[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 117 (Wednesday, June 18, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33028-33029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-15965]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

49 CFR Part 1136

[STB Ex Parte No. 624]


Removal of Obsolete Regulations Concerning Rail Passenger Fare 
Increases

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board (Board) is removing from the 
Code of Federal Regulations obsolete regulations concerning rail 
passenger carrier commutation or suburban fare increases.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 18, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beryl Gordon, (202) 565-1600. [TDD for 
the hearing impaired: (202) 565-1695.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective January 1, 1996, the ICC 
Termination Act of 1995, Public Law 104-88, 109 Stat. 803 (ICCTA), 
abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC or Commission) and 
established the Board within the Department of Transportation. Section 
204(a) of the ICCTA provides that ``[t]he Board shall promptly rescind 
all regulations established by the [ICC] that are based on provisions 
of law repealed and not substantively reenacted by this Act.''
    The regulations at 49 CFR part 1136 require that a rail passenger 
carrier proposing commutation or suburban fare increases shall 
concurrently file tariffs and verified statements on the former ICC and 
on the Governor and appropriate State or county regulatory agency. The 
carrier is also to certify that the notice provisions of 49 CFR 1312.5 
have been met.1 In a notice of proposed rulemaking in this 
proceeding served and published in the Federal Register on February 24, 
1997, we proposed to remove part 1136. In response to that notice, we 
received a comment from Joseph C. Szabo, for and on behalf of United 
Transportation Union-Illinois Legislative Board (UTU-IL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These regulations describe, inter alia, the placement, form, 
and content of the notice given when a rail passenger carrier seeks 
a fare increase. The Board has eliminated these regulations. 
Regulations for the Publication, Posting and Filing of Tariffs for 
the Transportation of Property by or with a Water Carrier in the 
Noncontiguous Domestic Trade, STB Ex Parte No. 618 (STB served Apr. 
17, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    In Notice of Increases in Frt. Rates and Pass. Fares, 349 I.C.C. 
741 (1975), the ICC issued regulations for rail and motor carriers to 
give advance notice of and justification for commutation and suburban 
passenger fare increases.2 The purpose of the rules was to 
facilitate the filing of potential protests seeking the suspension and/
or investigation of fare increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The rules were originally issued at 49 CFR part 1105. They 
were subsequently redesignated in part 1136. 47 FR 49576, November 
1, 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, the ICC modified these regulations by removing their 
application to motor passenger carriers. Practice and Procedure--Misc. 
Amendments--Revisions, 6 I.C.C.2d 587 (1990).3 The ICC 
reasoned that it could not investigate, suspend, revise or revoke for 
being unreasonable a rate proposed by a motor passenger carrier acting 
independently and, moreover, there had been no complaints or protests 
resulting from collective ratemaking activity by passenger carriers. 
See Practice and Procedure--Miscellaneous Amendments--Revision, Ex 
Parte No. 55 (Sub-No. 73) (ICC served Oct. 10, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This decision issued the part 1136 regulations (designated 
49 CFR 1136.1) that are now in effect: A rail passenger carrier 
proposing commutation or suburban fare increases shall concurrently 
file appropriate tariffs with the Commission and serve supporting 
verified statements on the Commission (at its headquarters office 
and at each Commission office in States affected by the proposal) 
and on the Governor and appropriate State or County regulatory 
agency in each affected State, certifying that the notice 
requirements of 49 CFR 1312.5 have been met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion and Conclusions

