[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 233 (Monday, December 5, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 87472-87485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29131]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) is adopting a
final rule 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, semiannual, and occasional basis.
DATES: This rule is effective on January 29, 2017. The initial
reporting date will be February 8, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Fancher at (202) 245-0355.
Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 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 order on October 8, 2014, requiring all
Class I railroads and the Class I railroad members of the CTCO to file
weekly reports containing specific service 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 current 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 (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 approach individual requests differently,
leading to variations in the reported data. The different approaches
are due primarily to the railroads' disparate data-keeping systems,
different railroad operating practices, and/or unintended ambiguities
in certain requests. Certain railroads have also departed from the
Board's prescribed reporting in order to maintain consistency with
their own weekly data runs and analyses.
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
(NPR), EP 724 (Sub-No. 4) (STB served Dec. 30, 2014).
The proposed reporting requirements in the NPR included many of the
requests contained in the Interim Data Order. The NPR proposed 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 and
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) for grain cars, the total overdue
car orders, average days late, total new grain car orders in the past
week, total orders
[[Page 87473]]
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 proposed metrics pertaining to service in Chicago
as well as reporting on major rail infrastructure projects. Finally,
the NPR proposed to exempt Kansas City Southern Railway Company from
filing state-specific information in response to Request 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 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, EP 724 (Sub-No. 4) (STB served Nov. 9,
2015) (with Board Member Begeman concurring in part). Following the
meetings, the Board posted a summary of each meeting in this docket and
then parties provided additional comments on the summaries. As a result
of the comments and meetings, the Board issued a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking. See U.S. Rail Serv. Issues--Performance Data
Reporting (SNPR), EP 724 (Sub-No. 4) (STB served Apr. 29, 2016),
corrected, (STB served May 13, 2016). The SNPR proposed changes to six
of the proposed reporting metrics in the NPR (Request Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6,
8, and 9), modifications to the reporting week and definition of a unit
train, and the addition of three new metrics (Request Nos. 10, 11, and
12) (grain shuttle/dedicated grain trips per month, weekly originated
carloads by commodity, and car order fulfillment percentage for 10 car
types). See SNPR, slip op. at 24-26. With regard to Request No. 7 and
No. 8, KCS was not required to report information by state, but instead
only system-wide data. See NPR, slip op. at 7; SNPR, slip op. at 28.
In response to the SNPR, the invitation for stakeholder meetings,
and the NPR, the Board received a significant volume of comments and
proposals from stakeholders. We have carefully reviewed those comments,
proposals, and meeting summaries in order to identify both general
themes regarding service reporting and better technical methods for
collecting information.
The primary purpose of this rulemaking has been to develop a set of
performance data that will allow the agency to monitor current service
conditions in the industry and to identify trends or aberrations, which
may indicate problems. The cumulative data will give the Board
reference points for measuring an individual railroad against its past
performance. A corollary benefit is that shippers and other
stakeholders will have access to the reported data to assist in their
business decisions and supply-chain planning. At the same time, the
Board has sought to make sure that any rule adopted regarding service
data results in the collection of information that will be useful to
the agency and its stakeholders. The Board believes that the final rule
adopted here is an appropriate balance of considerations that will
provide helpful information to both the agency and the public.
These rules will be effective on January 29, 2017. Carriers will
begin reporting on Wednesday, February 8, 2017.\3\ The data required
under 49 CFR 1250.2 and 1250.3(a) must be emailed to
[email protected], in Microsoft Excel or other format specified by
the Board's Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and
Compliance (OPAGAC). The narrative data required under 49 CFR 1250.3(b)
and 1250.4 must be reported to the Director of OPAGAC and emailed to
[email protected]. Any updates to the method and form for
reporting data will be posted on the Board's Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ With the adoption of these final rules, the Board is
concurrently issuing a decision in U.S. Rail Service Issues, Docket
No. EP 724 and U.S. Rail Service Issues--Data Collection, Docket No.
EP 724 (Sub-No. 3), which will terminate those proceedings and
terminate reporting under the Interim Data Order. To maintain
continuity in data collected by the Board, reporting under the
Interim Data Order will conclude on Wednesday, February 1, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Issues Raised in Response to the SNPR
The following parties provided comments in this proceeding, either
in the form of written comments 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.; American Chemistry Council;
Association of American Railroads (AAR); BASF Corporation; BNSF Railway
Company (BNSF); Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CP); Chicago
Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP); CSX Transportation, Inc.
(CSXT); Freight Rail Customer Alliance; Highroad Consulting, Ltd.
(HRC); Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS); Thomas F. McFarland
and Gordon P. MacDougall; National Corn Growers Association; National
Grain and Feed Association (NGFA); National Industrial Transportation
League (NITL); Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR); South Dakota
Corn Growers Association; The Fertilizer Institute (TFI); Texas Trading
and Transportation Services, LLC, et al.; Union Pacific Railway Company
(UP); U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of
Transportation; and Western Coal Traffic League, et al. (WCTL). The
Honorable John Thune, Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation, submitted comments in this proceeding as well.
Below we generally summarize the comments received on the SNPR,\4\
and explain the changes being adopted in this final rule. Although not
all comments and recommendations will be adopted, all of the many
comments parties have submitted were carefully reviewed and considered
in deciding on the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Comments on the NPR and meeting summaries were summarized in
the preamble to the SNPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board Authority
AAR's position is that the Board should state a valid regulatory
purpose for the rule before adding to the cumulative regulatory burden
on the railroads. (AAR SNPR Comments 5.) AAR argues that the rules are
not necessary for improving rail service, expressing the view that rail
service improved in 2013-2014 ``because of efforts of railroads to
serve their customers.'' (Id. at 6.) Finally, AAR asserts that the SNPR
``does not articulate how the proposed rules would be useful in
carrying out the specific statutory provisions the Board cites'' and
argues that each statutory provision requires ``particularized findings
related to the specific transportation at issue beyond the proposed
data collection.'' (Id.)
As the Board stated in the SNPR, ``the need and justification for a
permanent reporting rule is clear.'' Slip op. at 22. Under the
Interstate Commerce Act, the Board has broad authority to require
reports by rail carriers under 49 U.S.C. 1321, 11145. The statute also
makes clear that service adequacy is a key part of the Board's mandate,
beginning with the provisions of the rail transportation policy (RTP)
of 49 U.S.C. 10101. See SNPR, slip op. at 22. The RTP states that, in
regulating the railroad industry, it is policy of the United States
Government to minimize the need for regulatory control, 49 U.S.C.
10101(2), promote a safe and efficient rail transportation system, 49
U.S.C. 10101(3), ensure the development of a sound rail transportation
system to meet the needs of the public, 49 U.S.C.
[[Page 87474]]
10101(3), and encourage efficient management of railroads, 49 U.S.C.
10101(9). The Board finds that having data that will allow it to
monitor service across the rail network advances these RTP goals. The
data will help promote the RTP by allowing the agency, as well as
shippers and other stakeholders, to more quickly identify and react to
service issues than it would otherwise have the ability to do.
As also explained in the SNPR, slip op. at 22, the Board has the
responsibility for monitoring the adequacy of service under specific
statutory provisions, including service emergencies under 49 U.S.C.
11123. The Board's powers under section 11123 are extensive \5\ and can
be initiated by the agency. The potential triggers for Board action,
such as ``congestion of traffic'' and ``other failure of traffic
movement'' (49 U.S.C. 11123(a)), are clearly implicated by the
collection of service metrics, and the Board has explained that
reporting would ``improve the Board's ability to identify and help
resolve future regional or national service disruptions more quickly.''
SNPR, slip op. at 22. Service issues can also be relevant when the
Board considers whether railroad service practices are reasonable (49
U.S.C. 10702), whether to force a line sale in the event of inadequate
service (49 U.S.C. 10907), and whether railroads are fulfilling their
common carrier obligations (49 U.S.C. 11101) or providing safe and
adequate car service (49 U.S.C. 11121). See SNPR, slip op. at 22
(explaining that ``permanent reporting . . . would aid the Board and
industry stakeholders in identifying whether railroads are adequately
meeting those statutory requirements.''). Accordingly, we disagree with
AAR's suggestion that the Board has not articulated a justification for
the data's usefulness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ When requisite statutory criteria are met, the Board can (1)
direct the handling, routing, and movement of the traffic of a rail
carrier and its distribution over its own or other railroad lines;
(2) require joint or common use of railroad facilities; (3)
prescribe temporary through routes; (4) give directions for--(A)
preference or priority in transportation; (B) embargoes; or (C)
movement of traffic under permits. See 49 U.S.C. 11123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board also finds no merit to the AAR's suggestion that the data
reporting would be unhelpful in determining if some of the statutory
provisions listed by the Board are met. The AAR argues that these
statutory provisions require ``particularized findings'' that would
necessitate more granular information than would be provided for by the
reported data. However, even if more granular information would be
required for the Board to act in a particular circumstance, the Board
has explained that the reporting will assist it in determining whether
to request more granular data or information. SNPR, slip op. at 22.
