[Senate Report 115-253]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                     Calendar No. 420
115th Congress       }                                 {       Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session          }                                 {      115-253

======================================================================



 
             AMENDING SECTION 203 OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT

                                _______
                                

                  May 21, 2018.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

        Ms. Murkowski, from the Committee on Energy and Natural
                   Resources, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1109]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 
referred the bill (H.R. 1109) to amend section 203 of the 
Federal Power Act, having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF FACILITY MERGER AUTHORIZATION.

    Section 203(a)(1) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824b(a)(1)) 
is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:
          ``(B) merge or consolidate, directly or indirectly, its 
        facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, or 
        any part thereof, with the facilities of any other person, or 
        any part thereof, that are subject to the jurisdiction of the 
        Commission and have a value in excess of $10,000,000, by any 
        means whatsoever;''.

SEC. 2. NOTIFICATION FOR CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS.

    Section 203(a) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824b(a)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
          ``(7)(A) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
        of this paragraph, the Commission shall promulgate a rule 
        requiring any public utility that is seeking to merge or 
        consolidate, directly or indirectly, its facilities subject to 
        the jurisdiction of the Commission, or any part thereof, with 
        those of any other person, to notify the Commission of such 
        transaction not later than 30 days after the date on which the 
        transaction is consummated if--
                  ``(i) the facilities, or any part thereof, to be 
                acquired are of a value in excess of $1,000,000; and
                  ``(ii) such public utility is not required to secure 
                an order of the Commission under paragraph (1)(B).
          ``(B) In establishing any notification requirement under 
        subparagraph (A), the Commission shall, to the maximum extent 
        practicable, minimize the paperwork burden resulting from the 
        collection of information.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by section 1 shall take effect 180 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION REPORT.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall submit to 
Congress a report that assesses the effects of the amendment made by 
section 1.
    (b) Requirements.--In preparing the report under subsection (a), 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall--
          (1) take into account any information collected under 
        paragraph (7) of section 203(a) of the Federal Power Act (16 
        U.S.C. 824b(a)) (as added by section 2); and
          (2) provide for public notice and comment with respect to the 
        report.

                                Purpose

    The purpose of H.R. 1109 is to amend section 203 of the 
Federal Power Act (FPA) to correct the misinterpretation by the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) of 
the merge or consolidate clause within that section of the Act, 
and to thereby reduce the compliance burden of certain 
transactions valued under $10 million, including significant 
legal and regulatory costs which are collected from customers.

                          Background and Need

    Between 1935 and 2005, section 203 of the FPA provided that 
no public utility could dispose or merge assets in excess of 
$50,000 in value without first securing an order of the 
Commission authorizing it to do so. (See 16 U.S.C. 824d note.)
    The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct '05, Public Law 109-
58) amended the FPA to raise the threshold for review of 
certain transactions from the $50,000 level established in 1935 
to $10 million. Section 1289 of EPAct '05 appeared to subdivide 
the Commission's authority to review merger or disposal of 
assets into four subsections. Three of these subsections 
explicitly identified a threshold of $10 million, while also 
preserving the existing structure of the FPA. However, given 
that the existing structure of the Act was used in the 2005 
amendment, the words ``$10 million'' did not appear in the 
fourth subsection. Based on that absence, FERC interpreted that 
one subsection as eliminating the $50,000 exception altogether, 
so that now FERC would require itself to review every covered 
transaction in that subsection, effectively reducing the 
transaction threshold to zero dollars, when the threshold had 
been $50,000 since 1935. Transactions Subject to FPA Section 
203, 113 FERCpara.61,315 at P 32 (2005) (Order No. 669).
    FERC reasoned that ``where Congress includes particular 
language in one section of a statute but omits it in another 
section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress 
acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or 
exclusion.'' Order No. 669 at P 32 (quoting Russello v. U.S., 
464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983)). FERC did not address the canon of 
statutory construction providing that when Congress reenacts 
provisions of an existing law in an amendment to that law, the 
reenacted provisions are considered a continuation of the 
previous law as they were previously understood and 
interpreted. See 1A N. Singer, Statutes and Statutory 
Construction Sec. 22.33 at 392-396 (6th ed. 2002 rev.) 
(``Provisions of the original act or section which are repeated 
in the body of the amendment, either in the same or equivalent 
words, are considered a continuation of the original law.'').
    In 1935, the original section of the Act provided that:

          ``No public utility shall sell, lease, or otherwise 
        dispose of the whole of its facilities subject to the 
        jurisdiction of the Commission, or any part thereof of 
        a value in excess of $50,000, or by any means 
        whatsoever, directly or indirectly, merge or 
        consolidate such facilities or any part thereof with 
        those of any other person, or purchase, acquire, or 
        take any security of any other public utility, without 
        first having secured an order of the Commission 
        authorizing it to do so.''

