NPRM Federal Register Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
49 CFR Part 1250
[Docket No. EP 724 (Sub-No. 4)]

United States Rail Service Issues—
Performance Data Reporting
Surface Transportation Board
(the Board or STB).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:

Through this Supplemental
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPR),
the Board is proposing to establish new
regulations requiring all Class I railroads
and the Chicago Transportation
Coordination Office (CTCO), through its
Class I members, to report certain
service performance metrics on a
weekly basis.
DATES: Comments are due by May 31,
2016. Reply comments are due by June
28, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Comments and replies may
be submitted either via the Board’s efiling 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
http://www.stb.dot.gov. Any person
submitting a filing in the traditional
paper format should send an original
and 10 copies to: Surface Transportation
Board, Attn: Docket No. EP 724 (SubNo. 4), 395 E Street SW., Washington,
DC 20423–0001.
Copies of written comments and
replies will be available for viewing and
self-copying at the Board’s Public
Docket Room, Room 131, and will be
posted to the Board’s Web site. Copies
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:
Allison Davis at (202) 245–0378.
Assistance for the hearing impaired is
available through the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
(800) 877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Surface Transportation Board initiated
this rulemaking proceeding in response
to the service problems that began to
emerge in the railroad industry in late
2013. Those service problems affected
the transportation of a wide range of
commodities, including grain, fertilizer,
ethanol, coal, automobiles, chemicals,
propane, consumer goods, crude oil,
and industrial commodities.
In response to the service challenges,
the Board held two public hearings, in

ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:43 May 04, 2016

Jkt 238001

April 2014 in Washington, DC, and in
September 2014 in Fargo, ND, to allow
interested persons to report on service
problems, to hear from rail industry
executives on plans to address rail
service problems, and to explore options
to improve service. During and after
these hearings, parties expressed
concerns about the lack of publicly
available information related to rail
service and requested access to
performance data from the railroads to
better understand the scope, magnitude,
and impact of the service issues,1 as
well as the underlying causes and the
prospects for recovery.
Based on these concerns and to better
understand railroad operating
conditions, the Board issued an October
8, 2014 order requiring all Class I
railroads and the Class I railroad
members of the CTCO to file weekly
reports containing specific performance
data. See U.S. Rail Serv. Issues—Data
Collection (Interim Data Order), EP 724
(Sub-No. 3) (STB served Oct. 8, 2014).2
Railroads were asked to report weekly
average train speeds, weekly average
terminal dwell times, weekly average
cars online, number of trains held short
of destination, and loading metrics for
grain and coal service, among other
information. The data were intended to
give both the Board and its stakeholders
access to near real-time information
about the operations and performance of
the Class I railroads and the fluidity of
the Chicago gateway. In addition, the
data were expected to assist rail
shippers in making logistics decisions,
planning operations and production,
and mitigating potential losses.
On October 22, 2014, the Class I
railroads and the Association of
American Railroads (AAR) (on behalf of
the CTCO) filed the first set of weekly
reports in response to the Interim Data
Order. As requested by the Board, each
carrier provided an explanation of its
methodology for deriving performance
data in response to each request.
Generally, the reports corresponded to
the elements of the Interim Data Order;
however, some railroads approached
individual requests differently, leading
to variations in the reported data. The
1 See generally National Grain and Feed
Association Letter, U.S. Rail Serv. Issues, EP 724
(filed May 6, 2014); Western Coal Traffic League
Letter, U.S. Rail Serv. Issues, EP 724 (filed Apr. 17,
2014); Apr. Hr’g Tr. 154–155, U.S. Rail Serv. Issues,
EP 724 (Apr. 10, 2014); Western Coal Traffic League
Statement 5–6, U.S. Rail Serv. Issues, EP 724 (filed
Sept. 5, 2014); Sept. Hr’g Tr. 48, 290, U.S. Rail Serv.
Issues, EP 724 (Sept. 4, 2014).
2 On motion of Canadian Pacific Railway
Company, the Board modified the Interim Data
Order by decision served on February 23, 2016, to
allow it to discontinue reporting data related to the
Rapid City, Pierre & Eastern Railroad, Inc.

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

27069

different approaches were due primarily
to the railroads’ disparate data-keeping
systems, different railroad operating
practices, and/or unintended
ambiguities in certain requests. Certain
railroads also departed from the Board’s
prescribed reporting in order to
maintain consistency with their own
weekly data runs and analyses. For the
most part, however, railroads made
reasonable efforts to respond to each
request, substituting analogous data
when the precise information requested
could not readily be derived.
The weekly filings have allowed the
Board and its stakeholders to monitor
the industry’s performance and have
allowed the Board to develop baseline
data. Based on the Board’s experience
with the reporting to date, and as
expressly contemplated in the Interim
Data Order, the Board proposed new
regulations for permanent reporting by
the members of the Class I railroad
industry and the CTCO, through its
Class I members. See U.S. Rail Serv.
Issues—Performance Data Reporting, EP
724 (Sub-No. 4) (STB served Dec. 30,
2014) (80 FR 473, January 6, 2015)
(NPR).
The proposed reporting requirements
in the NPR include many of the requests
contained in the Interim Data Order.
The NPR proposes nine weekly metrics
that would apply to Class I railroads: (1)
System average train speed; (2) weekly
average terminal dwell time; (3) weekly
average cars online; (4) weekly average
dwell time at origin or interchange; (5)
weekly total number of loaded and
empty trains held short of destination or
scheduled interchange; (6) daily average
number of loaded and empty cars
operating in normal movement which
have not moved in specified periods of
time; (7) weekly total number of grain
cars loaded and billed, by State; (8) total
overdue car orders, average days late,
total new orders in the past week, total
orders filled in the past week, and
number of orders cancelled in the past
week; and (9) weekly total coal unit
train loadings or carloadings by region.
The NPR also proposes metrics
pertaining to service in Chicago as well
as reporting on major rail infrastructure
projects. The NPR proposes to exempt
Kansas City Southern Railway Company
from filing state-specific information in
response to Requests Nos. 7 and 8, due
to the nature of its grain business and
its very limited number of customers in
a small number of states in its service
territory.
Following receipt of comments in
response to the NPR, the Board issued
an order announcing that it would
waive its ex parte communications rules
in order to allow Board staff to hold

E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM

05MYP1

27070

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules

ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

meetings with interested parties to
develop a more complete record with
regard to technical issues in this
proceeding. See U.S. Rail Serv. Issues—
Performance Data Reporting (Waiver
Decision), EP 724 (Sub-No. 4) (STB
served Nov. 9, 2015). As a result of the
comments and meetings, the Board is
issuing this SNPR to revise the proposed
rule. A summary of the proposed
changes are outlined in Table 1 in
Appendix A of this decision.
We will address one preliminary issue
before summarizing the comments and
explaining our proposed revisions to the
NPR.
Preliminary Matter
On November 30, 2015, practitioners
Thomas F. McFarland and Gordon P.
MacDougall petitioned the Board to
reconsider its Waiver Decision.
McFarland and MacDougall had not
previously participated in this
proceeding, but assert an interest in
future performance metrics in their roles
as counsel before the Board. (Pet. 2.)
They assert that the Waiver Decision is
a departure from long-standing rules
and that the Board does not have the
authority to waive its prohibition
against ex parte communication. (Pet. 3,
9) Alternatively, McFarland and
MacDougall argue that the Board did not
render findings adequate to waive its
rules, citing 49 U.S.C. 10502, the statute
dealing with the Board’s exemption
power. (Pet. 11.)
On December 21, 2015, AAR filed a
reply to the petition, arguing that the
Waiver Decision complies with the
Board’s rules and all governing law.
(AAR Reply 3, Dec. 21, 2015.) AAR
states that although the Board’s rules do
generally prohibit ex parte
communications, they also contemplate
the Board’s authority to waive those
rules. AAR also cites the Board’s
regulations at 49 CFR 1100.3, pursuant
to which the Board is to construe its
rules liberally ‘‘to secure just, speedy
and inexpensive determination of the
issues presented.’’ (AAR Reply 3, Dec.
21, 2015.)
Under 49 U.S.C. 1322(c) 3 and 49 CFR
1115.3(b), the Board will grant a petition
for reconsideration only upon a showing
that the prior action: (1) Will be affected
materially because of new evidence or
changed circumstances; or (2) involves
material error. Allegheny Valley R.R.—
Pet. for Declaratory Order, FD 35239,
slip op. at 3 (STB served July 16, 2013).
The Board finds that McFarland and
MacDougall did not allege new evidence
or changed circumstances and failed to
3 Formerly 49 U.S.C. 721. See Public Law 114–
110, 3(a)(5), 129 Stat. 2228, 2228.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:43 May 04, 2016

Jkt 238001

demonstrate material error in the Waiver
Decision.
The Board was well within its powers
to hold individual meetings with
interested parties in this proceeding. As
stated in the Waiver Decision, slip op.
at 2, the Board may waive its regulation
on ex parte communication in
appropriate proceedings. The Board is
entitled to discretion in administering
its own procedural rules as it deems
necessary to resolve urgent
transportation problems. See Am. Farm
Lines v. Black Ball Freight Serv., 397
U.S. 532, 539 (1970) (citing the wellestablished proposition that ‘‘[i]t is
always within the discretion of a court
or an administrative agency to relax or
modify its procedural rules adopted for
the orderly transaction of business
before it when in a given case the ends
of justice require it.’’). Likewise, there is
no basis for the claim that the Board
must justify a waiver of its rules by
satisfying the exemption standards of 49
U.S.C. 10502, which applies to
exemptions from statutory provisions,
not Board regulations. Furthermore, the
argument that the Board’s ex parte
prohibition arose from 1962
recommendations by the Administrative
Conference of the United States (ACUS)
is outdated. In 2014, ACUS reaffirmed a
1977 recommendation against a general
prohibition on ex parte communications
in informal rulemakings.4 Its recent
recommendation reaffirmed its view
that:
Ex parte communications, which may be
oral or written, convey a variety of benefits
to both agencies and the public. . . . These
meetings can facilitate a more candid and
potentially interactive dialogue of key issues
and may satisfy the natural desire of
interested persons to feel heard. In addition,
if an agency engages in rulemaking in an area
that implicates sensitive information, ex
parte communications may be an
indispensable avenue for agencies to obtain
the information necessary to develop sound,
workable policies.
‘‘Ex Parte’’ Communications in Informal
Rulemaking Proceedings, 79 FR 35988, 35994
(June 25, 2014).