Likewise, AAR's suggestion that baseline service metrics would be
``irrelevant'' in common carrier or forced sale-cases limits--in
advance--what service information shippers and carriers would find
probative in such cases.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ As noted above, AAR expresses its opinion that increased
service quality after the 2013-2014 crisis was due to ``efforts of
railroads to serve their customers.'' (AAR SNPR Comments 6.)
However, the Board need not find that the interim service reporting
caused service improvements to justify the permanent collection of
service data, which will facilitate the Board's ability to monitor
performance and respond to issues in the event of future service
disruptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board believes that the long-term utility of the data
collection in this final rule outweighs the additional burden placed on
the rail industry. It will also help promote the RTP as outlined above.
Other Recommendations/General Comments
Railroad Interests. The railroads generally oppose metrics focused
on particular commodities, train types, or geographic regions. AAR
reiterates that a few ``macro-level reporting metrics would best serve
the Board's goals of maintaining access to information . . . while
balancing the burdens imposed on railroads.'' (AAR SNPR Comments 2.) As
such, AAR advocates that the Board's final rule be based on macro-level
data that is presently reported to the AAR. It asserts that such macro-
level metrics best reflect trends and relative changes in service
performance while granular reporting is confusing, potentially
misleading, and less useful for comparisons over time. (Id.) AAR also
states that shipper groups have failed to explain how they actually use
the data. (AAR SNPR Reply 2-3.) Finally, AAR warns that the Board
``should be aware that this data inevitably will be . . . cited to the
Board as evidence that one railroad is underperforming its peers
regardless of whether that conclusion is correct.'' (Id. at 3.)
NSR agrees that service performance metrics tailored to specific
commodities may create a misleading picture of overall service and
asserts that the burdens of such reporting outweigh the benefits. (NSR
SNPR Comments 3.) UP and CP likewise assert that the final rule should
only include network-specific metrics. (CP SNPR Comments 2; UP SNPR
Comments 2-3.) UP asserts that the more detailed metrics are too narrow
to provide more meaningful information, and can be required based on
service issues. (UP SNPR Comments 2-3.) In addition, UP again opposes
NGFA's request for additional grain reporting. (UP SNPR Reply 1-3.).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ UP also asked the Board to discontinue its annual request
for a peak season letter, as it would be unnecessary if the Board
begins collecting data pursuant to this final rule. (UP SNPR
Comments 13.) Chairman Elliott announced in August 2016 that the
Board was discontinuing the end-of-year letters, citing, among other
things, the weekly collection of service performance reports that
the Board began collecting pursuant to the Interim Data Order. Press
Release, Surface Transportation Board, STB Chairman Daniel R.
Elliott III Discontinues Annual Letter to Rail Industry Seeking End-
of-Year Outlook (Aug. 22, 2016), https://www.stb.gov/stb/news/news_releases.html (follow ``date of issuance within the current
year'' or ``prior to the current year'' hyperlink, as appropriate to
access 2016 press releases; then follow ``8/22/2016'' hyperlink).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. NGFA disagrees with the
Board's statement in the SNPR that ``the burden of more granular
metrics [than those proposed in the SNPR] outweigh(s) their value as a
tool for identifying regional or national system-wide problems'' and
argues that the Board must instead increase the granularity of the rail
service performance data it collects. (NGFA SNPR Comments 3, 3-5.) NGFA
asserts that the Board should ``consider the benefits of some
additional specific data to rail customers in monitoring service, given
the diverse and differing rail transportation service that applies to
different types of grain-based agricultural products.'' (Id. at 3.)
NGFA cites findings made in a 2015 National Academy of Sciences/
Transportation Research Board report and a 2008 Laurits R. Christensen
Associates Inc. report \8\ while arguing that: (1) The data the Board
proposes to collect are too aggregated to provide meaningful insights
into service quality; (2) system-wide performance data is less useful
to shippers than data based on route, corridor, or commodity, which are
important for identifying and rectifying service issues; and (3)
variability in service, which tended to be greater in grain and coal
units, can be more costly and problematic than absolute service levels.
(Id. at 4-5.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Transp. Research Bd. of the Nat'l Acad, Modernizing
Freight Rail Regulation, 48-56 (2015); Laurits R. Christensen
Associates, A Study of Competition in the U.S. Freight Railroad
Industry and Analysis of Proposals that Might Enhance Competition,
ES-35 to ES-37 (2009), https://www.stb.gov/stb/docs/competitionstudy/executive%20summary.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rule. As noted above, the Board's objective in the proceeding
is to obtain weekly data that allows the agency to monitor the railroad
industry's current performance and to
[[Page 87475]]
build a data set that will allow the Board to observe trends and make
comparisons against past performance. The set of requests being adopted
today advances these objectives and strikes an appropriate balance of
augmenting the Board's ability to better monitor rail service trends
without burdening railroads with excessive reporting requirements. The
Board is thus declining to either adopt the railroad industry's request
to alter the reporting to the ``macro level'' data presently reported
to AAR or to adopt, for the most part,\9\ the shippers' requests for
additional ``granular'' data covering discrete subsets of traffic,
specific corridors, or local operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ As explained in greater detail below, the Board will add
some granularity to the required reporting by requiring certain
fertilizer carload reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting Week and Timing
The SNPR proposes defining the reporting week as 12:01 a.m.
Saturday to 11:59 p.m. Friday with reports due the following Wednesday.
Railroad Interests. The railroads generally agree with the proposal
in the SNPR, with one exception. AAR urges the Board to modify its
proposed reporting week for Request No. 11 (weekly carloadings) to
conform to the reporting week that railroads have historically used to
report the same data to AAR. ``That data has been based on a week
ending at 11:59 p.m. Saturday, which permits the weekly report to
capture most of the traffic originated during the week by customers who
complete their car loading activities by Friday at close of business.''
(AAR SNPR Comments 7.) AAR notes that it has identified no compelling
reason why the weekly carloadings data must match the other service
metrics. (Id.)
In response to NGFA's criticisms of the Wednesday reporting day,
AAR states that NGFA provides no support for its assertion that a
Monday reporting day is essential. (AAR SNPR Reply 2.) UP also states
that it needs until Wednesday afternoon to capture, validate, analyze/
process, and compile the information from different sources that goes
into its reports. (UP SNPR Reply 3-4.)
Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. NITL does not oppose the
SNPR's proposed reporting week. (NITL SNPR Comments 2-3.) NGFA also
does not oppose the proposed reporting week, but urges the Board to
require the weekly reports be filed no later than Monday. (NGFA SNPR
Comments 7.)
Final Rule. Except with respect to Request No. 11 (weekly
carloadings), the Board will adopt the reporting week and reporting day
proposed in the SNPR as the final rule. The 12:01 a.m. Saturday to
11:59 p.m. Friday reporting week comports with the railroad industry's
internal reporting practices. Allowing railroads to report data on
Wednesday gives them sufficient opportunity to collect, review, and
assemble the data prior to submission. For purposes of Request No. 11,
and consistent with AAR's suggestion, the Board will modify the
reporting week proposed in the SNPR to 12:01 a.m. Sunday to 11:59 p.m.
Saturday with a Wednesday reporting day. This is consistent with how
the industry has historically reported and currently reports weekly
carloadings to AAR. The Board does not foresee any issue with the fact
that this metric would cover a different weekly period (by one day)
than the other metrics.
Definition of Unit Train
The SNPR proposes that, rather than having a single definition for
unit train, each carrier be allowed to report unit train data based on
how it assigns train symbols (or codes) in accordance with its own
business practices.
Railroad Interests. Railroad interests generally support the SNPR's
definition of unit train, stating that ``it will ensure that data
collected matches railroads' and their customers' understanding of the
traffic.'' (AAR SNPR Comments 4; see also UP SNPR Comments 1-2; BNSF
SNPR Comments 2.)
Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. Shipper interests
generally do not oppose the definition of unit train proposed in the
SNPR. (NGFA SNPR Comments 7; NITL SNPR Comments 2-3.) However, they ask
that the Board draw special attention to the definitions of unit train
on its Web site to offer clear guidance on how each railroad defines
unit train. (NGFA SNPR Comments 7; NITL SNPR Comments 2-3.) NGFA also
requests that the Board require each carrier to provide updates if and
when it changes its unit train definition. (NGFA SNPR Comments 7.)
Final Rule. The Board will adopt the SNPR proposal for defining a
unit train as the final rule. In their initial filings under the final
rule, the Board will require railroads to explain their practices of
making ``unit train'' designations in the ordinary course of business.