Breaking the sentence down structurally, this sentence provided 
that:

          ``No public utility shall [--]
          [1] sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of the whole of 
        its facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the 
        Commission, or any part thereof of a value in excess of 
        $50,000, or
          [2] by any means whatsoever, directly or indirectly, 
        merge or consolidate such facilities or any part 
        thereof with those of any other person, or
          [3] purchase, acquire, or take any security of any 
        other public utility,
          [--]without first having secured an order of the 
        Commission authorizing it to do so.''

Prior to the creation of FERC in 1977, the Federal Power 
Commission (FPC) administered this part of the FPA, stumbling 
over certain aspects of this sentence. The FPC's principal 
difficulty was over whether it applied to local distribution 
facilities. ``Between 1944 and 1962, . . . the Commission no 
less than five times shifted its position as to the 
applicability of the `merge or consolidate' clause to 
acquisitions of non-jurisdictional facilities.'' Duke Power Co. 
v. FPC, 401 F.2d 930, 951 (D.C. Cir. 1968).
    Nevertheless, the FPC does not appear to have stumbled over 
the absence of a dollar amount in the ``merge or consolidate'' 
clause. Although the codification of its rules, which first 
appeared in the Federal Register in 1947, said nothing about a 
dollar amount, the early case law shows that the FPC was 
already applying the $50,000 threshold in the sell, lease, or 
otherwise dispose clause to the merge or consolidate clause 
even before the 1947 rule codification. See California Electric 
Power Co., 4 FPC 601, 602 (May 31, 1944); Idaho Power Co. and 
West Coast Power Co., 4 FPC 663, 664 (July 26, 1944); Montana-
Dakota Utilities Co., 4 FPC 1072, 1074 (Oct. 17, 1945); 
regarding codification of its rules, see 12 Fed. Reg. 8495 
(Dec. 19, 1947).
    The FPC eventually amended its rules in 1963 to reflect 
what was by then a decades-old interpretation. Section 33.1(2) 
of the FPC's rules was amended to say that the FPC authority 
under section 203 extended to ``The merger or consolidation, 
directly or indirectly of the facilities of a public utility 
with those of any other person having a value in excess of 
$50,000.'' 28 Fed. Reg. 2900 (Mar. 23, 1963).
    The D.C. Circuit eventually addressed the question of 
whether the merge or consolidate clause applied to non-
jurisdictional local distribution facilities, and in doing so, 
it confirmed that the FPC had correctly interpreted the $50,000 
threshold in that clause. In 1966, the FPC held that Duke 
Power's acquisition of Clemson University's distribution 
facilities, since they had a value of more than $50,000, fell 
within the Commission's section 203 jurisdiction. The D.C. 
Circuit rejected that view of FPC's authority. Duke Power Co. 
v. FPC, 401 F.2d 930 (D.C. Cir. 1968). The court said that the 
text and legislative history of the FPA showed that the FPC's 
merger authority did not extend to non-jurisdictional 
facilities. While the question of the dollar threshold never 
came up, the court addressed the language in the merge or 
consolidate clause.
    In particular, the court emphasized that the clause speaks 
of the merger or consolidation of ``such facilities or any part 
thereof with those of any other person.'' 401 F.2d at 933. The 
FPC had no difficulty reading ``such facilities'' as referring 
to the acquiring utility's ``facilities subject to the 
jurisdiction of the Commission . . . . '' ``[T]he Commission 
concede[d] that the meaning of `such facilities' is 
crystallized by their grammatical antecedent, `facilities 
subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission'.'' Id. at 940. 
The dispute in the case was whether ``the latter phrase also 
fixes the meaning of `those'.'' Id. ``Duke argue[d] that the 
antecedent of `those' is the phrase, `such facilities,' 
language in turn referring to `facilities subject to the 
jurisdiction of the Commission,' and point[ed] out that 
Clemson's [local] distribution system fell outside the latter 
category. The Commission, on the other hand, would have us 
ascribe to the phrase `those (facilities) of any other person' 
sufficient breadth to include both jurisdictional and 
nonjurisdictional facilities.'' Id. at 933-934. The D.C. 
Circuit agreed with Duke rather than the FPC: ``those'' 
facilities referred to ``such facilities,'' which referred to 
``facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission,'' 
and, we may infer by extension, ``or any part thereof of a 
value in excess of $50,000.''
    The FPC amended its rules in 1970 to reflect the court's 
decision. Section 203, the FPC now said, extends to ``The 
merger or consolidation, directly or indirectly of the 
facilities subject to the Commission's jurisdiction with those 
of any other person having a value in excess of $50,000.'' 62 
Fed. Reg. 5321 (Mar. 31, 1970).
    The first sentence of section 203 was then amended in 
section 1289 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The purpose of 
the amendment was to raise the dollar threshold from $50,000 to 
$10 million and to add to the existing three clauses a fourth 
covering the ``purchase, lease, or'' other acquisition of an 
existing generation facility ``that has a value in excess of 
$10,000,000'' that is subject to FERC's jurisdiction. Congress 
thus adopted a complete substitute to section 203(a) to add 
more structure and additional paragraphs. But the merge or 
consolidate clause itself, was reenacted, word-for-word, except 
for the addition of a new subparagraph designation, and the 
reordering of the ``directly or indirectly'' and the ``by any 
means whatsoever'' subclauses. The critical phrases ``such 
facilities'' and ``those of any other person,'' which the FPC 
and FERC had long interpreted as referring to and incorporating 
by reference the dollar threshold in the sell, lease, or 
otherwise dispose clause into the merge or consolidate clause, 
were not changed.
    This legislation clarifies the amendments made in the EPAct 
'05, by explicitly providing that the threshold for Commission 
authority begins at $10 million for disposals or mergers of 
utility assets. In addition, this legislation adds a 
notification requirement for certain merger or consolidation 
transactions in excess of a $1 million threshold.

