 

Options Market Order’’); 61152 (December 10, 

2009), 74 FR 66699, 66709–10 (December 16, 2009) 

(order granting application for registration as a 

national securities exchange of C2 Options 

Exchange, Incorporated and exemptive request 

relating to rules of the Chicago Board Options 

Exchange, Incorporated, incorporated by reference). 

13See 17 CFR 240.0–12 and Securities Exchange 

Act Release No. 39624 (February 5, 1998), 63 FR 

8101 (February 18, 1998) (Commission Procedures 

for Filing Applications for Orders for Exemptive 

Relief Pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange Act; 

Final Rule). 

14See BATS Options Market Order, supra note 12 

(citing Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49260 

(February 17, 2004), 69 FR 8500 (February 24, 2004) 

(order granting exemptive request relating to rules 

incorporated by reference by several SROs) (‘‘2004 

Order’’)). 

15See BATS Options Market Order, supra note 

12, 75 FR at 8761; see also 2004 Order, supra note 

14, 69 FR at 8502. 

16 15 U.S.C. 78mm. 

17 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(76). 

1An executed, redacted version of the lease 

agreement was filed with the petition for 

exemption. An unredacted version was submitted 

to the Board under seal along with a motion for 

protective order, which was granted by decision 

served on November 24, 2021. 

2Notice of the trackage rights exemption was 

published in the Federal Register on November 24, 

2021 (86 FR 67111), and the exemption took effect 

on December 9, 2021. See BNSF Ry.—Trackage Rts. 

Exemption—Union Pac. R.R., FD 36561 (STB served 

Nov. 24, 2021). 

3BNSF’s reference to ‘‘construction’’ is in 

connection with the planned repair and 

maintenance of the existing Line. (See Pet. 2.) 

Therefore, the Board does not construe that 

reference as involving any new line of railroad for 

which construction authority would be needed 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10901, and this decision does 

not grant any such authority. 

4Pursuant to 49 CFR 1121.3(d), BNSF certifies 

that the lease does not contain a provision or 

agreement that may limit future interchange with a 

third-party connecting carrier. (Pet. 7–8.) 

request.12 In granting similar 

exemptions, the Commission stated that 

it would consider similar future 

exemption requests, provided that: 

• An SRO wishing to incorporate 

rules of another SRO by reference has 

submitted a written request for an order 

exempting it from the requirement in 

Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act to file 

proposed rule changes relating to the 

rules incorporated by reference, has 

identified the applicable originating 

SRO(s), together with the rules it wants 

to incorporate by reference, and 

otherwise has complied with the 

procedural requirements set forth in the 

Commission’s release governing 

procedures for requesting exemptive 

orders pursuant to Rule 0–12 under the 

Exchange Act; 13

• The incorporating SRO has 

requested incorporation of categories of 

rules (rather than individual rules 

within a category) that are not trading 

rules (e.g., the SRO has requested 

incorporation of rules such as margin, 

suitability, or arbitration); and 

• The incorporating SRO has 

reasonable procedures in place to 

provide written notice to its members 

each time a change is proposed to the 

incorporated rules of another SRO.14

The Commission believes that the 

Exchange has satisfied each of these 

conditions. The Commission also 

believes that granting the Exchange an 

exemption from the rule filing 

requirements under Section 19(b) of the 

Exchange Act will promote efficient use 

of the Commission’s and the Exchange’s 

resources by avoiding duplicative rule 

filings based on simultaneous changes 

to identical rule text sought by more 

than one SRO.15 The Commission 

therefore finds it appropriate in the 

public interest and consistent with the 

protection of investors to exempt the 

Exchange from the rule filing 

requirements under Section 19(b) of the 

Exchange Act with respect to the abovedescribed FINRA rules it has 

incorporated by reference. This 

exemption is conditioned upon the 

Exchange promptly providing written 

notice to its members whenever FINRA 

changes a rule that the Exchange has 

incorporated by reference. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, 

pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange 

Act,16 that the Exchange is exempt from 

the rule filing requirements of Section 

19(b) of the Exchange Act solely with 

respect to changes to the rules identified 

in the Exemptive Request, provided that 

the Exchange promptly provides written 

notice to its members whenever FINRA 

proposes to change a rule that the 

Exchange has incorporated by reference. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.17