This information will be accessible to the public on the Board's Web
site with other service performance data, so that the public will
understand how each carrier is defining ``unit train.'' Railroads will
also be required to inform the Board if their practices change in the
future, by electronically submitting to OPAGAC a written explanation of
the change at the time it goes into effect. The Board's Web site will
be updated accordingly.
Request No. 1 (Train Speed), No. 2 (Terminal Dwell Time), and No. 3
(Cars Online)
For Request No. 1, the SNPR proposes requiring carriers to provide
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;
(h) fertilizer unit; and (i) system. The SNPR modifies the proposal in
the NPR by adding categories for ``fertilizer unit'' and ``system'' and
removing the category for ``all other.''
For Request No. 2, the SNPR proposes requiring carriers to provide
weekly average terminal dwell time for each carrier's system and its 10
largest terminals. For Request No. 3, the SNPR proposes requiring
carriers to provide weekly average cars online for several car types,
other, and total. The SNPR makes no changes to Request No. 2 and
Request No. 3 in the NPR.
Railroad Interests. Railroad interests generally do not object to
Request Nos. 1-3, though they again emphasize that permanent reporting
should be limited to those metrics that provide a ``meaningful view of
network health.'' (UP SNPR Comments 2-3; see also CP SNPR Comments 1;
AAR SNPR Reply 8.) UP states that this would include Request Nos. 1-4.
(UP SNPR Comments 2-3.) Other carriers identify Request Nos. 1-3, with
the potential addition of a weekly carloadings metric, as sufficient to
monitor overall network fluidity. (CP NPR Comments 2; AAR NPR Comments
12.) In response to NGFA's requests for additional categories under
Request No. 3 (Cars Online), UP counters that NGFA provides no
justification for either its hazardous material reporting or for what
it alleges is an ``impracticable'' request that industry-placed cars
also be included. (UP SNPR Reply 4-5.)
Finally, the railroads generally oppose the addition of fertilizer
to Request No. 1 and to all other metrics that would require carriers
to report data on fertilizer unit trains or carloads. AAR argues that
commodity specific reporting, including fertilizer, is not useful for
comparing service metrics for traffic that moves in different service
and equipment. (AAR SNPR Comments 7-8.) It states that although there
is no single definition of fertilizer, the Board's proposed definition
is overbroad and erroneously includes commodities
[[Page 87476]]
which are not fertilizers. (Id.; see also CSXT SNPR Comments 1.) CSXT
adds that it can accommodate some of the fertilizer data the Board
seeks, but using the Board's proposed Standard Transportation Commodity
Codes (STCCs) would be difficult and misleading. (CSXT SNPR Comments
1.) NSR reports that in 2015 it moved less than 11% of its fertilizer
traffic in unit train service and consequently believes that the data
should not be separately reported. (NSR SNPR Comments 1.) It asserts
that fertilizer shippers can monitor macro-level service data trends to
gauge fertilizer service. (Id.)
UP argues that the Board should not adopt new fertilizer metrics
based on past service issues that no longer exist. (UP SNPR Comments
3.) Regarding fertilizer unit train reporting, UP argues that, because
a small amount of fertilizer moves in unit train service (one in seven
UP fertilizer shipments), the proposed metric would not provide useful
information to the Board or allow the Board to reach meaningful
conclusions about service. (Id. at 3-4.) UP expresses concern that
separate reporting on fertilizer unit trains could expose confidential,
customer-specific volume information. (Id. at 4.) UP states that
fertilizer accounted for only 2% of UP total carloadings in 2015. (Id.)
UP argues that there is no reason for separate reporting because (1)
the rail network is fluid and currently has the resources to handle
demand, and (2) the Board should avoid requiring commodity-specific
reporting absent evidence distinguishing a specific commodity from
other, non-reported commodities. (Id. at 4-5.) Finally, UP argues that
fertilizer carloading reporting would create an unnecessary burden and
introduce inconsistencies with historical records. (Id. at 5.)
Shipper Interests & Other Stakeholders. Shipper interests are
generally supportive of the SNPR changes to the first three metrics.
NITL strongly supports the addition of ``system'' and ``fertilizer''
components to Request No. 1. (NITL SNPR Comments 3.) WCTL continues to
support the inclusion of coal unit trains in Request Nos. 1-2. (WCTL
SNPR Comments 3.) NGFA continues to advocate for more granular grain
unit reporting, however, it narrows its request from its NPR comments
to add only vegetable oils and vegetable meals to the existing grain
categories in Request Nos. 1-2. (NGFA SNPR Comments 5, 8.) NGFA
supports Request No. 3, but urges the Board to add a requirement that
``carriers subdivide the `tank car' reporting requirement to include
subcategories for cars hauling `hazmat' and `non-hazmat,''' plus
require reporting of cars that are industry-placed. (NGFA SNPR Comments
8-9.)
Finally, for Request No. 1 and all other metrics requiring carriers
to report data on fertilizer unit trains, TFI recognizes that
fertilizer shipments are not evenly distributed across carriers and
agrees with UP that reporting fertilizer unit trains may raise
confidentiality concerns among railroads with limited shipments.
Accordingly, TFI states that it ``no longer advocates for the reporting
of fertilizer unit trains.'' (TFI SNPR Reply 2, 6.)
Final Rule. For Request No. 1, the Board will adopt the SNPR
proposal with one modification as the final rule. We will exclude
fertilizer unit trains from average train speed reporting. As noted
above, TFI withdrew its request for unit train metrics for fertilizer
movements. Additionally, the railroad industry explained that most
fertilizer shipments move in manifest service and only a very small
annual volume moves in unit trains. Thus, maintaining a fertilizer unit
train speed metric would not advance the Board's objectives. Also for
Request No. 1, the Board will adopt the SNPR proposal to add an overall
``system'' component, which aligns the request with current AAR
reporting and provides a fuller picture of service performance. For
Request No. 2 and No. 3, the Board will adopt the SNPR proposal as the
final rule.
The Board will deny NGFA's request to incorporate vegetable oils
and vegetable meals into Request Nos. 1-2. Most carloads of vegetable
oils move in manifest service as opposed to unit train service. (AAR
SNPR Reply 4-5.) NGFA has not demonstrated a strong need for such a
specifically tailored metric. Moreover, NGFA fails to explain why the
railroads' reporting of system average train speed for manifest trains
does not capture the velocity of vegetable oil and vegetable meal
traffic, such that a specifically tailored metric is necessary.
Similarly, NGFA fails to demonstrate that weekly average terminal dwell
time does not adequately reflect terminal dwell for cars of vegetable
oils and vegetable meals.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ NGFA also requests that the Board incorporate vegetable
oils and vegetable meals into Request Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. The
Board will likewise deny NGFA's requests to add additional grain
categories to those requests as it has generally not shown a need to
single out these specific commodities for more granular reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request No. 4 (Dwell Time at Origin--Unit Train)
The SNPR proposes requiring carriers to provide weekly average
dwell time at origin for loaded shipments sorted by grain unit, coal
unit, automotive unit, crude oil unit, ethanol unit, fertilizer unit,
all other unit trains, and manifest. The SNPR modifies the proposal in
the NPR by adding the fertilizer unit and manifest categories and
deleting the interchange component, which would have required carriers
to report dwell times for trains at interchanges between carriers.
Railroad Interests. As discussed above, the railroads generally
oppose the requirement to report data on fertilizer unit trains. They
also oppose the addition of the manifest category to Request No. 4
because an origin dwell metric is inconsistent with how manifest trains
operate. (BNSF SNPR Comments 3 n.1; AAR SNPR Comments 8-9; UP SNPR
Comments 10.) AAR comments that the data item is ambiguous, explaining
that manifest trains ``are not `released' to a line-haul carrier at
`origin.' Manifest trains are made up at a railroad's yard and moved
after the air brake test is completed.'' (AAR SNPR Comments 8-9.) In
response to NGFA's request to require carriers to provide industry spot
and pull (ISP) reports, UP asserts that shippers already have access to
this information for their own traffic and no public interest would be
served by public reporting of this customer-specific information. (UP
SNPR Reply 3.)
Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. WCTL opposes the deletion
of the interchange component. (WCTL SNPR Comments 3-4.) It states that
customers depending on movements with interchanges found that
``interchange dwell can be a telling measure of how the railroads are
performing with their interchange partners, their available resources,
and whether their systems are constrained.'' (Id. at 4.) WCTL argues
that deleting the interchange component removes a potentially important
source of data, invites carries to engage in finger pointing, and
deprives shippers of insight into where delays actually occur. (Id.)
NGFA urges the Board to require carriers to ``provide ISP reports
upon one-time written request from rail customers.'' (NGFA SNPR
Comments 9.) It argues the ISP reports are an important source of data
because they are a truer reflection of service than the current metrics
which only reflect velocities from terminal-to-terminal. (NGFA SNPR
Comments 6.) NGFA asserts that ISP reports better indicate the service
shippers and receivers are actually receiving. (Id.) NGFA also asks the
Board to expand the metric to
[[Page 87477]]
include vegetable oils and vegetable meals to the existing grain
category. (NGFA SNPR Comments 9.)