                          Legislative History

    H.R. 1109 was introduced on February 16, 2017, by 
Representatives Walberg, Dingell, Hudson, McNerney, and Mullin 
in the House of Representatives and referred to the Energy and 
Commerce Committee. On June 7, 2017, the Energy and Commerce 
Committee reported the bill by unanimous consent, and on June 
12, 2017, H.R. 1109 passed the House by voice vote. On June 13, 
2017, the Senate received it and referred it to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.
    On September 26, 2017, similar legislation, S. 1860, was 
introduced by Senators Inhofe and Heinrich, which was referred 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The Senate 
Subcommittee on Energy held a hearing on H.R. 1109 and S. 1860 
on October 3, 2017.
    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources met in open 
business session on March 8, 2018, and ordered H.R. 1109 
favorably reported, as amended.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in 
open business session on March 8, 2018, by a majority voice 
vote of a quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass H.R. 
1109, if amended as described herein.

                          Committee Amendment

    During its consideration of H.R. 1109, the Committee 
adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The 
substitute amendment makes clear that the threshold for 
Commission authority begins at $10 million for disposals or 
mergers of utility assets. In addition, the substitute 
amendment adds a notification requirement for certain merger or 
consolidation transactions in excess of a $1 million threshold. 
The amendment is further described in the section-by-section 
analysis.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1. Clarification of facility merger authorization

    Section 1 amends section 203(a)(1)(B) of the FPA to ensure 
that the threshold is for facilities to be acquired having a 
value in excess of $10 million.

Section 2. Notification for certain transactions

    Section 2 establishes a notification requirement for merger 
or consolidation transactions in section 203(a)(1)(B) of the 
Act that exceed a $1 million threshold. For those transactions 
exceeding $1 million, but less than $10 million, this section 
provides that the public utility is not required to seek an 
order of the Commission under section 203(a)(1)(B) of the Act.

Section 3. Effective date

    Section 3 provides that the amendment made by section 1 
shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment.

Section 4. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission report

    Section 4 requires FERC to submit a report to Congress on 
the effects of the amendment made by section 1 within two years 
of enactment.