The purpose of the Board’s Waiver
Decision is consistent with the reasons
suggested by ACUS, in particular, to
4 The

1977 recommendation states:
A general prohibition applicable to all agencies
against the receipt of private oral or written
communications is undesirable, because it would
deprive agencies of the flexibility needed to fashion
rulemaking procedures appropriate to the issues
involved, and would introduce a degree of formality
that would, at least in most instances, result in
procedures that are unduly complicated, slow and
expensive, and, at the same time, perhaps not
conducive to developing all relevant information.
Ex parte Communications in Informal
Rulemaking Proceedings, 42 FR 54251, 54253 (Oct.
5, 1977).

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

fashion procedures for informal
rulemakings appropriate to the issues
involved. The Waiver Decision also
provided safeguards to ensure fairness
and accessibility to parties. The Board
put in place measures that permitted
any interested party the opportunity to
meet with Board staff, to review the
substance of comments made in the
individual meetings by reading
summaries of the meetings posted on
the Board’s Web site, and to comment
in response to the information
contained in the meeting summaries.
Accordingly, there is no basis for
McFarland and MacDougall’s claims of
material error in the decision.5 The
Petition for Reconsideration will be
denied.
Discussion of Comments and
Supplemental Proposed Rules
The following parties provided
comments in this proceeding, either in
the form of written submissions or oral
comments during the ex parte meetings
that were then summarized and posted
by the Board, or both:
Alliance for Rail Competition et al.
(ARC); American Chemistry Council
(ACC); Association of American
Railroads (AAR); BASF Corporation
(BASF); BNSF Railway Company
(BNSF); Canadian Pacific Railway
Company (CP); Chicago Metropolitan
Agency for Planning (CMAP); CSX
Transportation, Inc. (CSXT); Freight Rail
Customer Alliance (FRCA); High Road
Consulting, Ltd. (HRC); Kansas City
Southern Railway Company (KCS);
Thomas F. McFarland and Gordon P.
MacDougall (McFarland and
MacDougall); National Grain and Feed
Association (NGFA); National Industrial
Transportation League (NITL); Norfolk
Southern Railway Company (NSR);
South Dakota Corn Growers Association
(SDCGA); The Fertilizer Institute (TFI);
Texas Trading and Transportation
Services, LLC, et al. (TTMS); The
Honorable John Thune, Chairman,
Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation (Senator
Thune); Union Pacific Railway
Company (UP); U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA); U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT); and Western
Coal Traffic League, et al. (WCTL).
In response to the NPR and the
invitation for stakeholder meetings, the
Board received a significant volume of
comments and proposals from
stakeholders. We have carefully
5 Procedurally, the petition was not timely. The
Waiver Decision stated that individual meetings
would take place between November 16, 2015, and
December 7, 2015; the meetings began on November
19, 2015. McFarland and MacDougall did not file
their petition until November 30, 2015.

E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM

05MYP1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
reviewed those comments and meeting
summaries in order to identify both
general themes regarding service
reporting and better technical methods
for collecting information. We now
propose revised rules that we believe
will be more helpful to the agency and
the public.
The NPR’s proposal covers a broad set
of railroad service metrics derived
largely from the Interim Data Order
requests, along with definitions and
requirements governing those metrics.6
Below we generally summarize the
comments received on the NPR, and we
explain the changes now proposed in
this SNPR. Although not all comments
and recommendations have been
adopted in the SNPR, we have worked
to carefully consider the many
comments, written and oral, that
comprise this docket.

ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Reporting Week and Timing
The NPR defines the reporting week
as Sunday to Saturday with reports due
the following Tuesday.
Railroad Interests. The railroad
interests generally request a Saturday
through Friday reporting week. While
several railroads support a Friday filing
deadline, others would be amenable to
maintaining the Interim Data Order’s
Wednesday deadline. (AAR Comments
18, March 2, 2015; NSR Comments 3–
4, March 2, 2015; UP Comments 8–9,
March 2, 2015; NSR Mtg. Summary 1;
BNSF Mtg. Summary 3; UP Mtg.
Summary 6.) CSXT requests that each
carrier be permitted to define its own
reporting week. (CSXT Comments 4,
March 2, 2015.) CSXT also requests that
the Board allow 12 months for the
railroads to comply with any new data
requirements. (Id. at 7.)
Shipper Interests and Other
Stakeholders. No comments provided.
Revised Proposal. The Board proposes
to modify the reporting week and day,
as suggested by the railroad interests.
Railroads advise that for internal data
reporting and the reports made to AAR
on a weekly basis, their reporting week
runs from 12:01 a.m. Saturday through
11:59 p.m. Friday. They suggest that
modifying the reporting week would
require them to establish parallel
reporting systems, which would be
duplicative and potentially lead to
confusion. They also stated that they
have adopted processes to facilitate
reporting under the Interim Data Order,
which would be disrupted by the
modification proposed in the NPR. The
6 With regard to Requests Nos. 7 and 8, KCS was
not required to report information by State, but
instead only system-wide data. See NPR, slip op. at
7.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:43 May 04, 2016

Jkt 238001

railroads also stress that having to
submit the weekly reports to the Board
on Tuesday would not allow sufficient
time to review, process, and qualitycheck the data. Although several suggest
a Friday reporting day, there was no
opposition to maintaining the Interim
Data Order’s Wednesday reporting day.
Shippers and other stakeholders voice
no objection to the reporting week
proposed here, or the Wednesday
reporting day, and neither affects the
substantive value of the data collected.
Therefore, the Board proposes that the
reporting day will be Wednesday for the
preceding reporting week, measured
from 12:01 a.m. Saturday through 11:59
p.m. Friday.
Definition of Unit Train
The NPR defined unit train as
comprising 50 or more railcars of the
same or similar type, carrying a single
commodity in bulk.
Railroad Interests. AAR and several
railroads request clarification of the
definition of ‘‘unit train’’ as used in the
NPR. (AAR Comments 17, March 2,
2015; BNSF Comments 10, March 2,
2015; CSXT Comments 5–6, March 2,
2015; NSR Comments 4, March 2, 2015;
UP Comments 9–10, March 2, 2015;
AAR Mtg. Summary 2.) AAR explains
that the proposed definition of unit train
‘‘would divorce service reporting from
how railroads and their customers think
about shipments in a commercial sense’’
and suggests that the Board instead rely
on each railroad’s unit train
designations. (AAR Comments 17,
March 2, 2015.) Similarly, UP argues
that the definition should focus on the
nature of the railroad’s operation
instead of the number of carloads in a
train, which, it states, would align with
how it does business. (UP Comments 11,
March 2, 2015.) In response to the
Interim Data Order, UP states that it
relies on its train-category symbols to
identify and classify trains, not the
number of cars in a train. (Id. at 10–11.)
UP also argues that the Board should
substitute the term ‘‘trainload’’ for unit
train. UP asserts that unit train implies
a shuttle-type service and that using
trainload would better reflect the
diversity of movement types for bulk
trains in non-manifest service. (Id. at
11–12.)
Shipper Interests and Other
Stakeholders. Shippers and other
stakeholders generally agree that the
definition of a unit train should be
clarified. (NGFA Mtg. Summary 1–2;
HRC Comments 4, Dec. 23, 2015.) NGFA
states that it may be appropriate for each
railroad to provide its own definition at
the outset of reporting. (NGFA Mtg.
Summary 2.)

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

27071

Revised Proposal. The Board proposes
to withdraw the proposed definition of
‘‘unit train.’’ Based on written
comments and individual meetings with
stakeholders, we believe that a static
definition of ‘‘unit train’’ for the service
metric reporting could distort data
reporting. Instead, the Board believes
that the better course of action for
service metric reporting here is to allow
railroads to report unit train data based
on how train symbols (or codes) are
assigned in accordance with each
railroad’s operating practices.
Requests No. 1 (Train Speed), No. 2
(Terminal Dwell Time), and No. 3 (Cars
Online)
Request No. 1 seeks system-average
train speed, measured for line-haul
movements between terminals and
calculated by dividing total train-miles
by total hours operated for: (a)
Intermodal; (b) grain unit; (c) coal unit;
(d) automotive unit; (e) crude oil unit;
(f) ethanol unit; (g) manifest; and (h) all
other. Request No. 2 asks for weekly
average terminal dwell time, the average
time a car resides at a specified terminal
location expressed in hours, excluding
cars on run-through trains (i.e., cars that
arrive at, and depart from, a terminal on
the same through train) for the carrier’s
system, as well as its 10 largest
terminals in terms of railcars processed.
Request No. 3 also seeks weekly average
cars on line by the following car types
for the reporting week: (a) Box; (b)
covered hopper; (c) gondola; (d)
intermodal; (e) multilevel (automotive);
(f) open hopper; (g) tank; (h) other; and
(i) total.
Railroad Interests. The railroads do
not oppose these data requests.
Specifically, they note that the data
sought in Requests Nos. 1–3
corresponds with data that six Class I
railroads already make publicly
available on a weekly basis through the
AAR. (AAR Comments 8, 12, March 2,
2015; UP Comments 12, March 2, 2015.)
They argue that Request Nos. 1–3, with
the potential addition of a weekly
carloadings metric would be sufficient
to monitor overall network fluidity. (CP
Comments 2, March 2, 2015; NSR
Comments 2, March 2, 2015; UP
Comments 4, 12, March 2, 2015.)
Additionally, the railroads provide
the Board with weekly carloading traffic
reports covering 20 carload commodity
categories and the two intermodal
service types. (AAR Comments 13,
March 2, 2015.) AAR asserts that this
and other ‘‘available information and
public metrics indicated to the Board
early on that service was being
disrupted and allowed the Board to
focus on the relevant issues it needed to