Final Rule. For Request No. 4, the Board will adopt the SNPR
proposal with two modifications as the final rule. First, for the
reasons discussed above, we will delete the fertilizer unit component.
Second, we will remove the manifest component, which would have
required carriers to report dwell time for manifest trains. As
explained by the railroad interests, manifest trains are not released
in the same manner as unit trains at shipper origins, and therefore do
not ``dwell'' in the same sense that unit trains do.
The Board will adopt the proposed change in the SNPR of not
including the interchange component. We continue to believe that the
``interchange'' component would not materially enhance the Board's
perspective on rail service, in light of other performance data that
will be collected under these final rules, such as dwell at origin,
terminal dwell, trains holding, and cars that have not moved in 48
hours or longer. Moreover, the Board is sensitive to the potential
burden that the ``interchange'' component would create because
railroads do not share a common understanding as to when a train is
considered to be ``released'' or ``accepted'' at interchange or
maintain common practices for measuring a train's idle time at
interchange. See SNPR, slip op. at 10.
The Board will not mandate that railroads report to shippers upon
request their respective ISP percentages for their local service design
plans. NGFA's basis for seeking such reporting appears to be its view
that other metrics contained in the SNPR are too general to allow the
Board (and shippers) to assess local service. However, NGFA desires a
level of data granularity--tracking at the local level--that exceeds
the Board's objectives in monitoring service performance of the Class I
railroads. Additionally, NGFA does not address the reporting burden
that the volume of shipper requests would impose upon the industry.
Lastly, for the reasons explained above, the Board will decline
NGFA's request to expand this metric to include vegetable oils and
vegetable meals. Additionally, because these commodities typically do
not move in unit train configurations, dwell time at origin would not
be a meaningful metric.
Request No. 5 (Trains Holding)
The SNPR proposes requiring carriers to provide 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). To arrive at these figures, railroads
would be instructed to run a daily same-time snapshot and then
calculate the weekly averages. The SNPR modifies the proposal in the
NPR in several ways. It removes the proposed requirement that railroads
report trains held short of destination or scheduled interchange for
longer than six hours. It also removes the ``all other'' train type and
the ``track maintenance'' and ``mechanical causes'' that were included
in the NPR. The SNPR adds ``fertilizer unit'' and ``manifest train''
types, and the instruction to run a daily same-time snapshot and then
calculate the weekly average.
Railroad Interests. CSXT reiterates that it will be a highly manual
process to comply with this metric, including the fertilizer component.
However, it states that the SNPR proposal is a ``tremendous''
improvement from the NPR and supports deletion of the six-hour
component and the more limited list of causes. (CSXT SNPR Comments 3.)
Since it was proposed in the NPR, BNSF has urged the Board to
discontinue this metric, arguing it is not a reliable indicator of
railroad performance. (BNSF SNPR Comments 3-4.) BNSF previously
expressed that it can only provide a snapshot measure, as proposed
here, but is concerned that the snapshot method overstates its numbers.
(BNSF Mtg. Summary 2.) BNSF asserts that issues with the metric are
exacerbated by the proposal in the SNPR to remove the six-hour
category. (BNSF SNPR Comments 4.) BNSF also states, in response to the
removal of the interchange component, that its current data set does
not distinguish between trains that are held short of destination,
interchange, or otherwise. (Id.)
Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. Shippers urge the Board
to revisit the decision to eliminate two reportable causes and require
more specific reasons for delay rather than ``other.'' (NITL SNPR
Comments 3; WCTL SNPR Comments 5.) NITL asserts that it recognizes the
carriers' concern that trains held as part of normal operations will be
captured in this metric, but argues that ``in the search for the root
causes of `abnormal' operating conditions . . . having more knowledge .
. . is preferable.'' (NITL SNPR Comments 3; see also WCTL SNPR Comments
5.) NGFA also opposes the elimination of causes and supports BNSF's
suggestion to allow data that would identify trains being held on the
network for railroad-caused reasons, but urges the Board not to
eliminate the metric. (NGFA SNPR Reply 4-5.) NGFA asks the Board to
expand the metric to include vegetable oils and vegetable meals to the
existing grain category. (NGFA SNPR Comments 9.)
Final Rule. For Request No. 5, the Board will adopt the SNPR
proposal as the final rule with one modification. For the reasons
discussed above, the fertilizer unit train component will be deleted.
Both railroad and shipper commenters generally support the
modification proposed in the SNPR of converting this metric into a
weekly average of a daily snapshot of trains holding on each railroad's
network, which is consistent with the way the industry monitors
fluidity. The Board originally created the six-hour category to capture
trains holding outside of their operating plan. However, railroads
argued that the category was ineffective because some trains are held
for six hours or longer as part of their operating plan. Railroads also
argued that it was problematic from a data tracking standpoint because
their internal metrics were not programmed to be compatible with the
six-hour or longer filter. (BNSF NPR Comments 5-7; UP NPR Comments 15-
16.) Accordingly, we will proceed to eliminate it from the final rules.
The Board recognizes BNSF's concern that, even by eliminating the six-
hour category, the trains holding metric will still capture trains
being held as part of their operating plan. Nevertheless, the data will
provide value over the course of time by allowing the agency to monitor
trends and spot aberrations.
With regard to categorization of trains being held by cause, the
Board seeks to simplify reporting, as proposed in the SNPR. Although
the ``equipment malfunction'' and ``track maintenance'' categories
proposed in the NPR could be indicative of general service problems,
the Board believes that the ``crew shortages'' and ``locomotive
shortages'' categories proposed in the SNPR are more significant
indicators of systemic, long-term service issues. Thus, the Board will
reduce the number of assigned causes.
Lastly, for the reasons explained above, the Board will decline
NGFA's request to expand this metric to cover vegetable oils and
vegetable meals. Additionally, because these commodities typically do
not move in unit train configurations, the reported data would not be
meaningful as a measure of fluidity as to vegetable oils and vegetable
meal.
[[Page 87478]]
Request No. 6 (Cars Held)
The SNPR proposes requiring carriers to provide the weekly average
number 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). The SNPR modifies the
proposal in the NPR by deleting the category for cars that have not
moved in more than 120 hours. The SNPR also changes the categorization
of such cars held from a period of ``greater than 48 hours, but less
than or equal to 120 hours,'' to a period of ``48 hours or more.''
Finally, the SNPR modifies the NPR's requirement for a daily average of
loaded and empty cars held to a weekly average and adds a fertilizer
component.
Railroad Interests. BNSF reiterates that there is public confusion
regarding the differences in hold times for cars for different
commodities under this metric. (BNSF SNPR Comments 4.) It asserts that
these ``differences in commodity categories are driven in large part by
the ratio of unit train and single car service in the commodity fleet
rather than service disruptions or other performance issues.'' (Id. at
4-5.) In particular, BNSF explains that approximately half of its grain
fleet is in shuttle, or unit train, service, whereas the majority of
its crude and coal carloads move in unit train service; because unit
trains are built for speed and efficiency, while manifest trains
require more holding time, BNSF argues that the data between grain and
crude oil will differ. (Id.)
Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. Shippers are generally
supportive of the SNPR changes to Request No. 6. (WCTL SNPR Comments 3;
NITL SNPR Comments 3; NGFA SNPR 9-10.) NGFA requests that the Board
include a component for cars placed in interchange that are being held.
(NGFA SNPR Comments 10.) NGFA also asks the Board to expand the metric
to include vegetable oils and vegetable meals to the existing grain
category. (Id.) TFI supports the inclusion of a separate fertilizer
component for this metric, which captures carload (as opposed to unit
train) data. However, TFI proposes to narrow the definition of
fertilizer to 14 seven-digit STCCs. (TFI SNPR Reply 4.)
Final Rule. For Request No. 6, the Board will adopt the SNPR
proposal as the final rule with an adjustment to the previously
proposed definition of fertilizer. Parties agreed that the 120 hours or
greater category proposed in the NPR was superfluous because concern
arises when a railcar has not moved for 48 hours. See SNPR, slip op. at
12. As with Request No. 5, the Board will instruct carriers to use a
same-day snapshot approach to develop a weekly average of cars that hit
the 48-hour threshold, broken out by service type (intermodal, grain,
coal, crude oil, automotive, ethanol, fertilizer, or all other). The
Board will also adopt the requirement for reporting of cars in
fertilizer service, but will define fertilizer by the 14 STCCs provided
by TFI (2871236, 2871235, 2871238, 2819454, 2812534, 2818426, 2819815,
2818170, 2871315, 2818142, 2818146, 2871244, 2819173, and 2871451).