                   Cost and Budgetary Considerations

    The following estimate of the costs of this measure has 
been provided by the Congressional Budget Office:
    Under the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (FERC) oversees and regulates interstate 
transmission of electricity, natural gas, oil, and a variety of 
other energy-related activities. Under section 203 of that act, 
public utilities subject to its provisions must seek FERC's 
approval before engaging in certain transactions, including 
corporate mergers and consolidations of facilities. Currently, 
FERC must review all such mergers and consolidations. H.R. 1109 
would amend that section to specify that only mergers and 
consolidations involving facilities valued at more than $10 
million would require FERC's approval. The legislation also 
would require FERC to report to the Congress, within two years 
of enactment, on the subsequent effects of that proposed 
change.
    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1109 would have no 
significant net effect on the federal budget. Using information 
from FERC about average annual costs to review mergers and 
consolidations under current law, CBO estimates that specifying 
a minimum threshold for such reviews would reduce the agency's 
administrative costs by less than $500,000 annually. However, 
because FERC recovers 100 percent of its costs through user 
fees, any change in that agency's costs (which are controlled 
through annual appropriation acts) would be offset by an equal 
change in fees that the commission charges, resulting in no net 
change in federal spending.
    Enacting H.R. 1109 would not affect direct spending or 
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO 
estimates that enacting H.R. 1109 would not increase net direct 
spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 
10-year periods beginning in 2028.
    H.R. 1109 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
    On June 12, 2017, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 
1109 as ordered reported by the House Committee on Energy and 
Commerce on June 7, 2017. The two versions of the legislation 
are similar, and the estimated budgetary effects are the same.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Megan Carroll. 
The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                      Regulatory Impact Evaluation

    In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following 
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in 
carrying out H.R. 1109. The bill is not a regulatory measure in 
the sense of imposing Government-established standards or 
significant economic responsibilities on private individuals 
and businesses.
    No personal information would be collected in administering 
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal 
privacy.
    Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the 
enactment of H.R. 1109, as ordered reported.

                   Congressionally Directed Spending

    H.R. 1109, as ordered reported, does not contain any 
congressionally directed spending items, limited tax benefits, 
or limited tariff benefits as defined in rule XLIV of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate.

                        Executive Communications

    The testimony provided by the Federal Energy and Regulatory 
Commission at the October 3, 2017, hearing on H.R. 1109 
follows:

 Testimony of James Danly, General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory 
  Commission, Before the United States Senate Committee on Energy and 
               Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Energy

S. 1860 (the ``Parity Across Reviews Act'' or the ``PARs Act'' and H.R. 
        1109)
    The bills are identical and would add a minimum dollar 
value to Subsection 203(a)(1)(B) of the FPA such that public 
utilities would only need prior Commission approval to ``merge 
or consolidate'' (that is, to acquire) facilities subject to 
the Commission's jurisdiction if the facilities have a value in 
excess of $10 million. In other words, mergers or acquisitions 
of facilities with a value less than that amount would not need 
Commission approval.
    The bills would align this provision of the FPA with the 
other three subsections of Section 203(a)(1). Subsections (A), 
(C), and (D) only require Commission approval if the 
transaction at issue exceeds $10 million in value. Subsection 
203(a)(1)(A) requires Commission approval before a public 
utility sells, leases, or otherwise disposes of facilities 
worth more than $10 million. Subsection 203(a)(1)(C) imposes 
the same obligation for the acquisition of more than $10 
million in securities of another public utility. Finally, 
Subsection 203(a)(1)(D) mandates Commission approval before the 
acquisition of a generating facility worth more than $10 
million.
    While the current statute is the result of the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005, the requirement for merger approval dates 
back to the original 1935 Federal Power Act. The prior version 
of Section 203 combined the current statutory mandates of 
Subsections 203(a)(1)(A)-(C) in a single subsection that 
included a $50,000 threshold. Under this statutory language, 
the Commission had issued regulations imposing a $50,000 
threshold exception for all of the provisions. After the 2005 
legislation that subdivided the section, added what is now in 
Subsection (D), and imposed the three $10 million thresholds, 
the Commission interpreted the statute as precluding the 
Commission from applying a $10 million dollar threshold to the 
``merge and consolidate'' clause. As a result, the requirement 
for approval now applies even to acquisitions of jurisdictional 
facilities that are less than $50,000. Adding a $10 million 
threshold to the ``merge and consolidate'' clause in Subsection 
203(a)(1)(B) would, to some extent, return the statute to the 
situation that existed prior to the 2005 legislation where the 
same minimum threshold applies equally to every subsection of 
the statute.
    In my view, the proposal to add a $10 million threshold to 
Subsection 203(a)(1)(B) of the FPA would ease the regulatory 
burden on industry without impeding the Commission's regulatory 
responsibilities. Transactions below the proposed threshold are 
unlikely to impose a significant negative impact on competition 
or the rates of utility customers.
    Previously, Commission staff has noted that one potential 
concern involves serial mergers. That is, under the proposed 
bill, the Commission would no longer have the authority to 
review and approve mergers and acquisitions valued at less than 
$10 million even in situations where the transaction took place 
as one of a series of transactions that exceeded the limit in 
total. I believe that the Commission would have tools to 
protect consumers and the public interest if such circumstances 
arose.
    For one, the proposed bills would add a new Subsection 
203(a)(7)(A) to establish an additional reporting requirement 
on certain transactions under the $10 million threshold. 
Specifically, a public utility undertaking a merger or 
acquisition where the facilities being acquired have a value in 
excess of $1 million but less than $10 million would have to 
notify the Commission of the transaction 30 days after 
consummation. This after-the fact reporting would be for 
informational purposes only--that is, the Commission would not 
take action as to any of these transactions. However, the 
notifications would provide the Commission and the public with 
greater transparency as to these types of transactions.
    Moreover, I believe that the Commission has tools under its 
existing statutory framework. For example, if an entity with 
market-based rates obtained the opportunity to exercise market 
power as a result of such transactions, the Commission could 
limit or eliminate its ability to engage in transactions at 
market-based rates. Additionally, the Commission has a range of 
market power mitigation measures that limit market power within 
the organized wholesale electric markets. Finally, if the 
exercise of market power involves market manipulation or 
violation of a Commission rule, regulation, order or tariff 
provision, the Commission can bring an enforcement action.
    One concern I should note about the proposed bills is the 
placement of the $10 million threshold clause in revised 
Subsection 203(a)(1)(B). As revised, Subsection 203(a)(1)(B) 
would read: ``No public utility shall, without first having 
secured an order of the Commission authorizing it to do so . . 
. (B) merge or consolidate, directly or indirectly, such 
facilities or any part thereof such facilities, or any part 
thereof, of a value in excess of [$10 million] with those of 
any other person, by any means whatsoever.'' There is some risk 
that the statutory language could be read as modifying the 
wrong set of facilities and imposing the $10 million threshold 
on the value of the pre-existing assets of the acquiring public 
utility rather than on the assets that are being acquired (that 
is, the assets merged or consolidated with the pre-existing 
assets of the acquiring public utility). Placing the $10 
million threshold language after the ``any other person'' may 
address this concern. Proposed Subsection 203(a)(7)(A) presents 
a similar issue.