E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM

05MYP1

27072

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules

ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

monitor’’ during the 2013–14 service
disruptions. (Id. at 13.) AAR states that
the Board should continue to monitor
this information. (Id.) UP also suggests
adding a system-average train speed
component to Request No. 1 for all
trains. (UP Comments 4, March 2, 2015.)
Shipper Interests and Other
Stakeholders. For Request No. 1, NGFA
would expand the ‘‘grain unit’’ train
category to include five subcategories.
(NGFA Comments 6, March 2, 2015.)
For Request No. 2, it would require that
dwell times be broken down into four
traffic categories. (Id.) BASF notes that
the weekly average dwell time for each
carrier’s 10 largest terminals is a critical
measurement; it uses the data to alter its
production and movement. (BASF Mtg.
Summary 1.) For Request No. 3, NGFA
requests that the Board require carriers
to delineate ‘‘tank cars’’ by cars used to
haul hazmat and non-hazmat materials.
(NGFA Comments 6, March 2, 2015.)
NGFA also requests that the metric
include a weekly summary of cars that
are industry-placed (i.e., cars placed at
industry for loading or unloading). (Id.)
Revised Proposal. For Request No. 1,
the Board proposes to cure an omission
from both the Interim Data Order and
the NPR by adding an overall ‘‘system’’
component to the reporting of average
train speeds. This would align the
request with railroads’ current AAR
reporting. Additionally, we propose to
add a line item for unit train shipments
of fertilizer to this request in order to
better monitor service issues with regard
to this commodity, which emerged as a
critical issue during 2013–14.7 Since
fertilizer moves in both manifest and
unit train service, the Board requests
that parties comment on whether a
sufficient volume of fertilizer moves in
unit train service to make this request
meaningful for the agency to monitor
rail service to fertilizer shippers.8
For purposes of incorporating
fertilizer shipments into this request,
and additional requests, below, the
Board seeks input from stakeholders as
to the relevant Standard Transportation
Commodity Codes (STCCs) for fertilizers
moving by rail, including those that
typically move in unit train service.
Initially, the Board proposes the
following STCCs: 14–7XX–XX, 28–125–
7 For the same reasons, we are also proposing
changes to Requests Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 6 to add
fertilizer reporting.
8 Although requests 1–3 are currently reported to
AAR by six of the seven Class I railroads, and AAR
makes this data publicly available, this reporting to
AAR is voluntary. In the event that AAR changed
its practices, the Board would lose access to this
information, which is not otherwise available.
Additionally, the data that AAR makes available to
the public does not extend beyond the previous 53
weeks.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:43 May 04, 2016

Jkt 238001

XX, 28–18X–XX, 28–19X–XX, 28–71X–
XX, and 49–18X–XX.
For Requests No. 2 and No. 3, the
Board proposes to retain these requests
as proposed in the NPR. Terminal dwell
and cars online are key indicators of
railroad fluidity, and the requests mirror
data that the Class I railroads report to
AAR. Both railroad and shipper
interests support the retention of these
items. With respect to these and other
requests, the Board addresses
commenters’ arguments for greater or
lesser granularity below.
Request No. 4 (Dwell Time at Origin or
Interchange—Unit Train)
This metric seeks weekly average
dwell time at origin or interchange
location for loaded unit train shipments
sorted by grain, coal, automotive, crude
oil, ethanol, and all other unit trains.
Railroad Interests. The railroads
contend that the information required
by this request would not provide
additional insight, would be
burdensome for the railroads to collect,
and would not provide added benefits
to the public or the Board. (AAR
Comments 14–15, March 2, 2015.) UP
argues that the value of the data
provided by the metric would be
questionable because it does not
account for operational differences
between unit train shipments of
different commodities on a single
railroad or between different railroads.
(UP Comments 3, 12–13, March 2,
2015.) UP contends that any
comparisons would therefore be
misleading because they would more
likely reflect these operational
differences than performance issues.
(Id.) UP also opposes the addition of the
interchange component. It explains that
adding a measure of dwell time at
interchange is problematic because of
complex interchange arrangements
between carriers and differences in how
carriers measure elapsed time between
two events such as when each carrier
considers a train to be released and
available, and because it could result in
data that do not reflect actual service
performance. (UP Comments 3, 14–15,
March 2, 2015.)
UP suggests normalizing, or
standardizing, the data by presenting it
in relation to the size and volume of
each railroad rather than absolute
values. UP argues that this would
prevent misleading comparisons
between railroads, avoid creating
unjustified concerns, and allow the
Board and stakeholders to develop a
more meaningful baseline. (Id. at 6.)
Shipper Interests and Other
Stakeholders. WCTL, NGFA, and BASF
all request that the Board add detail to

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

this metric. NGFA argues that reporting
by additional commodity type should be
required. (NGFA Comments 7, March 2,
2015.) It recommends including
destination dwell time in this metric.
(Id.) NGFA also recommends requiring
‘‘the weekly percentage of a rail carrier’s
local service design plan that has been
fulfilled for all manifest traffic, broken
down by business traffic category.’’ (Id.)
It argues that this would capture the
actual percent of local industry switches
versus plan for the week. (Id.) WCTL
urges the Board to retain reporting of
interchange times and require carriers to
report dwell times at each railroad’s 10
largest interchange locations and at
individual interchanges for empty coal
unit trains (in addition to loaded coal
unit trains). (WCTL Comments 8, March
2, 2015; WCTL Mtg. Summary 3.) BASF
requests that this metric include
manifest trains. (BASF Mtg. Summary
2.)
Revised Proposal. For Request No. 4,
the Board proposes to delete the ‘‘at
interchange’’ component of the NPR,
which would align the request with the
Interim Data Order. This change reflects
railroads’ comments that measuring the
elapsed time at interchange would be
difficult because railroads do not
operate with a common understanding
as to when a train is considered to be
‘‘released’’ or ‘‘accepted’’ at interchange
or share common practices for
measuring elapsed time at interchange.
On further consideration, we believe
that this additional information would
not materially help the Board’s
monitoring of service performance in
light of the other data that the Board
would collect, such as dwell at origin,
terminal dwell, trains holding, and cars
that have not moved in two days or
longer.
Request No. 5 (Trains Held Short of
Destination or Interchange)
This metric seeks to capture the
weekly total number of loaded and
empty trains held short of destination or
scheduled interchange for longer than
six consecutive hours, sorted by train
type (intermodal, grain unit, coal unit,
automotive unit, crude oil unit, ethanol
unit, other unit, and all other) and by
cause (crew, locomotive power, track
maintenance, mechanical issue, or other
(with explanation)).
Railroad Interests. The railroads
contend that the information required
by this request would not provide
additional insight, would be
burdensome for the railroads to collect,
and would not provide added benefits
to the public or the Board. (AAR
Comments 14, March 2, 2015; BNSF
Comments 4, 5, 6–8, March 2, 2015.)

E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM

05MYP1

ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
BNSF points out that the NPR’s
proposed metric differs from the one in
the Interim Data Order by no longer
using the ‘‘snapshot’’ approach and
instead requiring that the railroad
identify every instance during a week in
which empty or loaded trains sit for at
least six hours. (BNSF Comments 5,
March 2, 2015.) BNSF and CSXT suggest
that eliminating the snapshot approach
would necessitate creating a new report
that would require considerable
resources and would not reflect a train
held as the term is commonly
understood in the railroad industry.
(BNSF Comments 6, March 2, 2015;
CSXT Comments 4–5, March 2, 2015.)
CSXT comments that providing the
‘‘cause’’ of a train held would be
problematic because it is subjective and
must be manually entered. (CSXT
Comments 5, March 2, 2015.) BNSF
asserts that data regarding trains held
may be misleading because a train may
be held due to factors outside the
railroad’s control, or according to plan,
and thus may not be indicative of a
service disruption. (BNSF Comments 7,
March 2, 2015.) As with Request No. 4,
UP suggests that the Board normalize
this data request to account for
differences between types of traffic and
between carriers. (UP Comments 6,
March 2, 2015.)
Shipper Interests and Other
Stakeholders. WCTL comments that the
Board should clarify the ‘‘other’’
category and require a more detailed
explanation of the causes for trains
being held. (WCTL Comments 8–9,
March 2, 2015; WCTL Mtg. Summary 3.)
ACC also requests additional
information for the underlying reasons
why trains were held. (ACC Comments
2, March 2, 2015.) NGFA suggests the
metric could be expanded to include a
breakdown of the type of train by
different commodities and unit train
service. (NGFA Comments 7, March 2,
2015.)
Revised Proposal. For Request No. 5,
the Board proposes to eliminate the sixhour component of this metric. This
modification would allow railroads to
run a same-time snapshot each day to
report the average numbers of trains
holding by train type. This approach
comports with the railroads’ current
practices for monitoring fluidity. The
Board originally proposed the six-hour
component in an effort to capture trains
holding outside of their normal
operating plan. However, the railroads
emphasized that a six-hour hold may be
consistent with a specific train’s
operating plan or a train could be
instructed to hold for six hours or longer
to alleviate congestion or otherwise
improve overall network fluidity. As

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:43 May 04, 2016

Jkt 238001

such, the Board believes that capturing
a weekly average figure should provide
insight into fluidity and allow the
agency to detect aberrations, which may
prompt further inquiry. For example, if
a railroad averages 25 coal trains
holding per day for eight consecutive
weeks, but then the number spikes to 50
or more trains for two consecutive
weeks, this could prompt the agency to
seek further information. Additionally,
we propose to add a line item for unit
train shipments of fertilizer to this
request for the reason stated above. See
supra n.7. Again, the Board requests
that parties comment on whether a
sufficient volume of fertilizer moves in
unit train service to make it meaningful
data or recommend alternative
proposals to gauge rail service to
fertilizer shippers.
With regard to reporting the cause for
why a locomotive was held, some
shipper interests advocated that we
break down the ‘‘other’’ category into
additional specific categories. (WCTL
Comments 3, March 2, 2015.) On the
other hand, railroad interests explain
that the assignment of cause is a manual
and subjective process, which is
initially performed by the dispatcher or
a field-level employee based on limited
information available at the time.
Railroad interests therefore advocate for
eliminating the reporting of causes for
trains held. (BNSF Comments 6, March
2, 2015.) Upon further consideration,
the Board believes that tracking
causation remains important, but that
the key issues for purposes of
monitoring fluidity are availability of
power and crew. Accordingly, the Board
proposes to eliminate ‘‘track
maintenance’’ and ‘‘mechanical issue’’
as categories of causes, but to retain
‘‘other’’ as a catch-all category.
Request No. 6 (Cars Held at Origin or
Destination)
This metric requires the daily average
number of loaded and empty cars,
operating in normal movement and
billed to an origin or destination, which
have not moved in (a) more than 120
hours; and (b) more than 48 hours, but
less than or equal to 120 hours, all
sorted by service type (intermodal,
grain, coal, crude oil, automotive,
ethanol, or all other).
Railroad Interests. The railroads
contend that the information required
by this request would not provide
additional insight, would be
burdensome for the railroads to collect,
and would not provide added benefits
to the public or the Board. (AAR
Comments 14, March 2, 2015; BNSF
Comments 4, 5, 6–8, March 2, 2015.)
CSXT urges the Board to limit reporting