Although AAR and some railroads note that fertilizer represents a
relatively small fraction of overall rail traffic, the Board believes
that it is necessary to help monitor the rail fertilizer supply chain
because of its critical importance to the nation's agricultural
production. As became apparent to the Board at the April 2014 hearing,
disruption of the rail fertilizer supply chain arising from service
issues threatened to impede spring planting throughout the Midwest. In
order to focus attention on restoring the supply chain, the Board
directed certain railroads to report on their progress moving
fertilizer over a six-week period. See generally U.S. Rail Serv.
Issues, EP 724 (Sub-No. 1) (STB served Apr. 15, 2014). Reporting of
fertilizer as a stand-alone category of cars holding for 48 hours or
longer will allow the Board to monitor the fluidity of this commodity,
which is a key element in agricultural production, and facilitate early
Board intervention, if appropriate. Lastly, for the reasons explained
above, the Board will decline NGFA's request to expand this metric to
include vegetable oils and vegetable meals. NGFA has not explained the
heightened importance that would warrant separate reporting of these
commodities, as has been shown for fertilizer.
Request No. 7 (Grain Cars Loaded and Billed)
The SNPR proposes requiring carriers to provide 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 proposes requiring carriers to report 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. The SNPR makes no changes to Request No. 7 in the NPR.
Railroad Interests. The railroads did not provide specific
additional comment on this metric in response to the proposed metric in
the SNPR.
Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. NGFA generally supports
the SNPR; however, it asks the Board to expand the metric to include
vegetable oils and vegetable meals to the existing grain category.
(NGFA SNPR Comments 10; see also NITL SNPR Comments 3.)
Final Rule. For Request No. 7, the Board will adopt the SNPR
proposal, which was unchanged from the NPR, as the final rule. For the
reasons discussed above, the Board will decline NGFA's request to
expand this metric to include vegetable oils and vegetable meals.
Request No. 8 (Grain Car Orders)
The SNPR proposes requiring carriers to provide, for the same STCCs
in Request No. 7, a report by state for the following for cars in
manifest service: (a) The running total number of orders placed; (b)
the running total of orders filled; and (c) for orders which have not
been filled, the number of orders that are 1-10 days past due and 11+
days past due. The SNPR significantly modifies the NPR requirements,
which were to report: (a) The total number of overdue car orders; (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) total
number of orders filled during the past week; and (e) the number of
orders cancelled during the past week.
Railroad Interests. The railroads generally commented that they
could report the requested data, subject to various individual
limitations in their data systems. NSR explains that it only operates a
small portion of its grain transportation on the basis of grain car
orders so it would have limited and unrepresentative data in its
response. (NSR SNPR Comments 2.) CSXT states that it could generate the
required data unless the metric includes unit train placements as car
orders. (CSXT SNPR Comments 3.) CSXT also emphasizes that commercial
practices of railroads differ substantially between carriers and
cautions against comparing data between railroads. (Id.) Finally, CSXT
notes that it does not roll-over car orders from week-to-week and thus
will not show any orders in the 11+ days category. (Id.)
Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. NGFA suggests that the
Board consider requiring each reporting carrier to report the
definition of its car-ordering system for shuttles and
[[Page 87479]]
manifest traffic. (NGFA SNPR Comments 11.) It also recommends that the
Board require each ``carrier to report whether it placed or pulled cars
that were ordered or cancelled as a result of a railroad spotting more
cars than the facility requested.'' (Id.) NGFA also requests that the
Board expand the metric to include vegetable oils and vegetable meals
to the grain category. (Id.)
Final Rule. For Request No. 8, the Board will adopt the SNPR
proposal as the final rule. This request allows the Board to monitor
car order fulfillment for shippers of agricultural products whose
traffic moves in manifest (as opposed to unit train) service. Although
the Board acknowledges the limitations that CSXT and NSR have noted,
the Board believes that, overall, this data will allow the effective
monitoring of grain traffic in manifest service over time. With respect
to NGFA's suggestion to refine this request by requiring carriers to
report certain definitions, such a proposal seems more responsive to
the NPR's proposal than the SNPR's proposal, and in any event is not in
line with the Board's intent to simplify this request. See SNPR, slip
op. at 14 (``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''). With
respect to NGFA's request for additional data on cars ordered or
cancelled, such a proposal does not enhance the Board's view of grain
car order fulfilment. Moreover, it is unclear that railroads track the
data that NGFA seeks.
Also, for the reasons explained above, the Board will decline
NGFA's request to expand this metric to include vegetable oils and
vegetable meals.
Request No. 9 (Coal Loadings)
The SNPR proposes requiring carriers to provide the weekly average
coal unit train loadings or carloadings versus planned loadings by coal
production region. The SNPR modifies the proposal in the NPR by
generally returning to the form of the corresponding request (Request
No. 10) from the Interim Data Order, and adding the requirement to
compare actual loadings against railroad service plans.
Railroad Interests. UP asserts that it develops neither its own
loading expectations, nor independent daily or weekly planned coal
loadings. (UP SNPR Reply 11.) UP states that, to the extent that it has
a coal loading plan, the plan is based on confidential customer
information. (Id. at 10.) As such, UP raises concerns that disclosing
any planned weekly loadings could reveal confidential customer
information where UP has few coal customers. UP would require a waiver
from the Board so that it could aggregate data to prevent revealing
that information. (Id.) That concern aside, UP argues that comparing
planned to actual weekly carloadings provides limited insight into
railroad performance because actual carloadings are too dependent upon
factors outside the railroad's control. (Id.) AAR also questions the
usefulness of including a comparison to plan, arguing that it may
present unreliable data because plans fluctuate based on customer
preference, commercial factors, equipment, and other issues. (AAR SNPR
Comments 9.) AAR stresses that coal traffic primarily moves subject to
contracts beyond the Board's jurisdiction. (Id.)
Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. WCTL and others support
the addition of the comparison-to-plan component to Request No. 9.
(WCTL SNPR Comments 2-3; NITL SNPR Comments 3.) WCTL states that
including the comparison-to-plan component is superior to the metric
proposed in the NPR and ``provides direct and frequent information
regarding whether the railroads are meeting the service needs of their
customers and even the carriers' own loading plans [and] whether such
divergences are continuing or increasing.'' (WCTL SNPR Comments 2-3.)
WCTL disagrees with concerns raised by UP that this metric could
divulge confidential shipper information, asserting that no specific
information would need to be divulged and no shipper has complained
under the Interim Data Order. (WCTL SNPR Reply 3.) WCTL also argues
that ``weekly plan reporting is useful precisely because it reflects
the requirements of one of the highest volume commodities on all of the
railroads and whether the railroads are able to meet that demand'' and
is potentially a valuable data point because the fluidity of coal
routes can impact other shippers. (Id. at 3-4.) WCTL also asserts that,
despite UP's claim that it has no coal loading plans, it ``requires all
coal customers to use the [National Coal Transportation Association]
coal forecasting tool, which generally results in a railroad-approved
monthly loading plan.'' (Id. at 4.) Finally, WCTL suggests that, where
railroads have a single shipper, they be permitted to withhold the data
and make a notation that confidential information might be revealed.
(Id.)
Final Rule. For Request No. 9, the Board will adopt the SNPR
proposal as the final rule. The Board believes that there is value in
having railroads report their performance versus their plan on a weekly
basis for coal loadings. This data will not only allow the agency to
track actual loadings, but also to see whether railroads are meeting
their own targets. The Board understands the point made by UP that a
loading plan is not necessarily static, but is simply a target based on
a variety of inputs, which can and does change as surrounding
circumstances change. Even so, there is value in seeing whether
railroads are meeting, exceeding, or falling short of plans, as it
provides context to the reporting of weekly average loadings. To the
extent that reporting information about planned loadings under this
metric would implicate confidential information, railroads may include
a notation in their weekly filing that they are not providing the plan
data along with a brief explanation for the data's absence. Finally,
AAR's argument that coal traffic primarily moves subject to contracts
beyond the Board's jurisdiction does not take into account our
statutory responsibility to advance the goals of the RTP, which (as
discussed above) includes monitoring service in order to ensure the
fluidity of the national rail network. 49 U.S.C. 10101(3), (4). The
Board is not asserting jurisdiction regarding the rights and
obligations of shippers and carriers associated with coal moving under
contracts; rather, the Board is taking action to gain a better
understanding of and insight into the general flow of traffic on the
system.
Request No. 10 (Grain Unit Train Performance)
The SNPR adds this metric not included in the NPR seeking the
average grain shuttle (or dedicated grain train) trips per month. The
SNPR explains that because some Class I railroads operations do not
support this reporting, 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 trips per month 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 trips per month
or data by region. Under the SNPR, 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.
Railroad Interests. Several railroads state that they do not
operate grain shuttles or grain trains that cycle so they
[[Page 87480]]
cannot provide data on the average trips per month for those services.
