[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27069-27082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10442]
[[Page 27069]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board (the Board or STB).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: 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
e-filing 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 (Sub-No. 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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
[[Page 27070]]
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 demonstrate
material error in the Waiver Decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Formerly 49 U.S.C. 721. See Public Law 114-110, 3(a)(5), 129
Stat. 2228, 2228.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 well-
established 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 27071]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 railroads also stress that having to submit the weekly
reports to the Board on Tuesday would not allow sufficient time to
review, process, and quality-check 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.)
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
[[Page 27072]]
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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-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 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.)
[[Page 27073]]
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 six-hour 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 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 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
[[Page 27074]]
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, 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 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
[[Page 27075]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ These factors include customer demand, mine production and
capacity, railroad fluidity and resource availability, and
contractual commitments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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) (``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 train-set
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.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, center-beam, 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.
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
[[Page 27076]]
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 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 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 region-specific 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
[[Page 27077]]
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 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.)
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
decision-making. 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 as-needed 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
[[Page 27078]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See EP 724--Rail Service Issues Reports, http://www.stb.dot.gov/stb/railserviceissues/rail_service_reports.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 Advocacy, U.S. Small
Business Administration, Washington, DC 20416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
time per
Type of responses response
(hours)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weekly..................................................... 3
Semiannually............................................... 3
On occasion................................................ 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency: The frequencies of the three related collections sought
under the proposed rules are set forth in the table below.
[[Page 27079]]
Table--Frequency of Responses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of responses Frequency of responses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weekly..................................... 52/year.
Semiannually............................... 2/year.
On occasion................................ 2/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, start-up costs of approximately 2 hours for each respondent
filing a quarterly report that must be added to the first year's 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.
Table--Total Burden Hours (per Year)
[Excluding 2-hour one time start up burden]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated time
Type of responses Number of per response Frequency of responses Total yearly
respondents (hours) burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weekly................................. 7 3 52/year................ 1,092
Semiannually........................... 7 3 2/year................. 42
On occasion............................ 1 3 2/year................. 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.
Summary of Revised Proposal
Having considered all written and oral comments on the NPR, the
Board seeks to revise the proposed metrics. 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.
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 Adopt a Saturday through Friday
reports to be filed the following reporting week with reports to
Tuesday. be filed the following
Wednesday.
Unit trains are defined as comprising Allow carriers to report unit
60 or more railcars of the same or train data based on their
similar type, carrying a single assignment of train codes in
commodity in bulk. the ordinary course of
business.
(1) System-average train speed for Add line items for system
intermodal, grain unit, coal unit, average and fertilizer unit.
automotive unit, crude oil unit,
ethanol unit, manifest, and all other.
(2) Weekly average terminal dwell time No proposed changes.
for each carrier's system and its 10
largest terminals.
(3) Weekly average cars online for No proposed changes.
seven car types, other, and total.
(4) Weekly average dwell time at origin Delete the interchange location
or interchange for loaded unit train component and modify the list
shipments sorted by grain, coal, of train types to which the
automotive, crude oil, ethanol, and request would apply, including
all other unit trains. the addition of fertilizer
unit.
(5) Weekly total number of loaded and Delete the six hour component.
empty trains held short of destination Delete all other from the list
or scheduled interchange for longer of train types.
than six hours by train type Add fertilizer unit and
(intermodal, grain unit, coal unit, manifest to the list of train
automotive unit, crude oil unit, types.
ethanol unit, other unit, and all Reduce list of causes to crew,
other) and by cause (crew, locomotive locomotive power, or other.
power, track maintenance, mechanical Instruct railroads to run a
issue, or other). same-time snapshot of trains
holding each day and then
calculate the average for the
reporting week.
(6) Daily average number of loaded and Delete the > 120 hours
empty cars operating in normal requirement.
movement, which have not moved in > Modify the > 48 but <= 120
120 hours and > 48 but <= 120 hours, hours requirement to >= 48
sorted by service type and measured by hours.
a daily same-time snapshot.
(7) Weekly total number of grain cars No proposed changes.
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 Modify to require reporting of
No. 7, total overdue car orders, weekly running totals of grain
average days late, total new orders in car orders in manifest service
the past week, total orders filled in submitted versus grain car
the past week, number of orders orders filled, and for
cancelled in the past week. unfilled orders, the number of
car orders that are 1-10 days
past due and 11 or more days
past due.
[[Page 27080]]
(9) Weekly total coal unit train Return to the form of prior
loadings or car loadings by coal Request No. 10 in the Interim
production region. Data Order and require actual
coal loadings against railroad
service plans.
(10)................................... Add new Request No. 10
requesting grain shuttle (or
dedicated grain train) trips
per month.
(11)................................... Add new Request No. 11
requesting the weekly
originated carloads by 23
commodity categories.
(12)................................... Add new Request No. 12
requesting car order
fulfillment percentage for the
reporting week by 10 car
types.
Chicago. Class Is operating in Chicago No proposed changes. Seeking
must jointly report each week: Average comment on whether to require
daily car volume in certain yards, and additional reporting as
average daily number of cars held for requested by CP and CMAP.
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 Modify to require an annual
major work-in-progress rail report of significant rail
infrastructure projects, including infrastructure projects that
location by State, planned completion will be commenced during that
date for each project, percentage calendar year, and a six-month
complete for each project at the time update on those projects. The
of reporting, and project description report is to be in a narrative
and purpose. 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
PART 1250--RAILROAD PERFORMANCE DATA REPORTING
Sec.
1250.1 Reporting requirements.
1250.2 Railroad performance data elements.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1321 and 11145.
Sec. 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 Sec. 1250.2(a)(1)
through (12), except for Sec. 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 Sec. 1250.2(b)(1) and (2). The
reports required under Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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
[email protected].
(c) For reporting under Sec. 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
[email protected].
Sec. 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 train-miles
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.
[[Page 27081]]
(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).
(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;
(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:
[[Page 27082]]
(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 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 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