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

27073

to yard and terminal activity because
‘‘train line of road velocity is the central
interest outside of terminals,’’ which
should be sufficient to assess train
operations (CSXT Comments 6–7,
March 2, 2015, emphasis original.)
CSXT also indicates that it was not
providing the Board with information
showing cars held for 120 hours because
it does not measure that data. (CSXT
Mtg. Summary 3.) BNSF argues that,
like a trains held metric, a cars held
metric may reflect factors outside the
railroad’s control or a car may be held
according to plan, and thus may not be
indicative of a rail service disruption.
(BNSF Comments 7, March 2, 2015.)
Shipper Interests and Other
Stakeholders. NGFA requests that the
Board require reporting by additional
commodity type. (NGFA Comments 7–
8, March 2, 2015.) BASF requests that
this metric include manifest trains.
(BASF Mtg. Summary 2.)
Revised Proposal. For Request No. 6,
the Board proposes to modify this
request by requiring railroads to report
only cars that have not moved in 48
hours or more. Both shippers and
railroads comment that the ‘‘greater than
120-hour’’ demarcation was superfluous
because stationary cars generally
become a concern at the 48 hour point,
or sooner. Moreover, several railroads
advise that they generally track this
metric, either at the 36 or 48 hour point.
By keeping the metric consistent with
how the railroads actually track this
information, the metric would not be
overly burdensome. Additionally, the
Board proposes to add a subcategory for
cars moving in fertilizer service.
Request No. 7 (Grain Cars Loaded and
Billed)
This metric seeks to capture the
weekly total number of grain cars
loaded and billed, reported by State,
and aggregated for the following STCCs:
01131 (barley), 01132 (corn), 01133
(oats), 01135 (rye), 01136 (sorghum
grains), 01137 (wheat), 01139 (grain, not
elsewhere classified), 01144 (soybeans),
01341 (beans, dry), 01342 (peas, dry),
and 01343 (cowpeas, lentils, or lupines).
It also seeks reporting on the total cars
loaded and billed in shuttle service (or
dedicated train service) versus total cars
loaded and billed in all other ordering
systems, including private cars.
Railroad Interests. The railroads
contend that the information required
by this request would not provide
additional insight, would be
burdensome for the railroads to collect,
and would not provide added benefits
to the public or the Board. (AAR
Comments 14, March 2, 2015.) AAR
argues that metrics related to grain and

E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM

05MYP1

27074

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules

ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

specific regions were triggered by the
‘‘unique economic and operational
factors that emerged during 2013–2014’’
and that there is no indication the same
focus would be warranted for a potential
future service disruption. (Id. at 15.)
AAR stresses that the Board’s focus
‘‘should be on the fluidity of the
national system’’ and that micro-level,
commodity-specific reporting may
‘‘obscure rather than clarify how a
particular railroad or . . . the rail
industry’s network as a whole is
performing.’’ (Id.)
Shipper Interests and Other
Stakeholders. NGFA requests that the
Board require reporting to be further
delineated by car type and to expand
the listing of STCCs to which the metric
applies. (NGFA Comments 8, March 2,
2015.)
Revised Proposal. For Request No. 7,
the Board does not propose any changes
to the NPR metric. This metric provides
information that is useful in monitoring
grain carloadings by service type on a
state by state basis, and would be
helpful in the event of future service
issues.
Request No. 8 (Grain Car Orders)
This metric seeks, for the same
aggregated STCCs included in Request
No. 7, a report by State for the
following: (a) The total number of
overdue car orders (a car order equals
one car; overdue means not delivered
within the delivery window); (b) the
average number of days late for all
overdue grain car orders; (c) the total
number of new orders received during
the past week; (d) the total number of
orders filled during the past week; and
(e) the number of orders cancelled,
respectively, by shipper and railroad
during the past week.
Railroad Interests. The railroads
contend that the information required
by this request would not provide
additional insight, would be
burdensome for the railroads to collect,
and would not provide added benefits
to the public or the Board. (AAR
Comments 14, March 2, 2015.) In
particular, the railroads comment that
they each have disparate commercial
practices when it comes to shipping
grain, and therefore this metric does not
provide meaningful insight. CSX refers,
in part, to car ordering through its
‘‘BidCSX’’ auction program, during peak
season, and regular car ordering during
the off-peak season. Unfilled regular car
orders are expired on a weekly basis.
(CSX Comment 4, Oct. 22, 2014, EP 724
(Sub-No. 3).) NS states that it does not
operate its grain network on the basis of
car orders, at all. (NSR Comments at 4.)
UP refers to a number of problems,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:43 May 04, 2016

Jkt 238001

including a mismatch between orders
and order ‘‘closing dates,’’ aggregating
different commercial programs into one
metric, and, more fundamentally, the
exclusion of unit train service, which is
not based on car orders. (UP Comments
18–19.)
Shipper Interests and Other
Stakeholders. NGFA states that because
railroads use different methodologies to
define when a car order is received, the
Board needs to provide a standardized
approach. (NGFA Comments 8, March 2,
2015.) NGFA asserts that this will
facilitate comparisons between
railroads. (Id.) NGFA also argues that
the Board should require reporting of
whether the railroad placed or pulled
cars that were ordered or cancelled due
to a railroad spotting more cars than a
facility requested. (Id.) Finally, NGFA
suggests that the Board require a cars
ordered metric for short line railroads
that haul significant amounts of grain in
order to avoid erroneous conclusions
about Class I carriers that interchange
with those short lines. (Id.)
Revised Proposal. For Request No. 8,
the Board seeks to continue receiving
weekly information related to railroads’
service to grain shippers, including how
well railroads are meeting demand for
grain cars and whether railroads are
experiencing substantial backlogs of
unfilled orders. However, it appears that
the proposed request does not comport
with railroads’ commercial practices in
serving their grain shipping customers.
First, Request No. 8 seeks to capture
ordering data pertaining to grain cars
moving in carload (or manifest) service,
yet the vast majority of grain traffic
moves in unit train service (and as such,
is captured elsewhere by other
requests). And even for those cars that
do move in unit train service, the unit
train commercial offerings available to
customers vary among carriers. For
example, some railroads commit
trainsets to specific customers for a
defined period of time. During that
period, the customers control the
movement of their trainsets, and,
depending on the commercial terms,
can resell the trainsets to other shippers.
The activity of these trainsets is not
captured in the railroads’ car ordering
systems and thus would not be easily
reportable for purposes of this metric.
In addition, even for grain cars that do
move in carload service, the focus of
Request No. 8 still would not properly
capture the car ordering data the Board
intends to seek in the NPR, as railroads
also maintain disparate ordering
systems for carload shipments.
Specifically, there is no uniformity
among the Class Is as to how the
number of new orders is derived, when

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

an order becomes past due, or how to
measure the number of days an order is
overdue. (NSR Comments 4, March 2,
2015; UP Comments 18–19, March 2,
2015; CSXT Comments 4, Oct. 22, 2014,
EP 724 (Sub-No. 3).)
Accordingly, the Board proposes a
simpler approach by asking that
railroads report running totals of grain
car orders placed versus grain car orders
filled by State for cars moving in
manifest service. The Board also
requests that the railroads report the
number of unfilled orders that are 1–10
days overdue and 11+ days overdue, as
measured from the due date for
placement under the carrier’s governing
tariff. However, the Board expressly
requests comments from stakeholders
and railroads that would refine this
metric regarding grain car order
fulfillment so that the final rule will
best achieve the Board’s goal to
effectively monitor service to grain
shippers.
Request No. 9 (Coal Carloadings)
Under Request No. 9, railroads would
no longer be required to provide data
comparing actual coal loadings against
their service plans (as required by the
Interim Data Order), but instead, to
report the total number of coal unit train
loadings (by production region) on a
weekly basis.
Railroad Interests. The railroads
contend that the information required
by this request would not provide
additional insight, would be
burdensome for the railroads to collect,
and would not provide added benefits
to the public or the Board. (AAR
Comments 14, March 2, 2015.) In
response to arguments from parties
asking the Board to return to a
performance versus plan component,
several railroads noted that plans for
coal loadings are not static, but rather
are fluid, reflecting utility customers’
generation decisions, conditions at the
mine, equipment availability,
unplanned outages, and commercial
issues, among other factors. (UP Reply
8, April 29, 2015; NSR Mtg. Summary
1; BNSF Mtg. Summary 4.)
Shipper Interests and Other
Stakeholders. WCTL argues for the
Board to continue using the
performance versus plan component
that is used in the Interim Data Order.
WCTL states that the elimination of the
comparison to plan in the NPR
diminishes the usefulness of the data
point by making it difficult to evaluate
whether the railroads are keeping up
with demand. (WCTL Comments 9,
March 2, 2015; WCTL Mtg. Summary 3.)
NGFA again requests that the Board
require reporting by additional

E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM

05MYP1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
commodity and traffic categories.
(NGFA Comments 8–9, March 2, 2015.)
NGFA also requests that the Board
require reporting on velocity and cycle
time by corridor for grains and oilseeds
shipped by unit train and by relevant
corridor for other commodities that ship
by unit train. (Id. at 9.)
Revised Proposal. For Request No. 9,
the Board proposes to modify this
request by reverting back to what is
currently reported in the Interim Data
Order, which requires railroads to report
actual coal loadings against their service
plan. Railroads would be permitted the
flexibility to report in terms of carloads
or trains. The Board recognizes the
concerns railroads have regarding this
request, given the numerous factors
involved in developing fluid monthly or
weekly loading plans for coal traffic.9
The Board believes, however, that there
is value in having coal loadings reported
against plan for purposes of ascertaining
whether railroads are meeting their own
expectations regarding the needs of their
utility customers.

ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

New Requests No. 10 (Grain Unit Train
Performance), No. 11 (Originated
Carloads by Commodity Group), and
No. 12 (Car Order Fulfillment Rate by
Car Type)
The Board proposes three additional
metrics not included in the NPR.
New Request No. 10 would continue
a requirement in the Interim Data Order
under which BNSF and CP report
average grain shuttle (or dedicated grain
train) trips per month (TPM), by region.
Under Request No. 10 carriers would be
required to include this data in their
first report of each month, covering the
previous calendar month.10 TPM should
be reported on an average basis—for
example, if a particular train set makes
three origin to destination moves and
another train set makes five origin to
destination moves during the same
calendar month, the railroad’s average
would be four TPM. Class I railroads
other than BNSF and CP have indicated
that their operations do not permit this
reporting, for various reasons.11
9 These factors include customer demand, mine
production and capacity, railroad fluidity and
resource availability, and contractual commitments.
10 We note that BNSF has been reporting this data
broken out by week; BNSF may continue to do so,
if it chooses, but it would only be required to report
figures for the previous calendar month.
11 See, e.g., UP Comments 2, Oct. 22, 2014, EP 724
(Sub-No. 3) (‘‘Item 9 asks for data on ‘plan versus
performance’ for round trips on grain shuttle trains
by region. Union Pacific cannot comply with this
request because it does not have a ‘plan’ for round
trips on grain shuttles. As more fully explained in
Union Pacific’s filings in Ex Parte 665 (Sub-No. 1),
movement of our shuttle trains is determined by our
customers, not by Union Pacific.’’); CSXT
Comments 4, Oct. 22, 2014, EP 724 (Sub-No. 3)

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:43 May 04, 2016

Jkt 238001

Accordingly, the Board anticipates
issuing a waiver decision with the final
rules that would permit other Class I
railroads to satisfy their obligations
under Request No. 10 by reporting
average grain unit train TPM for their
total system, including this data in their
first report of each month, covering the
previous calendar month. Such reports
would not include planned TPM or data
by region. For purposes of reporting
under this item, other Class I railroads
would report for all grain unit train
movements, regardless of whether or not
they maintain a grain shuttle or
dedicated train program.
New Request No. 11 would require
the Class I railroads to report weekly
originated carloads by major commodity
group and intermodal units, as proposed
by multiple Class I railroads. The Board
believes that having this information on
a weekly basis will better allow it to
track demand and volume growth or
decline on the rail network and to
correlate other metrics. The Class I
railroads presently report this
information to AAR and many make it
available on their Web sites.
Consequently, the reporting burden is
minimal. However, the Board also
proposes that the railroads break out an
additional commodity category for
‘‘fertilizer.’’ As noted above, the Board
seeks stakeholder guidance on the
primary fertilizer STCCs.
New Request No. 12 would require
Class I railroads to report their weekly
car order fulfillment rates by major car
type. Fulfillment should be stated as a
percentage of cars due to be placed
during the reporting week versus cars
actually or constructively placed. The
car types to be reported are for railroad
owned or leased open hoppers, covered
hoppers, gondolas, auto racks, centerbeam, boxcars, flatcars, and tank cars.
The Board believes that this request will
provide the agency with an
understanding of railroads’ service to
broad classes of industries which
routinely ship products via specific car
types (for example, grain moves
primarily in covered hopper cars, so
looking at the car fulfillment rates for
covered hopper cars would give grain
shippers some indication of how their
service compares to other grain
shippers). Additionally, this request
would allow railroad customers to
monitor their order fulfillment against
their broader peer group.
(‘‘CSX grain trains do not operate as a ‘shuttle’ nor
do they operate in ‘loops’ between origins and
destinations. As requested by the customer, a trainset will be placed and will be transported to
destination anywhere on CSX, or to a CSX interline
connection. CSX does not recognize sub-regions
within its service territory.’’)

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

27075

Chicago
The NPR asks that the Class I
railroads operating at the Chicago
gateway jointly report the following
performance data elements for the
reporting week: (1) Average daily car
volume in the following Chicago area
yards: Barr, Bensenville, Blue Island,
Calumet, Cicero, Clearing, Corwith,
Gibson, Kirk, Markham, and Proviso for
the reporting week; and (2) average
daily number of trains held for delivery
to Chicago sorted by receiving carrier for
the reporting week. Moreover, the
request required Class I railroad
members of the CTCO to provide certain
information regarding the CTCO Alert
Level status and protocols.
Railroad Interests. CP argues that
obtaining a number of operating metrics
from the Belt Railway Company of
Chicago (BRC) and the Indiana Harbor
Belt Railroad (IHB) would provide a
more complete picture of operational
fluidity in Chicago and the health of the
network. (CP Comments 3, March 2,
2015.) CP elaborated that, given the
experience in the winter of 2013–14, it
recognizes that the Board has a
legitimate interest in understanding the
congestion in Chicago and that BRC and
IHB are the heart of the Chicago
terminal. CP added that reporting
changes in the Chicago terminal’s
operating level is useful. (CP Mtg.
Summary 2).
Shipper Interests and Other
Stakeholders. Shippers and
stakeholders generally agree that a focus
on Chicago is important. (NITL
Comments 4, March 2, 2015; USDOT
Reply 7; WCTL Comments 7 n.6, March
2, 2015.) NITL suggests that the Board
include dwell time in the Chicago
metrics and develop appropriate and
specific metrics for BRC and IHB. (NITL
Comments 4–5, March 2, 2015.) NGFA
suggests that the Board expand the
Chicago data to include cars idled for
more than 48 hours in a Chicago area
yard for origin, destination, and
interchange traffic. (NGFA Comments 9,
March 2, 2015.) CMAP made a number
of requests for additional data specific
to the Chicago terminal. (CMAP Mtg.
Summary 1–2.)
Revised Proposal. As the Board noted
in the Interim Data Order, railroads
cited congestion in Chicago as one
significant cause of network service
problems. While congestion in the area
was particularly acute during the winter
of 2013–14, it has been a recurring
problem at this crucial network hub.
Chicago is an important hub in national
rail operations, and extreme congestion
there has an impact on rail service in
the Upper Midwest and beyond. Most

E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM

05MYP1

27076

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules

ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

participants either endorse the current
reporting of Chicago metrics or did not
provide comments. However, CMAP
and CP propose to significantly augment
the granularity of reporting. For
example, CMAP suggests that the Board
require reporting of speed and transit
times for federally supported Chicago
Region Environmental and
Transportation Efficiency Program
corridors, including information on
train length, crosstown transit times
through the Chicago terminal, and the
number of intermodal container lifts at
key Chicago terminals. (CMAP Mtg.
Summary 1–2.) CP, in turn, suggests that
the Board should request from BRC and
IHB weekly reports including: The
number of cars arrived per day; number
of cars humped or processed per day;
number of cars re-humped or
reprocessed per day; number of cars
pulled per day, number of trains
departed each day by railroad; average
terminal dwell; average departure yard
dwell; and percentage of trains departed
on-time each day by railroad. (CP
Comments 3, March 2, 2015.)
The Board appreciates the
recommendations provided by CMAP
and CP to further augment the Board’s
monitoring of the Chicago gateway.
Therefore, we invite comment on how
such reporting could be provided by the
BRC and IHB with the least amount of
burden to these carriers. We also seek
views on whether such reporting would
be better handled on a temporary basis
in the event of an emerging service
issue.
Infrastructure Reporting
The NPR requires that each Class I
railroad, on a quarterly basis, report on
major work-in-progress rail
infrastructure projects, including
location by State, planned completion
date for each project, percentage
complete for each project at the time of
reporting, and project description and
purpose.
Railroad Interests. AAR and several
railroads request clarification of the
terms ‘‘project,’’ ‘‘qualifying projects,’’
‘‘project purpose,’’ ‘‘percentage
complete,’’ ‘‘maintenance-of-way,’’ and
‘‘planned completion date.’’ (AAR
Comments 17–18, March 2, 2015; BNSF
Comments 10–12, March 2, 2015; UP
Comments 19–20, March 2, 2015.) They
also submit that the Board should
consider altering the infrastructure
request to an annual narrative report
and periodic updates. (AAR Comments
17–18, March 2, 2015; BNSF Comments
10, March 2, 2015; AAR Mtg. Summary
2.) UP argues that limiting the projects
on which the railroad must report
would reduce repetition between

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:43 May 04, 2016

Jkt 238001

reports and relieve some burden on the
reporting railroads. (UP Comments 20,
March 2, 2015.) UP also states that the
proposed reporting date (the first
Tuesday of each quarter) often falls
before the date it closes its books and
suggests the third Tuesday of each
quarter to avoid this problem. (Id. at 21.)
CP opposes providing project-specific
information or requirements that could
inhibit the railroad’s ability to adjust its
capital spending decisions. (CP
Comments 4, March 2, 2015.)
Shipper Interests and Other
Stakeholders. WCTL suggests that the
Board review planned infrastructure
projects with an eye toward meeting
long-term common carrier obligations.
(WCTL Comments 10, March 2, 2015.)
BASF considers the requirement
reasonable and valuable. (BASF Mtg.
Summary 2.)
Revised Proposal. The Board proposes
to significantly modify the previously
proposed version of 1250.3(d), which
seeks information related to major
infrastructure projects. As the railroads
point out, much of the information
called for in this request is available to
the public through presentations to
investors, outreach at industry
conferences, in marketing materials, in
trade press and media reports, and
through financial filings. To the extent
that reporting of this information would
allow the Board to identify congestion
or service issues arising from major
infrastructure projects, railroads also
point out that their customers are
typically made aware of potential
disruptions and traffic delays through
regular email updates and information
available on railroad Web sites, which
describe maintenance and capital
projects in real-time or near real-time.
Some railroads also raise confidentiality
and competitive concerns about
reporting on customer-specific projects
and long term strategic projects such as
land acquisitions. (BNSF Comments 11,
March 2, 2015.) Railroads also object to
this request, asserting that many of the
terms, such as ‘‘planned completion
date,’’ ‘‘percentage complete,’’ and
‘‘project description and purpose’’ are
subjective and ambiguous. As an
alternative, railroads suggest that this
information could be provided to the
Board through the Chairman’s annual
‘‘Peak Season’’ letter or in another
manner that would not subject them to
additional regulatory obligations.
Based on the comments received, this
request is being revised to require
annually a description of significant rail
infrastructure projects that will be
commenced during the current calendar
year, and a six-month update on those
projects. Railroads are instructed to