(UP SNPR Comments 12; CSXT SNPR Comments 4; NSR SNPR Comments 2.) NSR
explains that it would not have any average data to report because it
does not cycle grain trains, but states that it could report a gross
total of the number of grain unit train trips per month. (NSR SNPR
Comments 2.) CSXT states that because it does not manage grain
transportation regionally, it will only be able to report average trips
per month system-wide. (CSXT SNPR Comments 4.) UP notes that it does
not control the origins and destinations of its shuttle trains and that
origins and destinations routinely shift, making it difficult to report
planned trips per month. (UP SNPR Comments 12.) AAR also states that
some railroads cannot report the requested data, and argues that the
Board should not adopt a rule that requires some carriers to
immediately seek waivers. (AAR SNPR Comments 9.)
Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. Shippers generally
support the addition of this metric. (NITL SNPR Comments 3; NGFA SNPR
Comments 11). NGFA expresses concern that monthly reporting of this
metric is insufficient and asks that the Board require weekly reporting
instead. (NGFA SNPR Comments 12.) NGFA also urges the Board not to
grant waivers from this requirement because it knows of no Class I
carrier that would not be able to track shuttle or dedicated grain
trips by region or corridor. (Id.) However, NGFA states that if the
Board does allow for waivers, that process should be transparent. (Id.)
In its reply, NGFA reiterates its position that shuttle trains and
dedicated grain trips should be reported by corridor and region. (NGFA
SNPR Reply 3.)
Final Rule. For Request No. 10, the Board will adopt the SNPR
proposal as the final rule modified to apply only to those carriers
operating grain unit trains in shuttle service. The Board will
eliminate the requirement for carriers with dedicated grain trains to
report trips per month because the disparate data carriers could
provide on that type of service would not provide the Board insight
into service beyond the velocity data collected elsewhere in this final
rule.\11\ In the first report of each month, railroads operating grain
shuttles will be required to report their average train trips per month
for their system and key destination regions versus planned trips per
month for their system and key regions for the previous month.
Underlying this request is the Board's need for information about how
railroads are performing with respect to the agricultural sector. The
service problems that emerged during the winter of 2013-2014 resulted
in significant backlogs of unfilled grain car orders and increased
train cycle times, indicating that railroads were experiencing severe
congestion and failing to meet shipper demand. U.S. Rail Serv. Issues--
Grain, EP 724 (Sub-No. 2), slip op. at 1 (STB served June 20, 2014).
Thus, in the Interim Data Order the Board requested grain car order
fulfillment data, and data on train round trips versus the railroad's
service plan. This data proved very useful in monitoring the progress
of BNSF and CP as they improved operations on an actual basis and
against their service plan. The ``turns versus plan'' data will allow
the Board to assess how railroads operating grain shuttles are meeting
their own expectations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Accordingly, the waiver decision discussed in the SNPR
would no longer be necessary. The waiver would have applied to those
carriers with operations that would not permit the reporting
envisioned there. See SNPR, slip op. at 15-16. However, the
modification proposed here would obviate the need for a waiver
decision by including only those carriers operating grain shuttles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request No. 11 (Originated Carloads by Commodity Group)
The SNPR proposes the creation of a second metric not included in
the NPR. Under this metric, railroads would be required to provide
weekly originated carloads by 23 commodity categories.
Railroad Interests. The railroads generally support the addition of
this metric. (See UP SNPR Comments 12; see also CP NPR Comments 2.) UP
states that the Board can improve the metric by adding a requirement
that carriers report ``weekly carloads originated and carloads received
in interchange [, which] . . . would be consistent with weekly
carloadings data reported by the AAR.'' (Id. at 12-13.)
However, as discussed above, the railroads oppose the inclusion of
fertilizer in this metric. They assert that creating a line-item for
fertilizer will require substantial system changes (AAR SNPR Comments
8; BNSF SNPR Comments 5), and point out that fertilizer is not one of
the commodity groups currently reported to the AAR on a weekly basis.
(AAR SNPR Comments 8; BNSF SNPR Comments 5-6.) UP states that
fertilizer accounted for only 2% of its carloadings in 2015. (UP SNPR
Comments 4.) CSXT argues that including fertilizer here would
``compromise the usefulness of a long-standing economic indicator that
has been followed . . . for decades.'' (CSXT SNPR Comments 4.)
Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. Shippers generally
support the addition of this metric. (NITL SNPR Comments 3-4; NGFA SNPR
Comments 12-13.) NITL states that it shows some understanding of
shippers' requests for additional granularity in commodity groups.
(NITL SNPR Comments 4.) NGFA again asks the Board to expand the metric
to include vegetable oils and vegetable meals to the existing grain
category. (NGFA SNPR Comments 13.) TFI again states that the definition
of fertilizer could be narrowed to the same 14 seven-digit STCCs that
it proposed for Request No. 6. (TFI SNPR Reply 4.)
Final Rule. For Request No. 11, the Board will adopt the SNPR
proposal with two modifications as the final rule. First, per UP's
suggestion, the Board will expand the metric to include separate
reporting of weekly cars received in interchange, which the railroads
are already reporting to the AAR. Second, the Board will require
railroads to report, as a separate line item, weekly originated
carloads and cars received in interchange for fertilizer, as defined by
the 14 seven-digit STCCs proposed by TFI and defined above.
Through this metric, the Board seeks to gain specific data for
carloadings and interchange traffic that will allow it to better
monitor this commodity group. However, the Board understands the
railroads' concern that including fertilizer could disrupt the
continuity of reporting cars originated and received in interchange, as
presently reported to AAR. Accordingly, the Board will create two
subcategories for this metric. In the first subcategory, the Board will
require reporting according to the 22 existing traffic categories
currently reported to AAR. The second subcategory will include only
fertilizer.
By requiring fertilizer reporting in this manner, the Board is not
asking railroads to modify or extract traffic from the existing 22
categories, which should be reported in their current form; rather, the
agency is adding a new, stand-alone category covering the STCCs
identified above.
Request No. 12 (Car Order Fulfillment Rate by Car Type)
The SNPR proposes the creation of a third new metric not included
in the NPR. Under this metric, railroads would be required to provide
car order fulfillment percentage by 10 car types.
Railroad Interests. The railroads strongly oppose the addition of
this metric. AAR states that the metric is ambiguous and unworkable.
(AAR SNPR Comments 10.) It argues that ``Class I railroad practices
regarding car supply differ significantly,'' (id.),
[[Page 87481]]
explaining that ``cars `due to be placed' and cars placed will not
match up week to week.'' The AAR also claims that, because cars that
are constructively placed are eventually actually placed, the metric
creates a potential double count. (Id.) AAR also states certain rail
cars are supplied by pool arrangements that would distort individual
railroad reporting. (Id.) UP states that the car order fulfillment
percentage concept ``applies only in situations where a customer orders
and requests an empty car to be placed at a customer facility for
loading.'' (UP SNPR Comments 5.) UP alleges that there are numerous
situations where customers do not place car orders, including
intermodal cars, autoracks, covered hoppers, private cars, and pooled
cars. (Id. at 5-8.) CSXT urges the Board not to adopt the proposed
metric, stating that ``in a considerable number of car supply
scenarios, it is wholly unworkable.'' (CSXT SNPR Comments 4.) BNSF and
NSR also urge the Board not to adopt the metric, identifying a number
of issues with the proposed metric. (BNSF SNPR Comments 6-7; NSR SNPR
Comments 2-3.) BNSF questions the value of the data because the metric
would cover several car types that customers do not order, and because
there are significant differences between commodities and customers of
similar commodities. (BNSF SNPR Comments 6-7.) NSR states that because
it does not have a tariff governing car orders, the reporting will
result in ``significant double counting while reporting only actual
placement will result in incomplete data.'' (NSR SNPR Comments 3.)
Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. NITL and NGFA generally
support the addition of this metric. (NITL SNPR Comments 4; NGFA SNPR
Comments 13.) NITL stresses that it would provide additional visibility
into industry operations that would be beneficial to a large number of
shippers. (NITL SNPR Comments 4.) HRC urges the Board to take into
consideration the fact that some railroads expire car orders at the end
of each week, which will lead to an understatement of backlog orders.
(HRC SNPR Comments 2.)
Final Rule. The Board will not adopt the proposed Request No. 12
from the SNPR in the final rules. As noted above, the railroad
interests pointed out several practical and definitional challenges
posed by this request, which make it incompatible in various ways with
their operations and internal data tracking. Although shippers
expressed support for this additional data, the Board believes that its
potential utility would be significantly diminished due to the problems
identified by the railroad industry. In a revised form, it would not
apply to a significant amount of rail traffic. As such, the limited
data would not materially enhance the Board's perspective on service
performance.
Chicago
The SNPR proposes requiring 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; and (2)
average daily number of trains held for delivery to Chicago sorted by
receiving carrier. Moreover, the request would require Class I railroad
members of the CTCO to provide certain information regarding the CTCO
Alert Level status and protocols.
