Supporting Statement - EP 755 changes to existing collection of complaints (to ROCIS)

2140-0029
September 2019
Expires 5/30/2020
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
FOR MODIFICATION AND OMB APPROVAL
UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT AND 5 C.F.R. § 1320

The Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) requests a modification and a threeyear extension of approval of the regulations governing the collection of complaints.
A. Justification:
1. Why the collection is necessary. The Surface Transportation Board is, by statute,
responsible for the economic regulation of common carrier freight railroads and certain other
carriers operating in the United States. Under the Interstate Commerce Act and corresponding
regulations, the Board has broad authority to hear and act upon complaints. Shippers and other
persons may bring claims for damages against railroads or other carriers regulated by the Board
by filing a complaint before the Board under the procedures set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 1111 for
claims under 49 U.S.C. §§ 10701-10707, 11101-11103, 11701-11707 (rail), 14701-14707
(motor, water & intermediaries), and 15901-15906 (pipelines).
For example, a shipper may allege that carriers are charging unreasonable rates or that
they are engaging in unreasonable practices. See 49 U.S.C §§ 10701, 10704, 11701, 14701,
15901. The content of the complaint is outlined in 49 C.F.R. § 1111(a). Upon the filing of a
complaint, an adjudicatory process is initiated as in the case of claims brought in federal court.
The Board’s collection of information associated with these complaints enables it to meet its
statutory duties by determining the reasonableness of challenged rail transportation rates. one of
the Board’s core functions. See 49 U.S.C. § 10101(6) (stating the rail transportation policy “to
maintain reasonable rates where there is an absence of effective competition and where rail rates
provide revenues which exceed the amount necessary to maintain the rail system and to attract
capital”).
2. Why the modification is necessary. This modification request stems from the Board’s
proposed rule to establish a new rate complaint review option for smaller cases. called Final
Offer Rate Review (FORR), that utilizes procedural limitations to constrain the cost and
complexity of a rate case. Final Offer Rate Review, EP 755 (84 Fed. Reg. 48872 (Sept. 17,
2019)) (FORR NPRM).1 The proposed rule would include principle-based, non-prescriptive

1

This request for modification is being sought separately from the modification request
in Market Dominance Streamlined Approach, EP 756 (84 Fed. Reg. 48882 (Sept. 17, 2019))

criteria to allow for innovation with respect to rate review methodologies. To decide a case
brought under FORR, the Board would select either the complainant’s or the defendant’s final
offer, subject to an expedited procedural schedule that adheres to firm deadlines and results in a
Board decision 135 days from the filing of a complaint.
By lowering the costs, complexity, and time involved in litigating smaller rate disputes,
the Board expects that complainants with smaller rate disputes, who otherwise might have been
deterred from challenging a rate due to the cost of bringing a case under the Board’s existing rate
reasonableness methodologies, would have a more accessible avenue for rate reasonableness
review by the Board. The proposed modification of the existing collection of complaints would
facilitate the Board’s ability to meet its statutory directives.2
3. Extent of automated information collection. Complaints may be e-filed on the Board’s
website, located at www.stb.gov. With limited exceptions (as discussed in response #10), these
documents are publicly available on the Board’s website.
4. Identification of duplication. The information requested does not duplicate any other
information available to the Board or the public. No other federal agency has authority to
adjudicate these complaints, and no other agency collects this information.
5. Effects on small business. This collection does not have a significant economic effect
on a substantial number of small entities. Rate complaints are not typically filed by small
(Market Dominance NPRM), which is a separate NPRM affecting the same existing collection in
OMB Control No. 2140-0029. As indicated in section 15 below, this modification request does
not incorporate the modifications proposed in EP 756. Those proposed modifications will be
submitted in a separate Information Collection.
2

In the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA), Congress directed the Board to
“establish a simplified and expedited method for determining the reasonableness of challenged
rail rates in those cases in which a full stand-alone cost [(SAC)] presentation is too costly, given
the value of the case.” Pub. L. No. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803, 810. In the Surface Transportation
Board Reauthorization Act of 2015 (STB Reauthorization Act), Pub. L. No. 114-110, 129 Stat.
2228, Congress revised the text of this requirement so that it currently reads: “[t]he Board shall
maintain 1 or more simplified and expedited methods for determining the reasonableness of
challenged rates in those cases in which a full [SAC] presentation is too costly, given the value of
the case.” 49 U.S.C. § 10701(d)(3) (emphasis added). In addition, section 11 of the STB
Reauthorization Act modified 49 U.S.C. § 10704(d) to require that the Board “maintain
procedures to ensure the expeditious handling of challenges to the reasonableness of railroad
rates.”2 More generally, the rail transportation policy states that, in regulating the railroad
industry, it is the policy of the United States Government “to provide for the expeditious
handling and resolution of all proceedings required or permitted to be brought under this part.”
49 U.S.C. § 10101(15).
2