J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02085 Filed 2–1–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 

[Docket No. FD 36560] 

BNSF Railway Company—Lease 

Exemption—Union Pacific Railroad 

Company 

On November 9, 2021, BNSF Railway 

Company (BNSF) filed a petition under 

49 U.S.C. 10502 seeking exemption from 

the prior approval requirements of 49 

U.S.C. 11323–25 for BNSF to lease from 

Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) 

approximately 25 miles of rail line 

extending from Sterling, Colo., near UP 

milepost 56.71, to Union, Colo., near UP 

milepost 81.1, on UP’s Julesburg 

Subdivision (the Line).1

The petition explains that BNSF and 

its predecessors have operated over the 

Line since 1900, and that, concurrently 

with the petition, BNSF filed a verified 

notice of exemption pursuant to 49 CFR 

1180.2(d)(7) pertaining to a trackage 

rights agreement to supersede the 

agreement that had been in effect since 

1951. (Pet. 2.) 2 According to the 

petition, BNSF and UP have agreed to 

enter into a lease that would modify 

certain roles and responsibilities set 

forth in the new trackage rights 

agreement; in particular, the lease 

would ‘‘allow BNSF to occupy UP’s 

property for the purposes of 

maintenance, construction, repair, and 

renewal of the track and appurtenant 

structures and facilities on the Line.’’ 

(Pet. 2.) 3 BNSF states that by permitting 

maintenance responsibilities to shift to 

BNSF, the sole user of the Line, the 

lease will streamline maintenance 

activity and produce more efficient rail 

operations. (Pet. 2.) According to BNSF, 

the lease transaction will have no 

adverse impact on commercial or 

operational access to the Line. (Id. at 5; 

see also id. at 6–7 (stating that the lease 

‘‘is simply intended to produce more 

efficient rail operations by streamlining 

the Line’s maintenance activities’’ and 

‘‘will have no adverse impact on the 

national, regional, or local rail 

industry’’).) 4

BNSF asserts that the Board has 

previously exempted similar lease 

agreements from the prior approval 

requirements of sections 11323–25 

pursuant to section 10502, and that the 

Board should grant this petition and 

exempt the lease for the same reasons. 

(Pet. 3.) 

Discussion and Conclusions 

Under 49 U.S.C. 11323(a)(2), prior 

Board approval is required for a rail 

carrier to lease the property of another 

rail carrier. Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, 

however, the Board must exempt a 

transaction or service from regulation 

when it finds that: (1) Regulation is not 

necessary to carry out the rail 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2022 / Notices 5931 

5Because the Board concludes that regulation is 

not needed to protect shippers from the abuse of 

market power, it is unnecessary to determine 

whether the transaction is limited in scope. See 49 

U.S.C. 10502(a). 

transportation policy of 49 U.S.C. 

10101; and (2) either (a) the transaction 

or service is of limited scope, or (b) 

regulation is not needed to protect 

shippers from the abuse of market 

power. 

Detailed scrutiny of the proposed 

transaction through an application for 

review and approval under 49 U.S.C. 

11323–25 is not necessary here to carry 

out the rail transportation policy. The 

proposed transaction would simply 

permit maintenance responsibilities for 

the Line to shift to BNSF, the sole user 

of the Line. As described in the petition, 

the lease is intended to streamline 

maintenance activity and would 

produce more efficient rail operations 

over the Line with no adverse 

competitive impacts. Therefore, the 

proposed transaction would promote a 

safe and efficient rail transportation 

system, (49 U.S.C. 10101(3)), foster 

sound economic conditions in 

transportation and ensure effective 

competition, (49 U.S.C. 10101(5)), 

encourage honest and efficient 

management, (49 U.S.C. 10101(9)), and 

promote energy conservation, (49 U.S.C. 

10101(14)). Further, an exemption from 

the application process would expedite 

regulatory action, (49 U.S.C. 10101(2)), 

and reduce regulatory barriers to entry 

and exit, (49 U.S.C. 10101(7)). Other 

aspects of the rail transportation policy 

would not be adversely affected. 

Regulation of the proposed 

transaction is also not necessary to 

protect shippers from the abuse of 

market power.5 Nothing in the record 

indicates that any shipper would lose an 

existing rail service option as a result of 

the proposed lease transaction. 