Railroad Interests. CP reiterates its suggestion that the Board
require certain data from the Belt Railway of Chicago (BRC) and Indiana
Harbor Belt (IHB), which it states are the heart of the Chicago
terminal. (CP SNPR Comments 3.) CP suggests a number of metrics that
the two carriers could report on a weekly basis: Number of cars arrived
per day, number of cars humped or processed per day, number of cars re-
humped or re-processed 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 believes much of the data is already kept by
the switching carriers. (Id. at 3 n.3.) CP asserts that, in contrast to
the other commodity and geographic specific data the Board proposes to
require, information from BRC and IHB ``is likely to provide early
warnings of rail service issues and more likely to be useful in
averting a significant service disruption.'' (Id. at 3.)
AAR reports that the railroads have agreed to provide CMAP and
other Illinois entities with a weekly report related to the Chicago
terminal. (AAR SNPR Comments 10.) AAR states that ``the railroads have
begun to provide the Chicago entities a report that include[s] cars en
route to Chicago and cars processed, each broken out by cars terminated
in Chicago and those transitioning through . . . . [and] a 7-day
average freight transit time through Chicago.'' (Id.) AAR states that
it would not object to making the report part of the weekly CTCO report
to the Board. (Id.) Additionally, in its reply, AAR urges the Board to
reject CMAP's request for additional data. (AAR SNPR Reply 6-7.)
Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. NITL states that
additional information from BRC and IHB would be helpful to many
stakeholders and recommends that the Board contact the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics for guidance on designing not overly
burdensome operating statistics for these two carriers. (NITL SNPR
Comments 4.) NITL also states that ``a cooperative joint effort between
the Class I carriers that `feed' the Chicago region and the two belt
lines to define a set of best measures would likely yield good
results.'' (Id.) NGFA reiterates its recommendation that the Board
require three Chicago-specific metrics touching on idled cars in
Chicago-area yards. (Id.) In its reply, NGFA urges the Board to
evaluate whether AAR's proposed metrics would improve the Board's
understanding of conditions in Chicago. (NGFA SNPR Reply 5.)
As noted above, CMAP also reports that it has reached an agreement
with AAR to receive weekly information on ``yard inventories, terminal
dwell times for railcar yards, the number of railcars en route and
processed, and the overall crosstown transit times'' for the Chicago
terminal, and that it agrees with AAR's suggestion to share this report
with the Board. (CMAP SNPR Comments 1.) CMAP recommends that the Board
also require additional performance metrics focusing on intermodal
trains. (Id.) CMAP also reiterates its suggestion that the Board expand
the number of yards included in its terminal dwell metric, and add
metrics covering crosstown travel times; speed, volume, and train
length for all key rail corridors in the Chicago terminal; and delay
and intermodal lifts. (Id. at 2.)
Final Rule. The Board will adopt the SNPR proposal for Chicago
gateway reporting as the final rule. The Board will also accept the
AAR's voluntary offer to include the data it is reporting to CMAP in
CTCO's report to the Board.
While the Board appreciates CP's recommendations for extending
certain reporting requirements to IHB and BRC, the Board believes that
the data reporting currently provided by the CTCO, through its Class I
members, already provides focused visibility and heightened attention
into this key gateway. The final rule, as augmented by the data that
AAR has offered to submit voluntarily, will continue to maintain a
robust view of operating conditions in the Chicago gateway. In the
Chicago metrics, the Board will receive average daily car volumes at
eleven key yards in the Chicago
[[Page 87482]]
gateway, including yards operated by BRC and IHB, and data showing
average daily number of trains held for delivery at Chicago, sorted by
carrier. Also, under Request No. 2, the Board will receive weekly
average terminal dwell time for several Chicago gateway yards. This
data will allow the Board to sufficiently monitor operating conditions
and spot congestion or fluidity issues in the Chicago gateway.
Therefore, the Board will not require the reporting of additional
granularity at this time.
Infrastructure Reporting
The SNPR proposes requiring that each Class I railroad, annually on
March 1 with an update on September 1, report a description of
significant rail infrastructure projects (defined as anticipated
expenditures of $75 million or more over the life of the project) that
will commence during the current calendar year. The narrative report
would require a brief description of each project, its purpose,
location (state/counties), and projected date of completion. The SNPR
modifies the NPR's proposal by changing the reporting period from a
quarterly report to annual with one annual update, and by increasing
the lower limit for projects required to be reported on from $25
million to $75 million.
Railroad Interests. The railroads are generally supportive of the
changes to this metric in the SNPR. (UP SNPR Comments 2; AAR SNPR
Comments.) In its reply, AAR urges the Board to reject some shippers'
push for more extensive reporting, stating that the SNPR ``strikes a
balance of keeping the Board apprised on the progress of significant
infrastructure improvements without unduly burdening railroads with its
reporting requirements.'' (AAR SNPR Reply 5.) AAR stresses that because
none of the infrastructure reports can be automated, the requirement
will draw on the time and effort of personnel to write the narrative.
(Id.)
Shipper Interests and Other Stakeholders. Although some shippers
support the modified infrastructure reporting requirements (NITL SNPR
Comments 4), others urge the Board to adopt the NPR proposal (NGFA SNPR
Comments 14; WCTL SNPR Comments 5). NGFA states that it sees one of the
fundamental objectives of this proceeding as being the creation of ``a
one-stop-shop for more standardized information affecting rail
service,'' which should include information on the impacts of
infrastructure investment that would have been required under the NPR.
(NGFA SNPR Comments 14.) NGFA asserts that access to this type of
information can vary widely between carriers. (Id.) NGFA stresses that
having timely access to information on potential disruption to service
is extremely important to shippers and, thus, asks the Board to require
carriers to report the predicted time frames when freight traffic may
be interrupted as a result of infrastructure projects. (Id.) WCTL
states that infrastructure projects with a projected cost of $25-$75
million, which would not be reported under the SNPR proposal, can
impact quality of service and together have an enormous impact on
whether a railroad achieves and maintains fluidity. (WTCL SNPR Comments
6.) It also argues that curtailed reporting could undermine the Board's
ability to carry out its responsibility to monitor the adequacy of
service by rail carriers and their compliance with the common carrier
obligation. (Id.)
Final Rule. The Board will adopt the SNPR proposal as the final
rule. The Board believes that the request for an initial narrative
response (due March 1) and a six-month update (due September 1) strikes
an appropriate balance between the Board's need for current information
about rail infrastructure projects and the burden of reporting on the
railroads. Rather than specifying certain required elements, as in the
initial proposal, the Board will allow railroads to exercise discretion
and flexibility in preparing their narrative responses.
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. sections 601-604. In
its final rule, the agency must either include an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis, section 603(a), or certify that the proposed rule
would not have a ``significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' section 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 final rules adopted here are limited to Class I railroads and,
thus, will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial
number of small entities.\12\ Therefore, the Board certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Effective June 30, 2016, for the purpose of RFA analysis
for rail carriers subject to our jurisdiction, the Board defines a
``small business'' as a rail carrier classified as a Class III rail
carrier under 49 CFR 1201.1-1. See Small Entity Size Standards Under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EP 719 (STB served June 30, 2016)
(with Board Member Begeman dissenting). Class III carriers have
annual carrier operating revenues of $20 million or less in 1991
dollars, or $36,633,120 or less when adjusted for inflation using
2015 data. Class II carriers have annual carrier operating revenues
of less than $250 million but in excess of $20 million in 1991
dollars, or $457,913,998 and $36,633,120 respectively, when adjusted
for inflation using 2015 data. The Board calculates the revenue
deflator factor annually and publishes the railroad revenue
thresholds on its Web site. 49 CFR 1201.1-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paperwork Reduction Act
In a supplemental Federal Register notice, published at 81 FR
27,069 on May 5, 2016 (correction published at 81 FR 32268 on May 23,
2016), the Board sought comments pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521 and Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d), regarding: (1) Whether the
collection of information in the proposed rule 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. Any comments relating to these issues are
addressed in the decision above.
The proposed collection was submitted to OMB for review as required
under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), and 5 CFR 1320.11. OMB withheld
approval pending submission of the final rule. The Board has submitted
the collection contained in this final rule to OMB for approval. Once
approval is received, the Board will publish a notice in the Federal
Register stating the control number and the expiration date for this
collection. Under the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.11, an agency may not conduct
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
[[Page 87483]]
a collection of information unless the collection displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
It is ordered:
1. The final rule set forth below is adopted and will be effective
on January 29, 2017. The initial reporting date will be February 8,
2017. Notice of the rule adopted here will be published in the Federal
Register.
2. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.
Summary of Final Rule
Having considered all written and oral comments on the SNPR, the
following changes are reflected in the final rule for the new
regulations to be codified at 49 CFR 1250.1-1250.2 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 reports
on railroad performance. The regulations are below. The table below
provides a brief description of the differences between the SNPR and
this final rule, which were explained in detail above.