shippers, or filed against small carriers. To the extent that small shippers elect to file rate
complaints, the proposed FORR process would make it easier for them to do so.
6. Impact of less frequent collections. The Board is charged with adjudicating several
different types of complaints. Limiting complaints by providing for less frequent collections
would undermine the Board’s ability to fulfill its statutory mandate to hear complaints.
7. Special circumstances. No special circumstances apply to this collection.
8. Compliance with 5 C.F.R. § 1320.8. The Board published its proposed rule change in
the FORR NPRM (84 Fed. Reg. 48872 (Sept. 17, 2019)), which provided for a 60-day comment
period (and an additional 60-day period for reply comments) regarding this collection, with
specific reference to concerns detailed in the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501-3521
and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 C.F.R. § 1320.8(d)(3).
9. Payments or gifts to respondents. The Board does not provide any payment or gift to
respondents.
10. Assurance of confidentiality. The information in this collection is generally available
to the public as filings on the Board’s website, located at www.stb.gov. However, some of the
information collected may be protected and treated as confidential. At times, persons filing a
complaint before the Board, or responding to a complaint, may wish to file commercially
sensitive information. To protect such information, parties may mark documents or portions of
documents as “confidential” or “highly confidential” and simultaneously file a motion for a
protective order. 49 C.F.R. § 1104.14. Generally, the Board will issue a protective order
(sometimes with modifications), limiting access to confidential pleadings to parties who
demonstrate a need for the information, and adequately ensuring that the documents will be kept
confidential. In such circumstances, a redacted public version of the document will be posted on
the Board’s website in lieu of the document containing confidential information.
11. Justification for collection of sensitive information. No sensitive information of a
personal nature is requested.
12. Estimation of burden hours for respondents. The following information pertains to
the estimate of burden hours associated with this collection:
(1) Number of respondents: Approximately eight.
(2) Frequency of response: On occasion. In recent years, respondents have filed
approximately four complaints per year with the Board. The Board estimates that the
proposed FORR alternative complaint would result in the collection of approximately
four additional complaints annually and approximately eight total complaints, as shown
in Table 1 below.
3

Table 1
Type of Complaints

Existing
New
Complaints Complaints

Total
Annual
Complaints

Existing Annual Complaints

4

0

4

Final Offer Complaints
(from NPRM in EP 755)

0

4

4

4

4

8

Totals

(3) Annual hour burden per respondent and total for all respondents: 2,876 hours (sum of (i)
estimated hours per complaint (469) x total number of estimated, existing complaints (4),
and (ii) estimated hours per additional complaints (250) x total number of those
complaints (4)). The annualized burden is shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2
Type of Complaints

Estimated Annual
Complaints

Estimated Hours per
Complaint

Total Annual
Estimated Hours

Existing Annual
Complaints

4

469

1,876

Final Offer
Complaints (from
NPRM in EP 755)

4

250

1,000

---

---

2,876

Total

For respondents, there is no Board-generated record-keeping requirement associated with
this collection.
13. Other costs to respondents: The total annual costs to respondents, or the “non-hour
burden” costs associated with this information collection, will consist of printing, copying,
mailing and messenger costs equaling approximately $8,968 (sum of (i) estimated non-hour
burden cost per complaint ($1,462) x total number of estimated, existing complaints (4), and (ii)
estimated non-hour burden cost per additional complaint ($780) x total number of those
complaints (4)).
14. Estimated costs to the Board: There will be no cost beyond the normal labor costs
4

for Board staff.
15. Changes in burden hours. This is an existing collection with an OMB control
number (2140-0029), which is being adjusted to take into consideration the effects of the
expedited FORR alternative complaint proposed in the FORR NPRM and to update the burdens
and costs of all complaints filed at the Board. As noted in footnote 2 above, this modification
request does not incorporate the modifications in the simultaneously issued Market Dominance
NPRM, which is being dealt with in a related Information Collection.
16. Plans for tabulation and publication: Generally, complaints are published on the
Board’s website, located at www.stb.gov. However, as discussed above, when complaints
contain confidential information, only a public, redacted version is published on the Board’s
website. Complaints are designated as permanent records, and, accordingly, the Board retains
them for 10 years, after which they are transferred to the custody of the National Archives and
Records Administration.
17. Display of expiration date for OMB approval. There is no form associated with this
collection. When issued, the control number and expiration date for this collection will be
published in the Federal Register.
18. Exceptions to Certification Statement. Not applicable.

B. Collections of Information Employing Statistical Methods:
Not applicable.

5