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

respond in a narrative form to briefly
describe each project, its purpose,
location, and projected date of
completion. Reports are to be filed on
March 1 of each year and updated on
September 1. The Board proposes to
define a significant project as one with
a budget of $75 million or more. Our
goal is to establish a dollar figure
threshold that captures significant
projects for all six of the Class I carriers,
recognizing variations in size and
capital budgets. Parties should comment
on whether a different threshold is more
appropriate.
Other Recommendations
Railroad Interests. AAR and many of
the Class I railroads argue that the NPR
is overbroad and should be streamlined
to include fewer and less granular
metrics. They state that more granular
metrics may not be helpful in the long
run as an indicator of carrier
performance. (AAR Comments 1, 9–10,
15, March 2, 2015; CSXT Comments 3–
4, March 2, 2015; UP Comments 3,
March 2, 2015.) They argue that too
much granularity may obscure
information showing how a railroad or
the industry is performing and that the
focus should be on the fluidity of the
national system. (AAR Comments 15,
March 2, 2015; BNSF Comments 4–5,
March 2, 2015; CP Comments 1–2,
March 2, 2015; UP Comments 3–5,
March 2, 2015.) As an alternative to
permanent granular reporting, NSR
argues that commodity- or regionspecific reporting should be used in
response to performance issues and then
be phased out as performance improves.
(NSR Comments 2–3, March 2, 2015.)
The railroad interests also assert that
the Board must examine service issues
within the context of the entire supply
chain. (CP Comments 1–2, March 2,
2015; UP Comments 1, March 2, 2015;
UP Reply 3–4, 4–6.) They argue that
factors throughout the supply chain can
cause or compound rail service issues.
As such, they argue, a railroad’s
responsibility for service problems may
be limited, in any given situation. (CP
Comments 2, March 2, 2015.)
The railroads emphasize that they
currently provide considerable service
information to their customers, the
public, and the Board on their Web sites
and through the AAR. They argue that
the existing information allows the
Board and the public to monitor service
issues, performance, and system
fluidity. (AAR Comments 12–13, March
2, 2015; UP Comments 7–8, March 2,
2015; BNSF Reply 2.)
UP states that a data reporting rule is
not necessary for the Board to perform
its functions properly. (UP Comments

E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM

05MYP1

ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
21, March 2, 2015.) AAR cautions that
ongoing data collection should be
limited to information that is necessary
for the Board to properly perform its
statutory responsibilities. (AAR
Comments 9, March 2, 2015.) It states
that because of the Board’s limited
authority to remedy certain service
disruptions, many of the costs and
burdens outweigh the benefits of the
NPR. (Id. at 10.) CSXT advocates for
creating a voluntary set of rules,
asserting that a flexible, voluntary
framework would suffice for the
information the Board seeks and it
would also reduce the burden to the
railroads. (CSXT Comments 3–4, 7,
March 2, 2015.)
Finally, AAR and the railroads
expressed concern about parties’ use of
the data to make comparisons between
railroads, commodity groups, or
geographic regions. (AAR Comments 15,
March 2, 2015; CSXT Comments 3–4,
March 2, 2015; UP Reply 6–7, March 2,
2015; KCS Mtg. Summary 1; UP Mtg.
Summary 1.) They contend that
different commodities and customer
groups are served differently, and that
comparisons of performance either
cannot be made or are not valid unless
they account for such distinctions.
(AAR Comments 15, March 2, 2015; UP
Comments 6–7, March 2, 2015.) CSXT
states that comparing carriers against
each other should not be the goal and
could be counterproductive since each
system is unique. CSXT further asserts
that what matters is the trend on each
carrier. (CSXT Comments 3–4, March 2,
2015.) 12
Shipper Interests and Other
Stakeholders. Shipper interests and
other stakeholders generally requested
greater granularity and more metrics,
including metrics that would be
segregated by geography and
commodity, which they argue would
provide insight and transparency into
railroad performance. (NGFA Comments
4, March 2, 2015; USDOT Reply 1–2;
WCTL Reply 1–2; NGFA Reply 7–12;
NGFA Mtg. Summary 1.) They suggest
that data be uniform across railroads to
facilitate comparisons. (TTMS
Comments 4, March 2, 2015; NGFA
Comments 3–4, 5, March 2, 2015.) ACC
suggests that the Board establish criteria
to facilitate the modification or addition
of future data requests on then-current
service issues. (ACC Comments 2,
12 AAR also recommends that the Board clarify
whether the carriers should file through the normal
formal filing process and by emailing the Board’s
Office of Public Affairs, Governmental Affairs, and
Compliance (OPAGAC) (as is currently done), or
only by emailing OPAGAC. (AAR Comments 19,
March 2, 2015.) The Board has clarified that carriers
should file their reports only with OPAGAC.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:43 May 04, 2016

Jkt 238001

March 2, 2015.) TFI asks the Board to
make clear that if commodities are
excluded in the final rule, data about
those commodities are not precluded
from being collected in response to
future performance issues. (TFI
Comments 8, March 2, 2015.) NGFA
asks the Board to require Canadian
providers to separately delineate
Canadian service. (NGFA Comments 5–
6, March 2, 2015.) WCTL requests
additional coal data in the trains held
metric, more information about coal
trainsets, data about restrictions on
equipment and crews, and cycle times
over key corridors. (WCTL Comments
11–13, March 2, 2015; WCTL Mtg.
Summary 1–2.) ACC requests resource
counts (such as locomotive and crew
counts) by region. (ACC Comments 1–2,
March 2, 2015.) NITL asks the Board to
require data broken down further by key
corridors and additional data about
manifest service and fertilizer. (NITL
Comments 5–7, March 2, 2015.) TFI
seeks to ensure that railroads are not
favoring other commodities over
fertilizer and asks for metrics similar to
the proposed grain-specific metrics. (TFI
Comments 2–4, 6, 8, March 2, 2015; TFI
Mtg. Summary 1; TFI Comments 1, Dec.
23, 2015.) Senator Thune recommends
that the final rule include several
metrics the railroads are currently
reporting under the Interim Data Order.
(Thune Comments 1–2.)
USDA requests that the Board add
weekly carloadings for major
commodities and collect information
about railcar auction markets. (USDA
Comments 4–5, March 2, 2015; USDA
Mtg. Summary 1–2.) NGFA urges the
Board to include a measure of local
service, such as industry spot and pull
reports, as well as scheduled curfew
hours that may cause stoppages. (NGFA
Comments 5, 10, March 2, 2015.) TTMS
suggests that the board include railroad
‘‘dash board’’ data. (TTMS Comments 4,
March 2, 2015.) HRC suggests that the
Board consider adding percent of car
orders filled, percent of cars placed
versus percent of cars ordered in, and
number of missed switches. (HRC Mtg.
Summary, Ex. 1 at 13.) ARC argues that
the Board must require reporting for
trains other than unit trains and states
that rail service must evolve to meet the
changing face of the agricultural
commodity mix by meeting smaller
shipment/shipper priorities. (ARC
Comments 6–7, 9–10, March 2, 2015.)
Finally, USDA and NGFA comment that
the Board should create a user friendly
data portal for rail performance data on
its Web site. (USDA Comments 5, March
2, 2015; NGFA Comments 5, March 2,
2015.)

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

27077

McFarland and MacDougall submitted
comments regarding the meeting
summaries posted on the Board’s Web
site. (McFarland and MacDougall
Comments 3–6, Dec. 23, 2015.)
Revised Proposal. As stated earlier,
the changes to the Board’s proposed
rules reflect the robust discussion to
date regarding what data would be most
beneficial to collect and monitor.
Although not every suggested change is
contained in our revised proposal, the
general themes behind many of those
proposals have informed our decisionmaking. We address those themes
below.
We are not persuaded at this stage
that we need additional, more granular
performance data. Some shipper parties
advocated for a number of additional
metrics, but they have not sufficiently
explained why or how their
recommendations would materially
enhance the Board’s ability to monitor
rail service, as compared to Interim Data
Order or NPR. At this point, the Board
believes that the burden of more
granular metrics outweighs their value
as a tool for identifying regional or
national system-wide problems. Should
more granular data become necessary
due to emerging service issues, the
Board has the authority to request such
information on a case-by-case and asneeded basis. On the other hand, the
railroad comments make clear that the
industry would prefer less granularity.
We believe that the Board has struck a
reasonable balance between these
competing concerns in our
supplemental proposal.
The Board also received comments
requesting reporting by short line
railroads and requiring Canadian
railroads to report on their operations in
Canada. Although short lines play an
indispensable role in the Nation’s
freight rail network, commenters have
not shown that reporting of short line
service data would materially enhance
the STB’s perspective on system
fluidity. As a practical matter, service
problems of national or regional
significance tend to emerge on Class I
railroads, rather than on short line
railroads. Additionally, the Board is
concerned about the burden that
reporting requirements would place on
short line carriers, which often do not
have the resources available to Class I
carriers. As discussed earlier, we do
seek comment on CP’s request to require
reporting from certain Chicago-area belt
lines. With regard to Canadian railroads’
operations in Canada, the Board is
necessarily governed by its statutory
jurisdictional limitations.
Some commenters seek improvements
regarding the availability of service data

E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM

05MYP1

ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

27078

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules

on the Board’s Web site. The Board
presently makes the service data
available on a specific Web page and
has also developed a live master
spreadsheet that is updated each week
and can be downloaded by
stakeholders.13 The Board anticipates
further improvements to data
availability as it enhances Web site
functionality going forward.
CSXT questions the need for a
permanent weekly reporting rule at all,
and AAR questions whether the cost
and burdens of the NPR outweigh the
benefits when the Board has a limited
ability to remedy a service disruption.
We believe the need and justification for
a permanent reporting rule is clear. The
Board has the authority to require
reports by rail carriers (49 U.S.C. 1321,
11145), and has an interest in ensuring
transparency and accountability,
improving rail service (19 U.S.C.
10101(4)), and has the responsibility
under a variety of statutory provisions
for monitoring the adequacy of service
by rail carriers (49 U.S.C. 11123, 10907).
Notably, railroads have the
responsibility to provide service on
reasonable request (49 U.S.C. 11101)
and to provide safe and adequate car
service (49 U.S.C. 11121). The
permanent reporting proposed here
would aid the Board and industry
stakeholders in identifying whether
railroads are adequately meeting those
statutory requirements. In particular, the
permanent collection of performance
data on a weekly basis would allow
continuity of the current reporting and
improve the Board’s ability to identify
and help resolve future regional or
national service disruptions more
quickly, as well as determine whether
more granular data is needed.
Transparency would also benefit rail
shippers and other stakeholders by
helping them to better plan operations
and make informed decisions based on
publically available, near real-time data,
and their own analysis of performance
trends over time.
The railroads expressed a general
concern that the data not be used to
compare railroads against one another.
The Board is confident that stakeholders
recognize that there are significant
differences between the railroads as to
geography, network, customer base,
traffic volumes, resources, operating
practices, and business philosophy. In
collecting data pursuant to the Interim
Data Order and as proposed in this
rulemaking, the Board’s main objective
is to be able to identify trends and
13 See

EP 724—Rail Service Issues Reports, http://
www.stb.dot.gov/stb/railserviceissues/rail_service_
reports.html.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:43 May 04, 2016