Table 1--Summary of Changes in the Data Requests Between the SNPR and
the Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNPR Final rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday through Friday reporting week Modify the reporting week for
with reports to be filed the following Request No. 11 to Sunday
Wednesday. through Saturday.
Allow carriers to report unit train Add the requirement to submit
data based on their assignment of the definition of a unit train
train codes in the ordinary course of to the Board for publication
business. on its Web site and update
that definition should it
change.
(1) System-average train speed for Delete the fertilizer unit
intermodal, grain unit, coal unit, component.
automotive unit, crude oil unit,
ethanol unit, manifest, fertilizer
unit, and, system.
(2) Weekly average terminal dwell time No changes.
for each carrier's system and its 10
largest terminals.
(3) Weekly average cars online for No changes.
seven car types, other, and total.
(4) Weekly average dwell time at origin Delete the fertilizer unit and
for loaded unit train shipments sorted manifest components.
by grain, coal, automotive, crude oil,
ethanol, fertilizer unit, all other
unit trains, and manifest.
(5) Weekly total number of loaded and Delete the fertilizer unit
empty trains held short of destination component.
or scheduled interchange 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).
Instruct railroads to run a same-time
snapshot of trains holding each day
and then calculate the average for the
reporting week.
(6) Weekly average number of loaded and Modify the definition of
empty cars operating in normal fertilizer.
movement, which have not moved in >=
48 hours, sorted by service type and
measured by a daily same-time snapshot.
(7) Weekly total number of grain cars No changes.
loaded and billed, by state, for
certain STCCs. Also include total cars
loaded and billed in shuttle service
versus all other ordering systems.
(8) For the STCCs delineated in Request No changes.
No. 7, running totals of grain car
orders in manifest service submitted
versus grain car orders filled, and
for unfilled orders, the number of car
orders that are 1-10 days past due and
11+ days past due.
(9) Weekly total coal unit train No changes.
loadings or carloadings versus planned
loadings by coal production region.
(10) Grain shuttle (or dedicated grain Modify to apply only to grain
train) trips per month. shuttles, not other grain
trains.
(11) Weekly originated carloads by 23 Add cars received in
commodity categories. interchange.
Delete fertilizer from the main
reporting category, but add a
second category requiring
carriers to report fertilizer
originated carloads and cars
received in interchange by the
STCCs defined in Request No.
6.
(12) Car order fulfillment percentage Delete this proposed request.
for the reporting week by 10 car types.
Chicago. Class Is operating in Chicago No changes.
must jointly report each week: Average
daily car volume in certain yards, and
average daily number of cars held for
delivery to Chicago sorted by
receiving carrier. Class I railroad
members of the CTCO must provide
certain information regarding the CTCO
Alert Level status and protocols.
Infrastructure. An annual report of No changes.
significant rail infrastructure
projects that will be commenced during
that calendar year, and a six-month
update on those projects. The report
is to be in a narrative form briefly
describing each project, its purpose,
location, and projected date of
completion. The Board proposes to
define a significant project as one
with a budget of $75 million or more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 87484]]
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1250
Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Decided: November 29, 2016.
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Miller, and
Commissioner Begeman.
Kenyatta Clay,
Clearance Clerk.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface
Transportation Board amends title 49, chapter X, subchapter C, of the
Code of Federal Regulations by adding part 1250 to read as follows:
PART 1250--RAILROAD PERFORMANCE DATA REPORTING
Sec.
1250.1 General.
1250.2 Railroad performance data elements.
1250.3 Chicago terminal reporting.
1250.4 Rail infrastructure projects reporting.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1321 and 11145.
Sec. 1250.1 General.
(a) The reporting period covers:
(1) For Sec. 1250.2(a)(1)-(9), 12:01 a.m. Saturday-11:59 p.m.
Friday;
(2) For Sec. 1250.2(a)(10), the previous calendar month;
(3) For Sec. 1250.2(a)(11), 12:01 a.m. Sunday-11:59 p.m. Saturday;
(4) For Sec. 1250.3(a)(1)-(2), 12:01 a.m. Saturday-11:59 p.m.
Friday.
(b) The data required under Sec. 1250.2 and Sec. 1250.3(a) must
be reported to the Board via the method and in the form prescribed by
the Board's Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and
Compliance (OPAGAC) by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday of each week.
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.
(c) Each reporting railroad shall provide an explanation of its
methodology for deriving the data with its initial filing and an update
if and when that methodology changes. This explanation should include
the unit train definition that the railroad will use in its data
reporting, which shall reflect its assignment of train codes in
accordance with its normal business practices. If and when a railroad
changes its definition of unit train it shall notify the Board of the
change at the time it goes into effect in the form prescribed by
OPAGAC.
(d) Unless otherwise provided, the performance data, Chicago data
and alert levels, narrative infrastructure reporting, and any
methodologies or explanations of data collection reported to the Board
under this part will be publicly available and posted on the Board's
Web site.
Sec. 1250.2 Railroad performance data elements.
(a) Each Class I railroad must report the performance data elements
in paragraphs (a)(1)-(9) and (11) of this section on a weekly basis,
and the data elements in paragraph (a)(10) on a monthly basis, for the
reporting period, as defined in Sec. 1250.1(a). However, with regard
to data elements in paragraph (a)(7) and (8), 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) 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.)
(3) Weekly average cars on line by the following car types for the
reporting week. (Each railroad shall 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 unit, crude oil unit, ethanol
unit, and all other unit trains. (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.)
(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, 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 period.)
(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 (the following
Standard Transportation Commodity Codes (STCCs): 2871236, 2871235,
2871238, 2819454, 2812534, 2818426, 2819815, 2818170, 2871315, 2818142,
2818146, 2871244, 2819173, and 2871451), and all other). In order to
derive the averages for the reporting period, carriers should run a
same-time snapshot each day of the reporting period, 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 period. 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 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 listed in Sec. 1250.2(a)(7), for
railroad-owned or leased cars that will move in manifest
[[Page 87485]]
service, each railroad shall 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.
(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) For Class I carriers operating a grain shuttle program, the
average grain shuttle turns per month, for the total system and by
region, versus planned turns per month, for the total system and by
region. This data shall be included in the first weekly report of each
month, covering the previous calendar month.
(11) Weekly carloads originated and carloads received in
interchange by 23 commodity categories, separated into two subgroups:
(i) Twenty-two historical commodity categories.
(A) Chemicals.
(B) Coal.
(C) Coke.
(D) Crushed Stone, Sand and Gravel.
(E) Farm Products except Grain.
(F) Food and Kindred Products.
(G) Grain Mill Products.
(H) Grain.
(I) Iron and Steel Scrap.
(J) Lumber and Wood Products.
(K) Metallic Ores.
(L) Metals.
(M) Motor Vehicles and Equipment.
(N) Non Metallic Minerals.
(O) Petroleum Products.
(P) Primary Forest Products.
(Q) Pulp, Paper and Allied Products.
(R) Stone, Clay and Glass Products.
(S) Waste and Scrap Materials.
(T) All Other.
(U) Containers.
(V) Trailers.
(ii) Fertilizer commodity category.
(A) Fertilizer (for STCCs defined in paragraph (a)(6) of this
section).
(B) [Reserved]
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 1250.3 Chicago terminal reporting.
(a) Each Class I railroad operating at the Chicago gateway must
jointly report the following performance data on a weekly basis for the
reporting period, as defined in Sec. 1250.1(a). The reports required
under this section may be submitted by the Association of American
Railroads (AAR).
(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.
(i) 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.
(ii) If Chicago terminal yards not identified in Sec. 1250.2(b)(1)
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 Sec.
1250.2(b)(1) shall also be reported for those yards.
(b) 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:
(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.
(c) Reports under paragraph (b) of this section shall be reported
to the Director of the Office of Public Assistance, Governmental
Affairs and Compliance (OPAGAC) via the method and in the form
prescribed by OPAGAC.
Sec. 1250.4 Rail infrastructure projects reporting.
(a) Class I railroads shall submit annually a narrative report of
significant rail infrastructure projects that will be commenced during
the current calendar year, and a six-month update on those projects.
The reports should briefly describe each project, its purpose, location
(state/counties), and projected date of completion.
(b) A ``significant rail infrastructure project'' is defined as a
project with anticipated expenditures of $75 million or more over the
life of the project.
(c) The narrative report should be submitted no later than March 1
of each calendar year and the update no later than September 1 of each
calendar year via email to the Board's Office of Public Assistance,
Governmental Affairs and Compliance (OPAGAC) via the method and in the
form prescribed by OPAGAC. In the event that March 1 or September 1 is
a Federal holiday, weekend, 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.
[FR Doc. 2016-29131 Filed 12-2-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P