According to the petition, the 

transaction will have no adverse impact 

on commercial or operational access to 

the Line. (See Pet. 5 (noting that the 

lease agreement specifically states that 

nothing contained in the lease would 

‘‘amend, change or supersede the 

commercial access . . . terms as 

provided for in the Trackage Rights 

Agreement’’).) BNSF states that it will 

continue to provide common carrier 

service to shippers over the Line and 

that there will be no material change in 

the service provided to shippers, 

because the lease simply shifts the 

Line’s maintenance responsibilities to 

BNSF, the sole user of the Line. (Id. at 

6.) Indeed, the lease transaction should 

benefit shippers by producing more 

efficient rail operations by streamlining 

the Line’s maintenance activities. 

Moreover, no shippers or other parties 

have filed any objections to the 

proposed transaction. 

Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board 

may not use its exemption authority to 

relieve a carrier of its statutory 

obligation to protect the interests of 

employees. Accordingly, as a condition 

to granting this exemption, the Board 

will impose the standard employee 

protective conditions in Norfolk & 

Western Railway—Trackage Rights— 

Burlington Northern, Inc., 354 I.C.C. 605 

(1978), as modified in Mendocino Coast 

Railway—Lease & Operate—California 

Western Railroad, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980). 

The proposed lease is exempt from 

both the environmental reporting 

requirements under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) 

and the historic reporting requirements 

under 49 CFR 1105.8(b). 

It is ordered: 

1. Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the Board 

exempts from the prior approval 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323–25 

BNSF’s lease of the Line, subject to the 

employee protective conditions in 

Norfolk & Western Railway—Trackage 

Rights—Burlington Northern, Inc., 354 

I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in 

Mendocino Coast Railway—Lease & 

Operate—California Western Railroad, 

360 I.C.C. 653 (1980). 

2. Notice of the exemption will be 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 2, 2022. 

3. The exemption will become 

effective on March 4, 2022. 

4. Petitions to stay must be filed by 

February 14, 2022. 

5. Petitions for reconsideration and 

petitions to reopen must be filed by 

February 22, 2022. 

Decided: January 25, 2022. 

By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, 

Hedlund, Oberman, Primus, and Schultz. 

Jeffrey Herzig, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02144 Filed 2–1–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request 

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority 

(TVA). 

ACTION: 30-Day notice of submission of 

information collection approval request 

to OMB. 

SUMMARY: Tennessee Valley Authority 

(TVA) provides notice of submission of 

this information clearance request (ICR) 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The 

general public and other federal 

agencies are invited to comment. TVA 

previously published a 60-day notice of 

the proposed information collection for 

public review (December 10, 2021) and 

no comments were received. 

DATES: The OMB will consider all 

written comments received on or before 

March 4, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments for the 

proposed information collection should 

be sent within 30 days of publication of 

this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/ 

do/PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Type of Request: New collection. 

Title of Information Collection: 

Distribution Technology Capability 

Assessment. 

Frequency of Use: Every 2 years. 

Type of Affected Public: State, local, 

and tribal governments; small 

businesses; non-profit organizations. 

Small Businesses or Organizations 

Affected: Yes. 

Federal Budget Functional Category 

Code: 455. 

Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 153. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 306. 

Estimated Average Burden Hours per 

Response: 2.0. 

Need For and Use of Information: As 

the Balancing Authority of the region, 

TVA must ensure the electrical grid is 

reliable. With the growth of Distributed 

Energy Resources (DER) on the 

distribution system, TVA and the Local 

Power Companies (LPCs) must work in 

tighter coordination to ensure the DER 

generation does not impact the 

reliability of the bulk electric system. To 

support this goal, TVA must understand 

the current distribution capabilities of 

the LPCs. Examples of capabilities 

include but are not limited to customer 

analytics, advanced asset management, 

advanced AMI, automated switching, 

DER monitoring & control, grid planning 

and voltage optimization. To ease access 

and completion, information will be 

submitted online. Once collected, the 

information will be reviewed by TVA 

staff and consultants to determine each 

LPC’s state of and plan for system 

modernization and will inform strategic 

investment roadmaps and 

implementation plans that are being 

developed as part of the Regional Grid 

Transformation initiative. Summary 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1