Jkt 238001

monitor potential service issues on
individual Class I railroads.
In seeking public comments, the
Board requests that interested
stakeholders evaluate the utility of each
revised data request, offer specific
proposed modifications, and/or propose
other requests that would assist the
Board and the public in gaining
complete and accurate near real-time
assessment of the performance of Class
I railroads.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, generally
requires a description and analysis of
new rules that would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. In drafting a
rule, an agency is required to: (1) Assess
the effect that its regulation will have on
small entities; (2) analyze effective
alternatives that may minimize a
regulation’s impact; and (3) make the
analysis available for public comment.
601–604. In its notice of proposed
rulemaking, the agency must either
include an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis, 603(a), or certify that the
proposed rule would not have a
‘‘significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.’’ 605(b). The
impact must be a direct impact on small
entities ‘‘whose conduct is
circumscribed or mandated’’ by the
proposed rule. White Eagle Coop. v.
Conner, 553 F.3d 467, 480 (7th Cir.
2009).
The rules proposed here would not
have a significant economic impact
upon a substantial number of small
entities, within the meaning of the RFA.
The reporting requirements would
apply only to Class I rail carriers, which,
under the Board’s regulations, have
annual carrier operating revenues of
$250 million or more in 1991 dollars
(adjusted for inflation using 2014 data,
the revenue threshold for a Class I rail
carrier is $475,754,803). Class I carriers
generally do not fall within the Small
Business Administration’s definition of
a small business for the rail
transportation industry.14 Therefore, the
Board certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b)
that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
within the meaning of the RFA. A copy
of this decision will be served upon the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Office of
14 The Small Business Administration’s Office of
Size Standards has established a size standard for
rail transportation, pursuant to which a line-haul
railroad is considered small if its number of
employees is 1,500 or less, and a short line railroad
is considered small if its number of employees is
500 or less. 13 CFR 121.201 (industry subsector
482).

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

Advocacy, U.S. Small Business
Administration, Washington, DC 20416.
Paperwork Reduction Act. Pursuant to
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501–3549, and Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(3), the
Board seeks comments regarding: (1)
Whether the collection of information in
the proposed rule, and further described
in this section, is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of
the Board, including whether the
collection has practical utility; (2) the
accuracy of the Board’s burden
estimates; (3) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents,
including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, when
appropriate. Information pertinent to
these issues is included below. The
collection in this proposed rule will be
submitted to OMB for review as
required under 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and 5
CFR 1320.11.
The additional information below is
included to assist those who may wish
to submit comments pertinent to review
under the Paperwork Reduction Act:
Description of Collection
Title: Rail Service Data Collection.
OMB Control Number: 2140–XXXX.
STB Form Number: None.
Type of Review: New collection.
Respondents: Class I railroads (on
behalf of themselves and the Chicago
Transportation Coordination Office
(‘‘CTCO’’)).
Number of Respondents: Seven.
Estimated Time per Response: The
proposed rules seek three related
responses, as indicated in the table
below.

TABLE—ESTIMATED TIME PER
RESPONSE
Type of responses

Estimated
time per
response
(hours)

Weekly ......................................
Semiannually ............................
On occasion ..............................

Frequency: The frequencies of the
three related collections sought under
the proposed rules are set forth in the
table below.

E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM

05MYP1

3
3
3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Frequency
of
responses

Type of responses
Weekly ........................................
Semiannually ..............................
On occasion ................................

total burden hours. To avoid inflating
the estimated total annual hourly
burden, the two-hour start-up burden
has been divided by three and spread
over the three-year approval period.
Thus, the total annual burden hours for
each of the three years are estimated at
no more than 1,186.67 hours per year.

Total Burden Hours (annually
including all respondents): The
recurring burden hours are estimated to
be no more than 1,182 hours per year,
as derived in the table below. In
addition, there are some one-time, startup costs of approximately 2 hours for
each respondent filing a quarterly report
that must be added to the first year’s

TABLE—FREQUENCY OF RESPONSES

52/year.
2/year.
2/year.

27079

TABLE—TOTAL BURDEN HOURS (PER YEAR)
[Excluding 2-hour one time start up burden]
Number of
respondents

Type of responses

Estimated time
per response
(hours)

Frequency
of
responses

Total yearly
burden hours

Weekly ...................................................................................................................
Semiannually .........................................................................................................
On occasion ...........................................................................................................

7
7
1

3
3
3

52/year ....
2/year ......
2/year ......

1,092
42
6

Total ................................................................................................................

........................

........................

..................

1,182

Total ‘‘Non-hour Burden’’ Cost: None
identified. Reports will be submitted
electronically to the Board.
Needs and Uses: The new information
proposed here would aid the Board in
identifying rail service issues,
determining if more granular data
would be appropriate, and working
toward improving service when
necessary. Transparency would also
benefit rail shippers and other
stakeholders by helping them to better
plan operations and make informed

decisions based on publicly available,
near real-time data, and their own
analysis of performance trends over
time.
Retention Period: Information in this
report will be maintained in the Board’s
files for 10 years, after which it is
transferred to the National Archives.

Accordingly, the Board is issuing this
SNPR to seek supplemental public
comments on proposed new regulations
to be codified at 49 CFR 1250.1–1250.3
to require Class I rail carriers, Class I
carriers operating in the Chicago
gateway, and the CTCO, through its
Class I members, to submit to the Board
weekly reports on railroad performance.
The table below provides a brief
description of the differences between
this revised proposal and the NPR,
which were explained in detail above.

Summary of Revised Proposal
Having considered all written and
oral comments on the NPR, the Board
seeks to revise the proposed metrics.

ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN THE DATA REQUESTS BETWEEN THE NPR AND SNPR
NPR

Proposed changes in SNPR

Sunday to Saturday reporting week with reports to be filed the following
Tuesday.
Unit trains are defined as comprising 60 or more railcars of the same
or similar type, carrying a single commodity in bulk.
(1) System-average train speed for intermodal, grain unit, coal unit,
automotive unit, crude oil unit, ethanol unit, manifest, and all other.
(2) Weekly average terminal dwell time for each carrier’s system and
its 10 largest terminals.
(3) Weekly average cars online for seven car types, other, and total .....
(4) Weekly average dwell time at origin or interchange for loaded unit
train shipments sorted by grain, coal, automotive, crude oil, ethanol,
and all other unit trains.
(5) Weekly total number of loaded and empty trains held short of destination or scheduled interchange for longer than six hours by train
type (intermodal, grain unit, coal unit, automotive unit, crude oil unit,
ethanol unit, other unit, and all other) and by cause (crew, locomotive power, track maintenance, mechanical issue, or other).

Adopt a Saturday through Friday reporting week with reports to be filed
the following Wednesday.
Allow carriers to report unit train data based on their assignment of
train codes in the ordinary course of business.
Add line items for system average and fertilizer unit.

(6) Daily average number of loaded and empty cars operating in normal movement, which have not moved in > 120 hours and > 48 but
≤ 120 hours, sorted by service type and measured by a daily sametime snapshot.
(7) Weekly total number of grain cars loaded and billed, by State, for
certain Standard Transportation Commodity Codes (STCCs). Also include total cars loaded and billed in shuttle service versus all other
ordering systems.
(8) For the STCCs delineated in Request No. 7, total overdue car orders, average days late, total new orders in the past week, total orders filled in the past week, number of orders cancelled in the past
week.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:43 May 04, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4702

No proposed changes.
No proposed changes.
Delete the interchange location component and modify the list of train
types to which the request would apply, including the addition of fertilizer unit.
Delete the six hour component.
Delete all other from the list of train types.
Add fertilizer unit and manifest to the list of train types.
Reduce list of causes to crew, locomotive power, or other.
Instruct railroads to run a same-time snapshot of trains holding each
day and then calculate the average for the reporting week.
Delete the > 120 hours requirement.
Modify the > 48 but ≤ 120 hours requirement to ≥ 48 hours.
No proposed changes.

Modify to require reporting of weekly running totals of grain car orders
in manifest service submitted versus grain car orders filled, and for
unfilled orders, the number of car orders that are 1–10 days past
due and 11 or more days past due.

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM

05MYP1

27080

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN THE DATA REQUESTS BETWEEN THE NPR AND SNPR—Continued
NPR

Proposed changes in SNPR

(9) Weekly total coal unit train loadings or car loadings by coal production region.
(10) ...........................................................................................................

Return to the form of prior Request No. 10 in the Interim Data Order
and require actual coal loadings against railroad service plans.
Add new Request No. 10 requesting grain shuttle (or dedicated grain
train) trips per month.
Add new Request No. 11 requesting the weekly originated carloads by
23 commodity categories.
Add new Request No. 12 requesting car order fulfillment percentage
for the reporting week by 10 car types.
No proposed changes. Seeking comment on whether to require additional reporting as requested by CP and CMAP.

(11) ...........................................................................................................
(12) ...........................................................................................................
Chicago. Class Is operating in Chicago must jointly report each week:
Average daily car volume in certain yards, and average daily number
of cars held for delivery to Chicago sorted by receiving carrier. Class
I railroad members of the CTCO must provide certain information regarding the CTCO Alert Level status and protocols.
Infrastructure. A quarterly report on major work-in-progress rail infrastructure projects, including location by State, planned completion
date for each project, percentage complete for each project at the
time of reporting, and project description and purpose.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1250
Administrative practice and
procedure, Railroads, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
It is ordered:
1. The Petition for Reconsideration is
denied.
2. Comments on the Supplemental
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are due
by May 31, 2016. Reply comments are
due by June 28, 2016.
3. A copy of this decision will be
served upon the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S.
Small Business Administration.
4. Notice of this decision will be
published in the Federal Register.
5. This decision is applicable on its
service date.
Decided: April 29, 2016.
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice
Chairman Miller, and Commissioner
Begeman.
Tia Delano,
Clearance Clerk.

For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Surface Transportation
Board proposes to amend title 49,
chapter X, subchapter D, of the Code of
Federal Regulations by adding part 1250
to read as follows:

ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

PART 1250—RAILROAD
PERFORMANCE DATA REPORTING
Sec.
1250.1
1250.2

Reporting requirements.
Railroad performance data elements.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1321 and 11145.
§ 1250.1

Reporting requirements.