                        Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
the original bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing 
law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                           FEDERAL POWER ACT

The Act of June 10, 1920, Chapter 285, as Amended

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART II--REGULATION OF ELECTRIC UTILITY COMPANIES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE 
COMMERCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



     DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY; CONSOLIDATION; PURCHASE OF SECURITIES

    Sec. 203. (a)(1) No public utility shall, without first 
having secured an order of the Commission authorizing it to do 
so--
          (A) sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of the whole of 
        its facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the 
        Commission, or any part thereof of a value in excess of 
        $10,000,000;
          [(B) merge or consolidate, directly or indirectly, 
        such facilities or any part thereof with those of any 
        other person, by any means whatsoever;] (B) merge or 
        consolidate, directly or indirectly, its facilities 
        subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, or any 
        part thereof, with the facilities of any other person, 
        or any part thereof, that are subject to the 
        jurisdiction of the Commission and have a value in 
        excess of $10,000,000, by any means whatsoever;
          (C) purchase, acquire, or take any security with a 
        value in excess of $10,000,000 of any other public 
        utility; or
          (D) purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire an existing 
        generation facility--
                  (i) that has a value in excess of 
                $10,000,000; and
                  (ii) that is used for interstate wholesale 
                sales and over which the Commission has 
                jurisdiction for ratemaking purposes.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (6) For purposes of this subsection, the terms 
        ``associate company'', ``holding company'', and 
        ``holding company system'' have the meaning given those 
        terms in the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 
        2005.
          (7)(A) Not later than 180 days after the date of 
        enactment of this paragraph, the Commission shall 
        promulgate a rule requiring any public utility that is 
        seeking to merge or consolidate, directly or 
        indirectly, its facilities subject to the jurisdiction 
        of the Commission, or any part thereof, with those of 
        any other person, to notify the Commission of such 
        transaction not later than 30 days after the date on 
        which the transaction is consummated if--
                  (i) the facilities, or any part thereof, to 
                be acquired are of a value in excess of 
                $1,000,000; and
                  (ii) such public utility is not required to 
                secure an order of the Commission under 
                paragraph (1)(B).
          (B) In establishing any notification requirement 
        under subparagraph (A), the Commission shall, to the 
        maximum extent practicable, minimize the paperwork 
        burden resulting from the collection of information.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                  [all]