    The only party responding to the February notice was UTU-IL, which 
states that its international organization is the collective bargaining 
representative for certain employees of rail carriers providing 
passenger train transportation in Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. 
UTU-IL asserts, without substantiation or elaboration, that ``[t]he 
interest of rail carrier employees in maximum train service is 
sometimes compromised by the different fare levels, or by the desire to 
discourage business'', and that ``[r]ail employee organizations desire 
to monitor the fare changes, from both an individual route and regional 
basis.''
    UTU-IL argues that, even though Congress eliminated tariff filing 
with the Board, we should maintain the requirement of filing 
justification statements for commutation or suburban fare increases. 
UTU-IL contends that this would not be a burden upon the railroads, and 
that they have continued to file justification statements with the 
Board as information.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ UTU-IL states that a justification statement was filed on 
February 17, 1996, with tariff CSX 001-B. However, the Board's 
policy has been to return or not consider rail tariff filings 
proffered after December 31, 1995, in light of the ICCTA's repeal of 
rail tariff filing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to a justification statement, UTU-IL asks that other 
information, such as ``interstate tariffs,'' be made available to the 
public. It contends that, because the Board can require reports from 
freight rail carriers (49 U.S.C. 721(b)), we should require the 
submission of information concerning freight carrier participation in 
mass transportation related to local authorities. UTU-IL asks that the 
Board establish notice and disclosure requirements for rail passenger 
fares similar to those we established for rail freight rates in 
Disclosure, Publication & Notice of Change of Rates--Rail Carriage, 1 
S.T.B. 153 (1996) (Rail Disclosure).
    We conclude that the regulations in part 1136 can be eliminated. As 
explained in the February notice, under the ICCTA, with certain 
exceptions not relevant here,5 ``the Board does not have 
jurisdiction * * * over mass transportation provided by a local 
governmental authority.'' 49 U.S.C. 10501(c)(2).6 Even as to 
rail passenger transportation that might not qualify for that 
exemption, our regulatory authority is quite limited. The vast bulk, if 
not all of such transportation, is currently provided by Amtrak, over 
which we have no rate regulatory authority. The tariff filing 
requirements formerly applicable to rail carriers at former 49 U.S.C. 
10761 and 10762 have been repealed,7 and the circumstances 
under

[[Page 33029]]

which we have authority to determine the reasonableness of rates are 
extremely limited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The exceptions, listed in 49 U.S.C. 10501(c)(3)(A), concern 
safety, employee representation for collective bargaining, and other 
employee-related matters. Also, under 49 U.S.C. 10501(c)(3)(B), the 
Board has jurisdiction over transportation by local transportation 
authorities relating to use of terminal facilities (49 U.S.C. 11102) 
and switch connections and tracks (49 U.S.C. 11103).
    \6\ ``This provision * * * changes the statement of agency 
jurisdiction to reflect curtailment of regulatory jurisdiction in 
areas such as passenger transportation * * *. [A]lthough regulation 
of passenger transportation is generally eliminated, public 
transportation authorities * * * may invoke the terminal area and 
reciprocal switching access remedies of section 11102 and 11103.'' 
See H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 422, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 167 (1995).
    \7\ New 49 U.S.C. 11101 (b) and (d) require disclosure of rail 
common carrier rates and service terms. New 49 U.S.C. 11101(c) 
requires rail carriers providing common carriage not to increase 
rates without advance notice. See Rail Disclosure and 49 CFR part 
1300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    UTU-IL has not provided independent grounds to maintain a 
requirement for justification statements for fare increases over which 
we have such limited regulatory authority. UTU-IL has not shown how it 
or its members directly benefits from the filing of a justification 
statement with the Governor and the relevant state or county regulatory 
agency. Moreover, the UTU-IL assertion that the filing of justification 
statements is not a burden on carriers is unsupported.
    Moreover, we must reject the UTU-IL suggestion that we can require 
reports from freight carriers concerning their participation in mass 
transportation for local authorities. While the Board has jurisdiction 
over freight carriers under section 721(b), under section 10501(c)(2), 
we do not have jurisdiction in most cases ``over mass transportation 
provided by a local governmental authority.'' The statutory definition 
of local governmental authority ``includes a person or entity that 
contracts with the local governmental authority to provide 
transportation services * * *.'' 49 U.S.C. 10501(c)(1)(A)(ii). 
Accordingly, we see no basis for requiring that rail carriers provide 
information concerning their participation in mass transportation 
related to local governmental authority.
    Finally, we see no need to institute a rulemaking proceeding 
regarding disclosure of interstate passenger fares. As to any passenger 
transportation not covered by the mass transportation exemption of 
section 10501(c)(2), we believe that the pertinent rate disclosure 
regulations issued at 49 CFR part 1300 would cover required disclosure 
of passenger fares.
    The Board concludes that the removal of the rule in part 1136 would 
not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small 
entities. No comments were filed on this issue in response to the 
February notice. Moreover, passengers are usually individuals and not 
small entities within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 601 and, in any event, we 
do not expect that any effect on them would be significant.
    This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the 
human environment or the conservation of energy resources.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1136

    Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads.

    Decided: June 6, 1997.

    By the Board, Chairman Morgan and Vice Chairman Owen.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.

PART 1136--[REMOVED]

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble and under the authority 
of 49 U.S.C. 721(a), title 49, chapter X of the Code of Federal 
Regulations is amended by removing part 1136.

[FR Doc. 97-15965 Filed 6-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P