(a) Each Class I railroad is required to
report to the Board on a weekly basis,
the performance data set forth in
§ 1250.2(a)(1) through (12), except for

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:43 May 04, 2016

Jkt 238001

Modify to require an annual report of significant rail infrastructure
projects that will be commenced during that calendar year, and a sixmonth update on those projects. The report is to be in a narrative
form briefly describing each project, its purpose, location, and projected date of completion. The Board proposes to define a significant
project as one with a budget of $75 million or more.

§ 1250.2(a)(10) which shall be reported
with the first report of each month. The
Class I railroads operating at the
Chicago gateway are required to jointly
report on a weekly basis the
performance data set forth in
§ 1250.2(b)(1) and (2). The reports
required under § 1250.2(b)(1) and (2)
may be submitted by the Association of
American Railroads (AAR). The data
must be reported to the Board between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time on
Wednesday of each week, covering the
previous reporting week (12:01 a.m.
Saturday to 11:59 p.m. Friday), except
for § 1250.2(a)(10), which covers the
previous calendar month. In the event
that a particular Wednesday is a Federal
holiday or falls on a day when STB
offices are closed for any other reason,
then the data should be reported on the
next business day when the offices are
open. The data must be emailed to
[email protected] in Excel
format, using an electronic spreadsheet
made available by the Board’s Office of
Public Assistance, Governmental
Affairs, and Compliance (OPAGAC).
Each week’s report must include data
only for that week, and should not
include data for previous weeks. Each
reporting railroad shall provide an
explanation of its methodology for
deriving the data with its initial filing.
Unless otherwise provided, the data will
be publicly available and posted on the
Board’s Web site.
(b) For reporting under § 1250.2(c)(1)
and (2), changes in the Alert Level
status or the protocol of service
contingency measures shall be reported
by email to the Director of the Office of
Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs
and Compliance and data.reporting@
stb.dot.gov.

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

(c) For reporting under § 1250.2(d),
the narrative report should be submitted
via email to the Director of the Office of
Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs
and Compliance and data.reporting@
stb.dot.gov.
§ 1250.2 Railroad performance data
elements.

(a) Each Class I railroad must report
the following performance data
elements for the reporting week.
However, with regard to paragraphs
(a)(7) and (8) of this section, Kansas City
Southern Railway Company is not
required to report information by State,
but instead shall report system-wide
data.
(1) System-average train speed for the
overall system and for the following
train types for the reporting week. Train
speed should be measured for line-haul
movements between terminals. The
average speed for each train type should
be calculated by dividing total trainmiles by total hours operated.
(i) Intermodal;
(ii) Grain unit;
(iii) Coal unit;
(iv) Automotive unit;
(v) Crude oil unit;
(vi) Ethanol unit;
(vii) Manifest;
(viii) Fertilizer unit;
(ix) System.
(2) Weekly average terminal dwell
time, measured in hours, excluding cars
on run-through trains (i.e., cars that
arrive at, and depart from, a terminal on
the same through train) for the carrier’s
system and its 10 largest terminals in
terms of railcars processed. Terminal
dwell is the average time a car resides
at a specified terminal location
expressed in hours.

E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM

05MYP1

ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
(3) Weekly average cars on line by the
following car types for the reporting
week. Each railroad is requested to
average its daily on-line inventory of
freight cars. Articulated cars should be
counted as a single unit. Cars on private
tracks (e.g., at a customer’s facility)
should be counted on the last railroad
on which they were located.
Maintenance-of-way cars and other cars
in railroad service are to be excluded.
(i) Box;
(ii) Covered hopper;
(iii) Gondola;
(iv) Intermodal;
(v) Multilevel (Automotive);
(vi) Open hopper;
(vii) Tank;
(viii) Other;
(ix) Total.
(4) Weekly average dwell time at
origin for the following train types:
Grain unit, coal unit, automotive, crude
oil unit, ethanol unit, fertilizer unit, all
other unit trains, and manifest. For the
purposes of this data element, dwell
time refers to the time period from
release of a unit train at origin until
actual movement by the receiving
carrier. For manifest trains, dwell time
refers to the time period from when the
train is released at the terminal until
actual movement by the railroad.
(5) The weekly average number of
trains holding per day sorted by train
type (intermodal, grain unit, coal unit,
automotive unit, crude oil unit, ethanol
unit, fertilizer unit, other unit, and
manifest) and by cause (crew,
locomotive power, or other). Railroads
are instructed to run a same-time
snapshot of trains holding each day, and
then to calculate the average for the
reporting week.
(6) The weekly average of loaded and
empty cars, operating in normal
movement and billed to an origin or
destination, which have not moved in
48 hours or more sorted by service type
(intermodal, grain, coal, crude oil,
automotive, ethanol, fertilizer, or all
other). In order to derive the averages
for the reporting week, carriers are
requested to run a same-time snapshot
each day of the reporting week,
capturing cars that have not moved in
48 hours or more. The number of cars
captured on the daily snapshot for each
category should be added, and then
divided by the number of days in the
reporting week, typically seven days. In
deriving this data, carriers should
include cars in normal service anywhere
on their system, but should not include
cars placed at a customer facility, in
constructive placement, placed for
interchange to another carrier, in bad
order status, in storage, or operating in
railroad service (e.g., ballast).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:43 May 04, 2016

Jkt 238001

(7) The weekly total number of grain
cars loaded and billed, reported by
State, aggregated for the following
Standard Transportation Commodity
Codes (STCCs): 01131 (barley), 01132
(corn), 01133 (oats), 01135 (rye), 01136
(sorghum grains), 01137 (wheat), 01139
(grain, not elsewhere classified), 01144
(soybeans), 01341 (beans, dry), 01342
(peas, dry), and 01343 (cowpeas, lentils,
or lupines). ‘‘Total grain cars loaded and
billed’’ includes cars in shuttle service;
dedicated train service; reservation,
lottery, open and other ordering
systems; and private cars. Additionally,
separately report the total cars loaded
and billed in shuttle service (or
dedicated train service), if any, versus
total cars loaded and billed in all other
ordering systems, including private cars.
(8) For the aggregated STCCs in
paragraph (a)(7) of this section, report
by State the following:
(i) Running total of orders placed;
(ii) The running total of orders filled;
(iii) For orders which have not been
filled, the number of orders that are 1–
10 days past due and 11+ days past due,
as measured from when the car was due
for placement under the railroad’s
governing tariff. Railroads are instructed
to report data for railroad-owned or
leased cars that will move in manifest
service.
(9) Weekly average coal unit train
loadings or carloadings versus planned
loadings for the reporting week by coal
production region. Railroads have the
option to report unit train loadings or
carloadings, but should be consistent
week over week.
(10) The average grain shuttle or
dedicated grain train trips per month
(TPM), for the total system and by
region, versus planned TPM, for the
total system and by region, included in
the first report of each month, covering
the previous calendar month.
(11) Weekly originated carloads by the
following commodity categories:
(i) Chemicals;
(ii) Coal;
(iii) Coke;
(iv) Crushed stone, sand, and gravel;
(v) Farm products except grain;
(vi) Fertilizer (STCC Codes: 14–7XX–
XX, 28–125–XX, 28–18X–XX, 28–19X–
XX, 28–71X–XX, and 49–18X–XX);
(vii) Food and kindred products;
(viii) Grain mill products;
(ix) Grain;
(x) Iron and steel scrap;
(xi) Lumber and wood products;
(xii) Metallic ores;
(xiii) Metals;
(xiv) Motor vehicles and equipment;
(xv) Non metallic minerals;
(xvi) Petroleum products;
(xvii) Primary forest products;

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

27081

(xviii) Pulp, paper, and allied
products;
(xix) Stone, clay, and glass products;
(xx) Waste and scrap materials;
(xxi) All other;
(xxii) Containers;
(xxiii) Trailers.
(12)(i) Car order fulfillment
percentage for the reporting week by car
type:
(A) Box;
(B) Covered hopper;
(C) Center-beam;
(D) Gondola;
(E) Flatcar;
(F) Intermodal;
(G) Multilevel (automotive);
(H) Open hopper;
(I) Tank car;
(J) Other.
(ii) Car order fulfillment should be
stated as the percentage of cars due to
be placed during the reporting week, as
determined by the governing tariff,
versus cars actually and on constructive
placement.
(b) The Class I railroads operating at
the Chicago gateway (or AAR on behalf
of the Class I railroads operating at the
Chicago gateway) must jointly report the
following performance data elements for
the reporting week:
(1) Average daily car volume in the
following Chicago area yards: Barr,
Bensenville, Blue Island, Calumet,
Cicero, Clearing, Corwith, Gibson, Kirk,
Markham, and Proviso for the reporting
week; and
(2) Average daily number of trains
held for delivery to Chicago sorted by
receiving carrier for the reporting week.
The average daily number should be
derived by taking a same time snapshot
each day of the reporting week,
capturing the trains held for each
railroad at that time, and then adding
those snapshots together and dividing
by the days in the reporting week. For
purposes of this request, ‘‘held for
delivery’’ refers to a train staged by the
delivering railroad short of its
scheduled arrival at the Chicago
gateway at the request of the receiving
railroad, and that has missed its
scheduled window for arrival.
Note to paragraph (b): If Chicago terminal
yards not identified in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section are included in the Chicago
Transportation Coordination Office’s (CTCO)
assessment of the fluidity of the gateway for
purposes of implementing service
contingency measures, then the data
requested in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
shall also be reported for those yards.

(c) The Class I railroad members of
the CTCO (or one Class I railroad
member of the CTCO designated to file
on behalf of all Class I railroad
members, or AAR) must:

E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM

05MYP1

27082

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules

ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

(1) File a written notice with the
Board when the CTCO changes its
operating Alert Level status, within one
business day of that change in status.
(2) If the CTCO revises its protocol of
service contingency measures, file with
the Board a detailed explanation of the
new protocol, including both triggers
and countermeasures, within seven days
of its adoption.
(d) Class I railroads are instructed to
submit annually a description of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:43 May 04, 2016

Jkt 238001

significant rail infrastructure projects
that will be commenced during the
current calendar year, and a six month
update on those projects. Initial reports
are to be filed on March 1 and updated
on September 1. Railroads are requested
to report in a narrative form that briefly
describes each project, its purpose,
location (State/counties), and projected
date of completion. ‘‘Significant
project’’ is defined as a project with

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 9990

anticipated expenditures of $75 million
or more over the life of the project. In
the event that March 1 or September 1
is a Federal holiday or falls on a day
when STB offices are closed for any
other reason, then the report should be
submitted on the next business day
when the offices are open.
[FR Doc. 2016–10442 Filed 5–4–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P

E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM

05MYP1